Regulation over course delivery
The contestability model has allowed RTOs to determine what courses they can deliver. However, there have been concerns over the lack of regulation over course delivery, resulting in RTOs delivering courses without consideration over course quality.
There is a marked inconsistency in the length of time in which some private training providers deliver a course to a student. This is because the auditing process for VET providers do not take into account, the delivery mode of qualifications.
The new Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 have introduced the notion of an ‘earned autonomy model of regulation.’ This means that some RTOs would have the ability to change their own scope of registration without requiring regulation. This has led to some private RTOs delivering courses beyond their scope of expertise, consequently resulting in a decline in the quality of training offered.
- Industry should have more of a role in authenticating and validating courses delivered by training providers, irrespective of whether a course is delivered by a public or private training provider.
- ASQA should be properly funded and have industry representation so that it can adequately perform comprehensive audits that also considers a program’s volume of delivery and its relevance to industry standards.
- ASQA should place more attention towards an RTO’s extension of scope. The examination of a private RTO’s extension of scope must also have industry involvement as ASQA is not sufficiently equipped to determine whether or not an RTO has the appropriate resources to delivery such training.
18 June 2015