Well it has been a long 2 years.
After trying a number of times to first locate the sign in information for this blog and then trying to work out a way of linking or combining or 'something' numerous 'google' accounts and log ins so I can once again POST here ....
I have done it!
I found the original log in details and opened them in another web brower.
I then sent an invitation to myself (under different log in details) to be an author.
Accepted that in the different web brower - then back to the other web brower to also make me admin.
AND SO -- maybe 2015 will the year of regular posts and updates.
One thing I have learnt is never give up and keep on going back to things because eventually you will find a way to make it work.
Hope to 'see' a lot more of you and me in 2015
(lol - and that finished with a little rhyme)
Cheers
Kathleen
Friday, January 2, 2015
Thursday, June 30, 2011
0: - The Last Day before the NVR begins!
Tomorrow the 1/7/11 our new Regulator beings. There seems to be still a number of questions and issues that RTOs do not yet know, understand or have access to. Maybe it is the case that until the ACT comes into effect these can’t be resolved but i personally feel that the preparation for implementation could have been handled much better.
The two key areas that remain unsolved, from my point of view are:
1) Fees & Charges. We still don’t know the amount and / or the when we are supposed to pay. I find this really annoying. How are we supposed to do a budget for the next financial year (which is also documentation we will be required to present tot he NVR) when a basic figure such as fees is still unknown?
We also do not know how much extension to scope applications will be especially when it for just updating a qualification you already have on scope but is reviewed by ISC.
There has been some ‘rumours’ that our normal registration monitoring audits will also be ‘charged’ on top of the fees (I don’t know if this is true or not) and of course originally the fee schedule was going to be in a one lump sum but now apparently, will comprise an annual fee. But what when and how is all still unknown.
2. Logos: While we do know current logos can’t be used from tomorrow and more information will be provided tomorrow apparently, it is amazing to me that NVR RTOs do not have access to the required logos now. What this means in practicality is that from tomorrow until ‘when?’ NVR RTOs will not be able to issue any Qualifications or Statements of Attainment.
Also given this information was only presented a couple of weeks ago, as of tomorrow any ‘pre-printed’ materials with current logos will be obsolete and need to be replaced by NVR RTOs. If this information had of been made available earlier, NVR RTOs would have had the option to plan accordingly and be ready for implementation tomorrow.
That said, the eve of the new era is upon us and it will be interesting to see exactly what new and more information we will be able to access tomorrow. I’ll continue to post updates as more information comes to hand.
In the meantime, there is a DEEWR presentation which was given earlier this month, and another presentation by Kaye Schofield from back in April 2011.
The ASQA website has a FAQs section which states “This page is updated regularly to answer questions from registered training organisations and other ASQA stakeholders.”
I have also suggested to ASQA that they ‘date’ the bottom of this page (indicating when the page was last updated) as a way for us to be able to see when new information has been posted.
Furthermore, the ASQA also encourages ...
I will be monitoring the information provided on the ASQA website which should contain all directions from the NVR in line with (from the ACT) 28 Condition (2) - compliance with directions given by the National VET Regulator which states:
“2) The National VET Regulator must publish a general direction on its website”
On the 27/6/11 ACPET (Australian Council for Private Education and Training) provided a summary of the changes in their National Monday Update Article from In Focus.
Their CEO Claire Field encourages us to let her “know if you experience any problems in your interactions with ASQA or if you can’t get access to the information you need. We will be pleased to take up issues as they occur and feed advice back through our membership.”
Claire’s email is Claire.Field@acpet.edu.au and while I am not sure if you have to be a member of ACPET in order for Claire to be able to ‘take up’ any issues, I am pretty sure she will be interested in what, if any, issues we may have.
I was also interested to read in this update
“While ASQA has been nine months (or longer depending on how far back you choose to look) in the making – I’m sure many ACPET members will recognise that despite everyone’s best efforts, some teething problems are likely to occur as the new regulator beds down its processes and systems, and works with its staff on developing a new culture in regulation.”
And going back to the beginning of this post, I think we are all understanding of the concept of ‘teething problems’ but I do think there is a difference between that and just not having information provided in a timely and orderly fashion .. especially given this transition has been at least 9 months in the making.
But all of that is for tomorrow.
Today is about getting everything we know to date sorted .. so we can make room for the new .. which begins in less than 12 hours ...
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
(b) the Australian Qualifications Framework
It is interesting that in the in the “National VET” Act ... this is listed as 22 – Condition (2) (and it IS part of the Condition in which other parts (a & b) of the VQF is detailed) and while all RTOs DID have to comply in the past this requirements as such was never specified in the AQTF. There is not a DRAFT Instrument and it is unclear if there will one separate to the handbook which is currently being updated.
As well as all the things that have been detailed previously, in the “National VET” Act there is also the following conditions:
The content of these seem to be already addressed in the Legal Instruments (but maybe they have to specified in the Act separately) ..
Furthermore in the ACT there is the provision for other or more Legislative Instruments to be developed. For example ..
