Partnerships in assessment: Auspicing in action

Background

Auspicing in the vocational education and training (VET) sector involves an organisation entering into partnership with a registered training organisation (RTO) in order to have the training and assessment that it undertakes recognised under the National Training Framework. In such an arrangement, the RTO has responsibility for assuring the quality of the assessments conducted by the other organisation. Thus, the RTO is required to set up systems for monitoring and evaluating assessment processes and judgements about competence. The RTO is also responsible for issuing the qualifications and/or statements of attainment that ensue from that training.

The concept of auspicing in VET in Australia stems from the Australian Recognition Framework (ARF) (ANTA 1999). Section 5.1 of the National Assessment Principles states that any assessment for national recognition purposes should be undertaken by, or auspiced through, a registered training organisation.

With the revision and re-labelling of the ARF to the Australian Qualifications Training Framework (AQTF), the term auspicing has been replaced by the term 'partnerships' and the compliance requirements attached to such relationships have been strengthened considerably. Partnership arrangements must be supported by a formal agreement and an RTO must maintain a register of all written agreements with other organisations which conduct training and/or assessment on its behalf. As with any vocational education and training assessment for recognition purposes, the RTO must also establish quality assurance strategies to ensure the processes and outcomes are valid, consistent and fair.

Purpose of study

The purpose of this study was to undertake a comprehensive examination of a sample of auspiced assessment arrangements. This included:

• a review of national and international literature on partnerships, as well as a desk audit of VET-in-Schools partnership resources
• a descriptive case-study approach designed to examine aspects of assessment partnerships involving auspicing.

Six case-study sites were selected for in-depth examination. They were:

• Cargill Foods Australia (Wagga Wagga) and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (Meat processing), an example of a range of partnerships with enterprises and the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) in all Australian states
• Santos (Queensland) and Eastern Gippsland Institute of TAFE (Petrochemicals), an example of a cross-border initiative
• Kilmany Family Care (Bairnsdale) and University of Ballarat (Children's Services), an example of a remote Aboriginal community training partnership
• National Foods and Goulbourn Ovens Institute of TAFE (Food processing), an example of auspicing on one site for a large national enterprise
• NSW Department of Housing, Sydney Institute of TAFE and Canberra Institute of Technology, an example of a large government department working with two large RTOs delivering a range of assessment services
• Australian Environmental Pest Managers Association, Peter Meadows Consulting and Canberra Institute of Technology, a partnership blending an industry association, a pest management technical expert and a large RTO to assess staff in pest management enterprises across Australia for licensing purposes.

In addition, a desk audit of arrangements used by school-based VET providers of training was also undertaken.

Findings

The research revealed considerable evidence about the extent of auspicing in VET in Australia. More than twenty industry areas were identified on advice from national and state industry training advisory bodies (ITABs), licensing bodies, industry associations and unions. These identified partnerships involving multinational companies, small business, unions, consultants and industry associations working with public and private RTOs to have their training recognised and the skills of their workers acknowledged under the Australian Qualifications Framework.

At the same time partnerships in assessments are being utilised by school-based VET providers of training. National and state education policies encourage partnerships for the delivery of VET-in-Schools programs. These are seen to be a sensible way of utilising human and physical resources. Given the varying nature of the approaches taken by individual states and territories, a comparative analysis was not undertaken; however, the appendices do include a summary of VET-in-Schools models and some detail regarding supporting documentation used in some states and territories. In South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia, guidelines, checklists, templates and proformas to support the establishment of collaborative arrangements can be accessed through the internet.

Models of partnership arrangements

There is a variety of possible partnership arrangements models. These differ according to which partner has responsibility for developing the assessment tools, collecting the evidence and making the assessment judgements (see table 1).

The cases included in this study involve a mix of models. In four cases, the RTOs and partners have worked very closely together on the development of assessment tools. Partner organisations, in most instances, are also largely responsible for evidence collection and making the judgements about the achievement of competence. In the area of quality assurance, most partner organisations have been actively involved in determining which strategies to employ, and these have been built into the quality management systems of the partner organisations.

Regardless of the model, the case studies demonstrated the AQTF requirement that the RTO partner must always be responsible for quality-assuring the assessments conducted on their behalf and for issuing the associated Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) qualifications or statements of attainment.

