An Overview and Analysis of the Introduction of Competency-Based Training and Vocational Recognition in Australia

The role and importance of social dialogue in establishing the system has been paramount in Australia's complex federation government environment. This will be discussed in more detail later in the paper but essentially there are three main points. Firstly, without cooperation of all the government, industry and community groups with an interest in training and skill certification there could be no national system at all. Secondly, the original requirements where each State jurisdiction set and controlled accreditation (and therefore qualification) outcomes for VET meant that complex approaches to ensuring mutual recognition were required. To some degree these still exist but the various jurisdictions are reaching more specific and comparative arrangements for recognition such that a `seamless' national system is possible. Thirdly, the credibility of national skills recognition involves a number of players and not simply those responsible for administering the system. Without formal dialogue between the involved parties at various levels there would be no agreed national benchmarks upon which the recognition system could be based and therefore no simple and transparent guidelines for individuals holding skills and employers wishing to utilise them.

The respective share of competencies recognised on the basis of initial training, further training or professional experience in the recognition and certification systems is not now sharply delineated in the evolving Australian system. In other words there are no specific and nationally agreed divisions between entry-level pre-employment training. employment-based training, institutionally-based training at more advanced levels and recognition based upon assessment of previously acquired skills and knowledge gained through experience or other routes.¹ However, because of the historic reliance upon recognition gained through formal training the number of people claiming this as their primary credential far outnumber individuals who hold recognition based upon other pathways. A national Skills Passport system for Australia is still under investigation as one possible mechanism to encompass all forms of recognition under a single national credentialling approach. There are major difficulties with implementing this.

Links and relationships with traditional qualifications certification is the most contentious part of the Australian system. This occurs at two levels. The, first is the relationship between VET qualifications gained through largely full-time study in a public VET provider institution such as TAFE², and qualifications gained through structured employment-based training such as traineeships and apprenticeships or through recognition of prior learning. The second is the relationship and mutual recognition of qualifications issued either from the school or university sectors that individuals hold and wish to use in employment. Do they have the same outcomes and credibility as those gained in the VET sector'?

If they are not based on, or adjudged to meet the competency standards where these exist. what is their recognition value and what links are there to the industry requirements? If the relationship can be established and the differences quantified, how can individuals access training and further assessment to bring their qualifications up to industry's requirements?

Economic value of the method of competencies' authentication adopted in Australia is not clear. While there is an established national approach to endorsement and a mutual arrangement for quality assurance of training and assessment based upon the competencies, it is a complex and not well understood system. Industry, for example, finds the system confusing and this impacts negatively upon tile credibility of training outcomes such as national VET qualifications. Many industry players in enterprises and small business have little of no understanding (or perhaps interest) in competency standards and their relationship with work. Given this scenario it is unlikely that even a qualification that can be sown to absolutely meet the required industry competencies will be universally recognised in workplaces by all employers who should be valuing it. Even individuals who have achieved tile competencies and had this recognised often do not really understand the role of competency standards or their relationship to their own qualification or recognition credential. They therefore tend to sell their skills on the basis of where they gained their training_, how long they spent doing so or the range of experience they have gained as recorded by employment or related experiences. Thus the Australian economic valuing of skills is still largely anecdotal and/or linked to ill-understood formal training and education experiences rather than based upon a common `currency' of competency standards.

Flexibility of the system in the light of labour market trends is another weak link in the Australian system. As previously noted the time-lag between industry demand for skills and the ability of the formal training system to respond is too long. Moreover there is a considerable reluctance on the part of many providers of training and certifiers of competency to adjust their established course, programs and delivery methods to accommodate changing patterns of industry skill requirements. This is not so much a fault of the CBT system per se, but rather with the training delivery mechanism and its lack of innovation. The largest fears holding back flexible delivery is the cost of assessment and the impact recognition of prior learning will have on delivery of whole course of training and education. Modular, multiple mode delivery of training is not well accepted and practised and most providers are reluctant to take the major step of offering training and assessment in ways that are not directly and traditionally tied to progressive, course based exposition of learning. There is also a distinct divide between delivery agents. In some industries such as engineering the public TAFE system is almost the only provider. This monopoly situation does not encourage innovation and quick response to industry demands for changes in skill outcomes or their combination.

The most recent changes to tile Australian system has been to more fully integrate a CBT approach to the whole national training framework. As noted earlier one of the key elements in this is the development of a new product called a Training Package. This has as its core industry developed and maintained competency standards that have enhanced Evidence Guides so that assessment of competency can be undertaken directly against the standards themselves and not necessarily through tile medium of a developed training program. Another essential component is a set of Assessment Guidelines which specify the requirements for valid and reliable assessment leading to national recognition and certification. This includes tile minimum qualifications of assessors and tile specification of the conduct of assessment processes and instruments. The third major element is packaging rules and outcomes that put tile standards in logical groupings and levels relevant to work in a particular industry and aligns these with national qualifications. Tile intention is that there is a direct link between defined competencies and VET qualifications without tile intermediary step o accreditation of courses.

EMP/SKILLS - Skills and Employability Department