“(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make standards for VET accredited courses, as agreed by the Ministerial Council”
And
“(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make standards for VET Regulators, as agreed by the Ministerial Council.”
Finally the ACT also states .. what will NOT be a legislative Instrument
(1) The Minister may, by writing, make guidelines for the National VET Regulator to use when assessing risk, as agreed by the Ministerial Council.
(2) The agreed guidelines are to be known as the Risk Assessment Framework.
(3) The guidelines made under subsection (1) are not a legislative instrument.
Tomorrow I’ll post some links to presentations and places to get more information
(a) the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations
listed as 22 – Condition (1) (and it IS part of the Condition in which other parts (a & b) of the VQF is detailed) and states on the actual
DRAFT “Instrument”
I Chris Evans, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, make these Standards under subsection 185(1) of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011.
This is referred to as ‘Standards’ and the words ‘legislative instrument’ is not used in this document. (just another example of lack of uniformity)
And on this document (which I assume is a legislative instrument – even though those words are not used) ... it is also noted that
“(3) These standards may be referred to by the abbreviation ‘SNR’. For example this is SNR 3(3).”
So SNR is another acronym for us to get used to!
The AQTF 2010 has 2 versions of the Standards, one for initial registration and one for continuing registrations. In each of these there are Standards for RTOs and also Conditions for RTOs. In this document the Standards and Conditions are all referred to as “Essential Standards” and the SNRs are all listed for both situations (ie initial and continuing registration)
SNR 4 to 14 are for initial registration and the SNRs 15 to 25 relate to continuing registration.
The actual content seems to be virtually the same as the current Standards & Conditions for RTOs in AQTF with the following 2 exceptions:
1) the word “effective” has been added in when ‘industry consultation’ is mentioned and
2) the words “and moderated” have been added to the part ‘Assessment is validated’.
See next Post for the Australian Qualification Framework and references to other “Conditions” listed in the ACT.
(e) the Data Provision Requirements
listed as 22 – Condition (3) (and it IS part of the Condition in which other parts (a & b) of the VQF is detailed) and states on the actual
DRAFT “Instrument”
I Chris Evans, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, make this legislative instrument under subsection 187(1) of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011.
OK so back to the Minister making this legislative instrument
And on this legislative instrument it is also noted that
“(3) These requirements may be referred to by the abbreviation ‘DPR’. For example, this is DPR 3 (3).”
Another acronym for us to get used to! AND look how the words of this one do not also include “legislative instrument” after the word ‘requirements’ like the legislative Instrument for the FPPR – Again, probably doesn’t really matter – but oh how I long for ‘uniformity’!)
This Instrument has a number of parts
Part 2 AVETMISS Compliance
DPR 4 Student records management system
Part 3 Registration Requirements
DPR 5 Information required upon request
Part 4 Quality Indicators
DPR 6 Collection of data against quality indicators
DPR 7 Annual report
And is virtually the same in content to aspects of the AQTF 2010 (both for initial and ongoing registration)..
See next Post for the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations
(d) the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements
listed as 24 – Condition (AGAIN separate to Condition 22 IN WHICH other parts of the VQF is detailed – see below ) and states on the actual
DRAFT “Instrument”
“I, Chief Commissioner XXXXXX for the National VET Regulator make this legislative instrument under subsection 158(1) of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011.”
So this legislative instrument is made by the Chief Commissioner NOT the Minister ... hum interesting ...
And on this legislative instrument it is also noted that
“The requirements may be referred to by the abbreviation FVRAR‘. For example, this is FVRAR 4 (3).
Another acronym for us to get used to! AND look how the words of this do not include “legislative instrument” after the word ‘requirements’ like the legislative Instrument for the FPPR – Again, probably doesn’t really matter – but oh how I long for ‘uniformity’!)
In AQTF 2010 (both for initial and ongoing registration).. this is ...
Mentioned in Condition 1 – Governance and more detail is provided in Condition 2 – Interactions with the Registering Body(see comment above)
See next Post for the Data Provision Requirements
(c) the Fit and Proper Person Requirements
listed as 23 – Condition (separate to Condition 22 IN WHICH other parts of the VQF is detailed – see below ) and states on the actual
DRAFT “Instrument”
“I Chris Evans, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, make this legislative instrument under subsection 186(1) of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011”.
And on this legislative instrument it is also noted that
“The requirements of this legislative instrument may be referred to by the abbreviation ‘FPPR’. For example, this is FPPR 3 (3).” Another acronym for us to get used to!
AND “FPPR 4” (where the ‘guts’ of this is ) Has 11 (a – k) points ...
In AQTF 2010 (both for initial and ongoing registration).. this is ...
A part of ‘Condition of Registration’ (not Standards) Condition 1 – Governance - which in AQTF 07 were detailed 2nd – BUT in AQTF 2010 were ‘brought to the front’ as way (some say) of ensuring they gained more ‘attention’.
See next Post for the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements
1 day to go ...Comments on the VQF
I must be getting old! It seems like just yesterday that we were all gearing up for AQTF 05 ... and then there was AQTF 07 ... and THEN there was AQTF 2010!