Impetus for collaboration

In five of the six cases examined, the non-registered organisations initiated the partnerships by requesting training and assessment services from the RTOs. All wanted their training and the skills of their workers recognised under the AQF, but did not wish to become RTOs themselves. The services they wanted could be purchased from the RTOs thus allowing them to get on with their core business. This is an approach that is confirmed by the literature on partnerships.

Other forces that have provided the impetus for collaboration have been regulations and licensing (food processing, meat processing and pest management) and new enterprise bargaining agreements (petrochemicals, food processing, meat processing and property management). ITABs have also been influential, as have the creative and flexible individuals in all of the organisations who have driven the partnerships forward. The important role of torch bearers in developing effective alliances is a factor also acknowledged in the literature.

Target audience and scope of qualifications

In all but one case, the training and assessment delivered under the partnership arrangement is for both entry to the industry and the existing workforce in each enterprise. While Certificates in Pest Management are delivered totally on the job, the Diploma of Community Services (Childcare) is undertaken off the job. The training in the other partnerships is a mix of both. The qualifications being delivered across the partnerships range from certificate 1 through to diploma level. However, there was no apparent difference in the way auspicing was managed across AQF levels.

Formal documentation

The formal documentation underpinning the relationships ranges from a simple letter of agreement for meat processing to highly detailed contracts or memorandums of understanding for the other partnerships. It is apparent that the more costly the activity being undertaken in monetary or risk terms, the more detailed the written agreement.

Quality assurance strategies

In all six partnerships, RTOs used a number of strategies to quality-assure the assessments conducted on their behalf, but they generally covered the following facets of the assessment process:

• the selection, training and ongoing professional development of assessors
• the development of resources to support the conduct of assessment, including an assessment policy, assessment procedures, assessment tools, evidence collection guidelines and exemplars
• information on assessment for assessors and candidates
• verification and validation strategies, including strategies for team assessment and sampling.

The choices that partners made about assuring the quality of their assessment were influenced by the degree of risk placed on the assessments in high-risk worksites, the amount of time and money available for quality assurance and the geographical proximity of the partners. In four cases, assessors and the candidates were dispersed and assessors rarely had the opportunity to get together to discuss assessment or review processes and the decisions they had made. To ensure validity and reliability, the emphasis placed on up-front quality information was therefore quite important. Printed information and guidelines provided up-front were judged to be the best method for gaining consistency in processes and outcomes when large numbers of assessors and candidates were involved.

In all cases, considerable emphasis was also placed on the selection and training of assessors. Usually undertaken by the RTO partner in the early stages of collaboration, assessor training and ongoing professional development form the crucial components in the quality assurance strategies supporting all partnerships.

Expectations and experiences

Informants to the study reflected on their expectations and experiences in their partnership arrangements. They shared their views on skill development and skill deficits, their strategies for support and areas for improvement, and the benefits to themselves and their organisations gained from their involvement in the partnership.

In general, all informants in all cases reflected favourably on their partnerships. For the enterprises in the six cases, the alliances have been beneficial to the successful implementation of training and assessment in their workplaces. For the RTOs, the major benefits have been increased services to industry, an enhanced profile and the establishment of networks facilitating other alliances and projects, and the broadening of the skills and industry knowledge of RTO staff.

Critical elements in partnerships

The informants views supported the findings of the Australian and international literature that there are critical factors common to the development and continuation of effective collaborative alliances such as these auspiced arrangements. These factors include a willingness to collaborate, a shared vision of what might be achieved, respect and trust and good communication. Equally important are effective and respected leadership, an acceptance of differing cultures, flexibility and a willingness to take risks and develop new skills and mindsets.

Guidelines for partnerships in assessment

Both the literature and the information gathered in the field in this study identify a number of critical aspects which need to be addressed in the establishment and maintenance of partnerships. In particular, these aspects are:

• the importance of preliminary negotiations and the clarification of services covered by the arrangements
• the requirement to comply with the Australian Qualifications Training Framework standards for registered training organisations (ANTA 2001) such as:
  • a formal agreement
  • a register
  • quality assurance arrangements
• the maintenance and review of such partnerships.

The guidelines presented in this report address all of these aspects.