The revised Standards for RTOs, particularly Standard 1.5, have introduced changes that raise concerns about the true emphasis on industry currency when validating assessments. One notable shift is the language used, stating that validators need only have a "practical understanding of current industry practices" rather than requiring current industry skills and competencies. This raises important questions about whether this shift compromises the quality and relevance of VET assessment processes.
Understanding Standard 1.5: Validation of Assessment Practices and Judgements
Standard 1.5 establishes the framework for validating RTOs' assessment systems and ensuring the quality of assessment judgements. The primary intent is to ensure that assessments are consistent, valid, and aligned with the required skills and knowledge of the training product. However, the specifics of the standard indicate a potential dilution of the requirement for industry currency:
- Practical Understanding of Current Industry Practices: According to the revised standard, validation can be conducted by individuals with a "practical understanding of current industry practices", which does not necessarily mean that these individuals need to be actively engaged in the industry. This shift could allow individuals with theoretical knowledge or past experience but no active industry involvement to conduct validations, potentially weakening the real-world relevance of the assessment process.
- Emphasis on Credentialing: The revised standard also places significant emphasis on the credentials of those conducting the validation, as outlined in the Credential Policy. While credentials are important, they may not fully guarantee that validators are deeply connected with current industry trends, skills, and practices. The risk here is that credentialed individuals with outdated industry experience might not provide the necessary insights to validate whether the training is aligned with current industry demands.
- Risk-Based Validation Cycle: The revised standard calls for a risk-based approach, allowing RTOs to determine how often and which components of a training product are validated. While this introduces flexibility, it also creates the possibility that industry engagement in the validation process could be less stringent, depending on how RTOs assess the "risk" associated with their training products.
Key Concerns: Is This a Step Back for Industry Relevance?
Dilution of Industry Currency Requirements
The most significant concern with Standard 1.5 is the apparent watering down of the industry currency requirement. In the previous version of the standards, there was a stronger focus on ensuring that assessors and validators were not only credentialed but also actively engaged in their industry. The revised standards shift this emphasis to a more general "practical understanding" of industry practices, which may not always reflect current realities. This change could lead to assessments being validated by individuals who are no longer in touch with the evolving demands and technologies of their industries.
Potential Impact on Assessment Quality
The validation process is critical to ensuring that the assessments being conducted by RTOs are relevant and aligned with industry standards. If the individuals validating these assessments do not possess up-to-date industry experience, there is a risk that assessments may not reflect the latest skills, technologies, or practices required by employers. This could affect the quality of training and the preparedness of students entering the workforce.
Flexibility vs. Rigor
While the revised standards offer flexibility by allowing a risk-based approach to validation, there is concern that this flexibility could come at the cost of rigorous industry engagement. RTOs may choose to rely on individuals who meet the minimum credentialing requirements but lack the deep industry connections that are essential for ensuring assessments are truly reflective of current industry needs.
Balancing Flexibility and Quality Assurance
The intent behind Standard 1.5 is clear: to ensure that RTOs regularly validate their assessment systems and make necessary improvements. However, the implementation of this standard could allow for greater variation in the quality of validations, depending on how strictly RTOs interpret and apply the requirements for validator competencies.
For RTOs, this means striking a delicate balance between taking advantage of the flexibility offered by the revised standards and maintaining the highest levels of industry engagement in their validation processes. Engaging individuals with not only the right credentials but also current industry experience should remain a priority to uphold the quality of VET assessments.
Safeguarding Industry Relevance in Validation
While Standard 1.5 aims to support systematic monitoring and continuous improvement in assessment systems, the potential dilution of industry currency requirements is a cause for concern. Validators who merely have a "practical understanding" of industry practices, without active engagement, may not fully ensure that assessments are aligned with current industry demands. This could weaken the relevance and effectiveness of VET training programs.
RTOs must take care to go beyond the minimum requirements of Standard 1.5, ensuring that validation processes are informed by individuals with deep, current industry knowledge and experience. Only by maintaining this commitment to industry relevance can RTOs guarantee that their assessment practices continue to meet the needs of both students and the industries they serve.
