The revised Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) have introduced a contentious shift in how industry currency is perceived and measured. At the heart of the issue is Standard 3.3, which outlines the requirements for those delivering training and assessment in the VET sector. Specifically, the standard calls for trainers and assessors to have current industry skills and knowledge relevant to the training product, while simultaneously suggesting that maintaining an understanding of current industry practices may be sufficient.
This change has sent shockwaves through the VET sector, with many questioning whether understanding industry practice is truly enough for trainers to deliver high-quality, industry-relevant education. For decades, the concept of industry currency has been a cornerstone of VET practice, ensuring that those responsible for educating the workforce are not only knowledgeable but also actively engaged in the industries they teach. The new standards raise concerns about whether this critical requirement is being watered down and, if so, what the long-term implications may be for the quality of training and the competency of graduates.
Understanding the New Standard
The revised Standard 3.3 states that "Training and assessment is delivered by people with current industry skills and knowledge relevant to the training product." However, the performance indicator to demonstrate this requirement has been notably softened, requiring only that trainers and assessors "maintain an understanding of current industry practices."
This apparent discrepancy between the standard's wording and its performance indicator has led to confusion and concern among VET professionals. The shift from requiring "current industry skills" to merely "understanding current industry practices" represents a significant departure from previous standards and long-standing industry expectations.
The Impact of the Shift from "Skills" to "Understanding"
One of the key criticisms of the revised standard is that it seems to de-emphasise the importance of practical, hands-on industry experience. Instead of requiring trainers to have current, active participation in the industry, the focus shifts toward maintaining an understanding of industry practices. This suggests that trainers could theoretically meet the requirement by staying informed about industry developments through research, reading, or discussions, without needing to actually engage in the day-to-day operations of their industry.
This raises several questions:
- Can industry knowledge truly remain current without active engagement? The rapid pace of change in many industries—particularly in fields like technology, healthcare, and construction—demands that trainers not only understand theoretical developments but also have firsthand experience with new tools, techniques, and practices.
- Does this change lead to a decline in the quality of training? If trainers are not required to actively demonstrate their skills in industry settings, there is a risk that students may receive outdated or irrelevant instruction, leaving them ill-prepared for the demands of their chosen fields.
- What does this mean for the VET sector’s credibility? Employers rely on the VET sector to produce graduates who are job-ready. If trainers no longer need to maintain practical industry skills, this could undermine employer confidence in VET qualifications and diminish the sector’s reputation for delivering high-quality, industry-aligned training.
- Reduced Practical Expertise: By no longer requiring trainers to possess current industry skills, there's a risk that practical, hands-on expertise may diminish over time. This could lead to a gap between classroom instruction and real-world industry needs.
- Theoretical vs. Practical Knowledge: An understanding of industry practices, while valuable, is not equivalent to the ability to perform industry-specific tasks. This shift might result in more theoretical, less practically-oriented training.
- Potential for Outdated Information: Without the requirement to maintain current skills, there's a risk that trainers' knowledge might become outdated more quickly, especially in rapidly evolving industries.
- Impact on Student Preparedness: Students may find themselves less prepared for the realities of the workplace if their trainers are not actively engaged in current industry practices.
Strategic Considerations for RTOs
While this change presents challenges, it also offers opportunities for RTOs to differentiate themselves:
- Competitive Advantage: RTOs that maintain high standards of industry currency among their trainers could position this as a unique selling point, distinguishing themselves in a competitive market.
- Quality Approach Alignment: There's an opportunity for RTOs to align their quality approach with industry needs, potentially exceeding the minimum standards to better serve their students and industry partners.
- Innovative Training Methods: RTOs could explore innovative ways to bridge the gap between understanding industry practices and maintaining current skills, such as through enhanced industry partnerships or virtual reality simulations.
The Need for Clarity and Industry Engagement
The ambiguity in the new standard's wording versus its performance indicator highlights the need for:
- Clear Guidance: Regulatory bodies should provide clear interpretation and guidance on how RTOs can meet these new requirements while maintaining training quality.
- Industry Consultation: Increased dialogue between RTOs, industry bodies, and regulators is crucial to ensure that training remains relevant and meets industry needs.
