Raspberry Training

This blog post is definitely going to create debate, so I’d like to apologise in advance, because I know that this is a controversial subject in VET.

I want to talk about AQF in terms of assessment. Bringing this up in a VET forum is a bit like talking about religion or politics at a family Christmas lunch. You probably shouldn’t , because you know its just going to end up in an argument.

That disagreement is there because there are two very different lines of thought, which is frankly the result of inconsistent messaging and leadership from the very top. But I’ll get to that later…

Even though I know that many of you won’t agree, I’m going to state my case anyway, because I am firmly rooted on one side of this line.

I’m going to start with a case study (I am an assessment writer afterall…)

Jane is a junior receptionist at a Dental Laboratory undertaking a Certificate II in Business (let’s say she enrolled early this year to avoid comments about BSBv7). She is studying, as part of her course, BSBWOR204 Use business technology. Peter works in the same business as a Dental Technician and is completing a Diploma in Dental Technology. Peter’s Diploma also includes BSBWOR204 Use Business Technology.

Now just in case you’re not familiar with this unit, it’s basically about being able to set up your workstation ergonomically, turn on a PC/device, select software, open, close, save files, use a keyboard to input data and be able to do things like change the copier paper, fix a paper jam, and call for a service if the printer needs repair. It’s basically about being able to use office equipment.

Mary and Peter use the same office equipment as they share an office.

Here’s the argument maker………..Does Peter need to be assessed differently to Jane because he is enrolled in a higher AQF level qualification?

I say no.

Contextually they’re in the same workplace, using the same equipment, so I say the same tool will be perfectly fine for both learners. They both just need to be assessed on their competency with these tasks. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here’s why:

1. The unit of competency is not AQF levelled. Only qualifications are (but another area of mixed messages here). So I’ll revert to the BSB v6.1 Implementation package which does state “Units of competency are not aligned to levels within the AQF because they can be included across a range of qualification levels. However, the qualification in which a unit is first packaged in a training package is indicated by the first digit in the unit code.” (page 66). So at least I can confirm that this specific unit is not aligned to the AQF.

2. The principle of reliability. We can’t just make Peter’s assessment harder. Assessment must be consistently interpreted and comparable. It’s not consistent or comparable if we start adding bits to Peter’s assessment. (I’m not 100% sure if the Principle of Fairness also applies, but it sure seems unfair to me to make Peter work harder for the same credential!)

3. Common sense. If we start trying to unpack this unit at AQF5, we’re going to have to assess the unit significantly outside of the training package requirements. I think this is just simple. We assess the learners skills against the criteria in the UOC (elements, performance criteria and foundation skills), and we make sure the evidence we collect meets the assessment requirements.

If you determine that the unit should be assessed at the qualification’s AQF benchmark, then, you’d have to make Peter analyse information and provide solutions to complex problems. How are you going to do that? have Peter write a troubleshooting guide to the office printer? That makes no sense to me at all. I’ve heard arguments that this needs to happen, but I strenuously disagree!

We also can’t just turn that Performance Criteria about being able to open, generate and amend files (PC 2.1 if you’re really interested), into some assessment requiring demonstration of advanced excel skills. He just needs to be able to open a file, create a document or file and edit it if it needs changing. Its really just that simple.

There are other units out there for this stuff. We simply should not be trying to build extra requirements into units of competency by adding unrequired criteria into assessment.

4. Applicability of skill. Peter simply doesn’t need to do this task at a higher level. He just needs to be able to clear a paper jam in the printer like the rest of us. We just need to assess competence in this skill – we don’t need to asses Peter’s ability to be the organisational paper jam guru or printer technician.

5. Clause 1.8. I’m sorry but there is absolutely nothing in Clause 1.8 (or the User Guide) that backs up any argument that units must be assessed at the AQF level of the qualification they are contained within. We do need to ensure assessment complies with the requirements of the training package, the Principles of Assessment (which I’ve already mentioned) and the Rules of Evidence. But there is no part c) in this clause that talks about AQF requirements.

6. The integrity of our credit transfer system. If it’s true that Peter needs to be assessed at a higher level, how is it that his classmate Julia received a credit transfer for that unit from 8 years ago when she did it in a Cert II in Horticulture? If we have a rule that UOCs are to be assessed at the AQF level of the qualification it is contained within, then credit transfer is completely unjust.

7. All jobs have higher and lower level tasks. In this example, Peter’s job includes some high level tasks (dental technology stuff….) and yes, it is highly likely that many of the units in this qualification are going to contain criteria that looks very much like AQF5 level skills. But Peter doesn’t need to use those high level skills to change the paper in the photocopier. Its just that simple. We all have compulsory parts of our job that just don’t require our full ‘brain power’ or higher level skills. It’s just how life is. And it’s sometimes just how qualifications are packaged.

8. AQF is determined at the qualification level. AQF is our qualification framework. There is no mention in the AQF of unit of competency levels. Just qualification levels. A Diploma level qualification is going to include a whole lot of high level AQF5 type skills, but there may be some units that vary in complexity. That doesn’t discount the value of the qualification – it just reflects the reality of the workplace. We all gotta do some low level skills stuff at work sometimes! (….I’ll just move that overflowing filing tray under the desk and out of sight).

My argument is not with other VET professionals!

While I’ve stressed my argument above, I’m not looking to get into a fist fight with anyone reading this blog. Many people I truly respect disagree with me on this.

My issue is with the decision makers at the top. As an industry we’ve been getting mixed messages on this topic for years. I’m aware that some SSOs and training packages indicate that UOCs are AQF levelled while others (like BSB) say the opposite. I also know that some bureaucrats have interpreted differently to me and in many cases have prescribed that line to our industry.

So really, my message is directed straight to the top. Would you people get together in a room (or at least a Zoom call) and come to some agreement on this. Stop sending out mixed messages to all of us here in RTO land!

This lack of clarity must be addressed. Every department, regulator, funding body must agree on this. It needs to be crystal clear to everyone. All those mixed messages need to stop.

I know what I’d be debating for if I had a seat in that discussion, but really I just want someone up the top to make a call. This just shouldn’t be a controversial topic.

I feel better now I’ve got that off my chest.

Coleen :)

Originally posted 21st November 2020