Our expert opinion on the draft standards of registered training organisations

Regulatory standards are set by governing bodies in order to ensure that products and services meet a minimum quality level. In the education and training industry, regulatory standards ensure that all organisations offering training and education are in the industry for the right reasons - providing quality education to students, ethical marketing practices, competent governance and administration, financial viability, trainers and assessors who are qualified, and training materials that are compliant and appropriate for the students, among a number of other important things. 

Without regulatory standards, it would be difficult to trust that the education or training received would be of high quality. Additionally, regulatory standards should also help to protect students and industry from harm or exploitation. 

On 2 November 2022, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) released a draft revision to the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTO Standards).

The draft of revised standards are being put in place as part of reforms that are currently occurring, including the introduction of industry clusters to replace the current industry engagement system, including the 67 Industry Reference Committees (IRCs), and 6 Skills Service Organisations (SSOs) - commencing from January, qualifications reforms to reduce overprescription in training products to empower RTOs to deliver innovative employer-focused training practices to changes within the Australian Quality Framework, new TAE22, Jobs and Skills Australia, Industry Engagement Integrity Framework, Training package assurance role and guidelines, training package organising framework, Microcredentials Framework, amended traineeships incentives  to reforms within the regulatory body and its practices, especially the focus on self-assurance and excellence in training outcomes.

As a result of limitations in the current auditing and quality system, the standards are changing, including overly prescriptive standards and training products, complex standards that are difficult to navigate, standards that focus too much on administrative processes, and the challenges of attracting and retaining high-quality workers.

Under the NVETR Act, the requirements for RTOs would be consolidated in three locations;

1. Standards for RTOs 
2. Enforceable guidelines 
3. Compliance-based requirements 

We have had a number of experts analyse the standards and come up with a number of positives and negatives, so let's take a look at them one by one. 

What were our parameters to evaluate the standards? 

The requirements that we have selected have been drawn from the experiences we have had as compliance consultants, ISO auditors, and experts in RTOs during our time in the industry and also the feedback received from our clients and industry stakeholders. 

Strengths 

1. Readability of the proposed standards - much simpler to read and easy to follow 
2. Pre-validation of assessment and training material - The validation of training material must occur before, during and after the implementation of an assessment.  
3. Financial viability risk assessment - All training organisations must go through financial viability risk assessment at the time of submission of application, change of scope and renewal of application. By doing so, the education industry is protected from organisations that are not financially viable enough to provide quality education. 
4. Greater emphasis on learner support through measurable outcomes should be defined in the standards 
5. Focusing on building workforce capability and flexibility through measurable outcomes should be defined in the standards 
6. Focusing on building stronger governance through measurable outcomes should be defined in the standards 
7. Regulatory standards are written to improve student-centred and industry-focused outcomes. 
8. Standard regulatory frameworks are based on strong local and employer networks, industry best practices, and industry stakeholders' needs and requirements. 

Weaknesses 

1. Standards are no longer grouped as the ‘student journey’ - After a lot of consultation, a student-centric audit model was developed by the regulatory body starting with marketing and recruitment, enrolment, support and progression, training and assessment and course completion and it was easier for training organisations to put systems and practices in order of student progressing through the training and assessment. 
2. We are unsure how quality will be improved with the proposed standards 
3. The suggestion/preference of rewriting principles of assessment and rules of evidence is not in favour as our understanding is that they are very clear and consistent in their interpretation. Additionally, rules of evidence of validity and sufficiency are now intertwined when they are not the same thing, making the entire concept less clear and more complex.
4. Can you measure the requirements in the proposed standards and clauses in a clear and competent manner? Can two different auditors reach the same conclusion? Is there room for personal judgements and interpretations in the proposed standards? The answer to all these questions is “yes”, and that’s not good for regulatory standards. 
5. How would you measure and ensure consistency in relation to descriptions such as “appropriate”, “effective”, “consistent with”, “completely”, “reasonableness”, “appropriateness”, “measure the well-being is supported”, “as soon as practicable”, “understanding”, “appropriate content and level” etc. 
6. Less focus on the lead validators, and validation team in standards 
7. Standards are very restrictive in nature when it comes to “disabilities”. These are only mentioned to support students when students' needs for reasonable adjustment outside of the term also require assistance and support from the training provider.  
8. Industry experts, mentioned in (3.1.2 (iii)) along with no requirement of ‘training and assessment credential’, why would you undermine the training and assessment credentials through your standards? 

Gaps: 

To protect our learners, our experts identified the following main gaps: 

1. The structure of the new set out is very much constrained by the thinking and interpretation of the existing standards. When these proposed standards should have focussed on quality training beyond 2022. 
2. The requirements related to who runs a training organisation, their qualification, experience, entry criteria, ongoing professional development for management, everything should be mentioned in a clear manner 
3. Training and assessment strategies should be added back into the proposed standards 
4. The standards are leaving wider gaps for training organisations that are not compliant and quality-focused. 
5. Validation of assessments should include instructions related to sample size as the random sample still needs to be statistically significant to be representative of results across the board 
6. Draft clauses related to pre-validation should be strengthened a bit more to include statements that pre-validation must be carried out by the training organisation prior to assessing the suitability and appropriateness of assessment and learner resources to meet the needs and requirements of each learner cohort and delivery mode. 
7. Standards should provide clarity related to credit transfers and RPLs; they should be explained differently 
8. Every clause should be accompanied by guidance and very clear benchmarks. One of the biggest problems with the existing standards is different interpretations of requirements by auditors, industry representatives (including RTOs) and regulatory bodies and this is not appropriate. The proposed standards are also very much open to these interpretations, and this is not good for measuring the quality outcomes or establishing a quality system for training organisations. 

Notes: 

In our opinion, if you can't measure it, you can't monitor it, so the proposed standards should provide greater clarity about how every requirement and clause will be measured.