- Continuous Review: Regular review and adjustment of these standards may be necessary to ensure they evolve with industry needs and technological advancements.
Industry Currency: More Than Just Knowledge
To better understand why the shift in the revised standards is so concerning, it’s important to examine what industry currency truly entails. It’s not just about knowing what’s happening in the industry; it’s about being able to perform and apply the latest practices in real-world settings.
- Industry currency is about competence, not just comprehension. Trainers should be able to demonstrate the skills they are teaching, not just explain them. If a trainer is teaching a course on advanced welding techniques, for example, it’s not enough to understand how those techniques have evolved—they need to be able to perform those techniques to industry standards. The same applies in fields like nursing, where students need to learn from professionals who are actively involved in clinical practice.
- Understanding industry practice is a passive approach, whereas industry skills require active participation. Staying current in an industry involves upskilling, ongoing professional development, and often working within the industry itself. The shift toward simply maintaining an understanding of practices risks reducing industry engagement to a passive activity.
- Currency needs to be contextualised. Many industries are subject to rapid technological advancements, and what was considered best practice five years ago may no longer be relevant today. Industry professionals who are not actively engaged in these advancements may struggle to provide students with the most up-to-date and relevant training.
The Role of Industry Experts: Supporting Trainers, But Not Replacing Them
The revised standards also introduce provisions for involving industry experts in the delivery of training. According to Standard 3.3(b), industry experts can be engaged to support trainers and assessors where specialised knowledge or expertise is required. However, these experts must work under the direction of a credentialed trainer or assessor, and there must be sufficient oversight to ensure the quality of training and assessment.
While this inclusion of industry experts is a positive development, it should not serve as a substitute for trainers maintaining their own industry currency. If trainers are solely relying on experts to fill in the gaps in their industry knowledge or skills, it calls into question whether they are truly qualified to deliver the training in the first place. RTOs need to ensure that trainers and assessors remain the primary source of industry-relevant instruction, with experts providing supplemental support where necessary.
The Broader Implications: What Does This Mean for the Future of VET?
The shift in how industry currency is defined has far-reaching implications for the future of the VET sector. As industries continue to evolve at an accelerating pace, it is more important than ever that VET graduates are equipped with the skills and knowledge they need to thrive in their chosen fields. If trainers are no longer required to actively engage in their industries, there is a risk that the quality of training could suffer, ultimately diminishing the value of VET qualifications.
Moreover, this change may have cultural implications within the VET sector. By reducing the emphasis on hands-on experience, the revised standards could inadvertently encourage a tick-box approach to compliance, where RTOs focus on meeting the bare minimum requirements rather than striving for excellence. This is particularly concerning in a sector that has prided itself on its connection to industry and its ability to deliver job-ready graduates.
RTOs: A Call to Action
The revised standards present RTOs with both a challenge and an opportunity. To meet this challenge head-on, RTOs must take proactive steps to ensure that their trainers are not only maintaining an understanding of industry practices but are also actively engaged in their industries. This could include:
- Encouraging ongoing professional development and industry engagement for trainers, ensuring they stay current with the latest advancements.
- Developing strong partnerships with industry to provide trainers with opportunities for work placements, industry projects, or hands-on experience.
- Leveraging industry experts, not as a replacement for currency, but as a valuable resource to enhance the training experience.
Ultimately, while the revised standards may allow for a more lenient interpretation of industry currency, it is up to RTOs to go beyond the minimum requirements and ensure that their trainers are delivering the highest possible quality of training. The future of the VET sector depends on it.
The revision of industry currency requirements in the VET sector represents a significant shift in approach. While it may offer more flexibility for RTOs, it also raises concerns about the potential impact on training quality and industry relevance. RTOs now face the challenge of interpreting these new standards in a way that maintains the integrity and effectiveness of their training programs.
As the sector adapts to these changes, it will be crucial for all stakeholders – RTOs, industry bodies, regulators, and VET practitioners – to engage in ongoing dialogue and collaboration. This will ensure that the VET sector continues to deliver high-quality, industry-relevant training that meets the evolving needs of both learners and employers in an increasingly dynamic workforce landscape.