It is a bit like the ‘Cat I & II’ / ‘BSZ’ / TAA / ‘TED’ (tho never actually released under THAT acronym but I did have an article called from Cats 2 BSZeees 2 Airlines 2 Teddies lol – see page 32 in the Dec N/L) / ‘TAE’ rolling wave isn’t it!
Back then I was talking about whether we should be referencing “AQTF” as AQTF 05 / 07 and then AQTF 10 ...
The answer seemed to be .. “NO .. the AQTF is the AQTF and people ‘just’ have to know which version you are talking about” ... but then we actually saw AQTF 07 / AQTF10 on official websites .. so obviously other people felt the need to clarify that as well.
Anyway it seems in our brave new world the AQTF version ‘debate’ may be over.
As noted in the VelocityWorx newsletter (1/6/11) AQTF will not apply to NVR registered RTOs. In this article, the editor Marilyn Harvey summarises “One of the challenges with the AQTF is that it is sometimes considered a 'guideline' which makes it difficult for the registering body to use it in court.”
As noted in the last blog post AQTF (2010) Vs The VET Quality Framework is:
(a) the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations
(b) the Australian Qualifications Framework
(c) the Fit and Proper Person Requirements;
(d) the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements;
(e) the Data Provision Requirements.
The suite of legal instruments, with some comments, is listed below and you can access DRAFT versions of these. The draft versions were sourced via the ASQA Tender Documents and is noted a number of times that they ...
“have not been developed by the National VET Regulator Taskforce and as such, the NVR Taskforce cannot make comment on them or respond to any comments that tenderers may have.
Again , it must be stressed that the documents are DRAFT at this stage, but tenderers will need to understand the general nature of the proposed documents.”
Which does beg the question .. “Well WHO DID develop it?” but anyway ...
So they are ‘open to changes’ and if and when that occurs ... I’ll post about it.
Ok so looking at the draft legal Instruments (sort of ... and not in the order listed above) here are some comments ...SEE FOLLOWING POST ... I have separated these out so if & when changes happened I can reference back to these aspects AND to try and break up all this information!)
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
2 days to go and AQTF (2010) Vs The VET Quality Framework
I am still trying to get my head around is how the new VET Quality Framework (as detailed in the glossary on the ASQA site as well as in the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 relates to and / or replaces all of .. or parts of .. the AQTF. (Australian Quality Training Framework)
1) AQTF Essential Conditions and Standards for Initial Registration
2) AQTF Essential Conditions and Standards for Continuing Registration
3) The Quality Indicators
4) AQTF 2007 Standards for State and Territory Registering Bodies
5) AQTF 2007 Excellence Criteria
(a) the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations
(b) the Australian Qualifications Framework
(c) the Fit and Proper Person Requirements;
(d) the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements;
(e) the Data Provision Requirements.
(c) the Fit and Proper Person Requirements;
(d) the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements;
(e) the Data Provision Requirements.
The table below shows a snapshot of my understanding of the ‘current soon to be old’ and the ‘new and in force from 1/7/11’.
AQTF AND “VQF” Links or Comparisons: A Snapshot
*This is just my interpretation & understanding
Components of the AQTF | VET Quality Framework means the following: |
AQTF Essential Conditions and Standards for Initial Registration | (a) the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations (c) the Fit and Proper Person Requirements; (d) the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements; |
AQTF Essential Conditions and Standards for Continuing Registration | |
Was not listed as a component – BUT ‘existed’ | (b) the Australian Qualifications Framework |
The Quality Indicators | (e) the Data Provision Requirements. |
AQTF 2007 Standards for State and Territory Registering Bodies | Is not listed as part of the definition– BUT a version of ‘exists’ in the Legislation – as related to the NVR |
AQTF 2007 Excellence Criteria | Is not listed as part of the definition and does not ‘appear’ anywhere that I can find |
I am pretty sure, from what I can gather, that ‘AQTF’ is to become a thing of the past to be replaced with the ‘VQF’ (I assume that will be the acronym). The other thing that is still a bit confusing, is the timing implications.
Given not all to be NVR RTOs will be ‘under’ the NVR as of 1/7/11 .. Will non NVR RTOs still be under ‘AQTF’ while in 2 days will NVR RTOs be under the VQF? (and all the changes that will mean in documents etc)
This difference in compliance requirements has been raised with respect to another issue (logos) and quite rightly, it has been pointed out that RTOs who will be joining ‘later in 2011’ are going to be at a distinct advantage as we will see it all unfold and have time to plan in comparison to 1/7/11 RTOs who are being told “we will tell you on the 1/7/11 – The day it all begins! (This and more discussions can be viewed in the Linked In Group Australian VET Leaders initiated by Wendy Perry (see an explanation on Wendy’s blog and look around her great site while you are there!)
I have sought clarification on some of these issues and will post updates as things become clearer .. But in the mean time ... See the next blog post for some Comments on the VQF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)