Unpacking ASQA audit reports and files (Part 4)
This is part 4 of a series. We are referring here to cases from different audits conducted by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA).
1. Units made compliant, qualifications become non-compliant
ASQA making decisions, where individual units were made compliant but qualifications including the very same units were made non-compliant.
2. ASQA officers contradicting what the ASQA auditor wrote in the initial audit reports
ASQA officer stating that the RTO initially applied for classroom delivery and then changed to online and rejected the application. The initial audit report had completely different statement by the initial ASQA auditor which demonstrates that there was never a proposal for classroom delivery and it was always a proposal of online delivery or online blended.
3. ASQA refusing an application based upon the opinion that the RTO does not have intention to work with the regulatory body or was it the other way around? ASQA seems to have no intention to work with the people and organisations who question their conduct.
4. ASQA submitted this highly ridiculous comment to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where they stated that the CEO of an organisation does not have enough VET knowledge and advised to do some further courses in the vocational education and training sector, before reapplying for the RTO. The same CEO was deemed compliant by a previous ASQA auditor on trainers and assessors credentials such as vocational competency, training and assessment competency, Vet sector knowledge and skills (including competency based training and assessment) and professional development, industry skills and practices.
5. Unachievable requests and bullying conduct in audit.
6. Auditor suggesting documents to be emailed after the audit (as the auditor did not get time to go through all documents during audit) and then refusing to accept the submission.
7. Not understanding the difference between learner resources and the industry currency documents of a trainer. Using industry currency documents of trainers to pass on training package and compliance judgements on the learner and assessment resources
8. Receiving copies of resources and then claiming that they were not received. Did it occur or not?
9. A 371 pages long document of how Industry consultation was sought, collected, implemented across all operations of an RTO including training and assessment strategies and practices, resources; current industry skills of its trainers and assessors. ASQA assessing it as not sufficient for clause 1.6 of “Industry consultation”
When there are pages and pages of information regarding how Industry consultation has been implemented:
10. Does this make any sense? When these requirements were implemented as part of the clause 1.6 in the existing Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015? If you are working as a lead regulatory officer and auditor then ASQA gives you the right to create your own requirements, interpretations and standards?
Please note, the organisation has no association with any of the individuals or organisations they engaged in the industry consultation. The ASQA officer here is stating that a 371 pages long document included “ changes of a minor nature”. We did try to search the requirements of clause 1.6:
The RTO implements a range of strategies for industry engagement and systematically uses the outcome of that industry engagement to ensure the industry relevance of:
a) its training and assessment strategies, practices and resources
b) the current industry skills of its trainers and assessors.
We could not find any information on singular or plural approach, who the individuals or organisations should be for industry consultation, the difference between minor and major changes, changes in the training methodologies and its requirements, and comment on employment outcomes for graduates.
We even looked into ASQA’s User’s Guide to the Standards for RTOs 2015 and found simply nothing https://www.asqa.gov.au/standards
Maybe ASQA’s auditors can shed some light on these new requirements?