L&M TWR

Finally I am back in ...

noreply@blogger.com (kathleenzarubin) — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:53:00 +0000

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

0: - The Last Day before the NVR begins!

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:00:00 +0000

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 ...

If your question is not answered below, please email us on enquiries@asqa.gov.au.

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 ...

(b) the Australian Qualifications Framework

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:56:00 +0000

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:

25 Condition—notifying National VET Regulator of material changes

26 Condition—other information must be provided

27 Condition—cooperation

28 Condition—compliance with directions given by the National VET Regulator

29 Other 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 ..

188 Standards for VET Accredited Courses states ..

“(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make standards for VET accredited courses, as agreed by the Ministerial Council”

And

189 Standards for VET Regulators states ..

“(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

190 Risk Assessment Framework

(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

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:56:00 +0000

In the “National VET” Act ... this is ...

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

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:55:00 +0000

In the “National VET” Act ... this is ...

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

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:55:00 +0000

In the “National VET” Act ... this is ...

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

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:54:00 +0000

In the “National VET” Act ... this is ...

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 2^nd – 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

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:30:00 +0000

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

(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!)

2 days to go and AQTF (2010) Vs The VET Quality Framework

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:40:00 +0000

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)

The current Components of the AQTF (see page 2) are:

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

The new 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 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

What other ‘powers and responsibilities’ do they have

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:00:00 +0000

Well, this first part must relate to the NVR as the 3 Commissioners who collectively are the non- Statutory Body NVR and who as a group do not have ‘a legal identity separate from the Commonwealth’ because under Division 3 “National Vet Regulator procedures” it notes things like

· Meetings: They must have them, keep minutes and records of decisions and can also do business via the phone

· Quorum: Which is 2 Commissioners (only?)

And then there are others things which sound like BOTH versions of the NVR: IE “the 3 commissioners” AND the “Statutory Authority” have to do. (Seriously does any one else get as confused as I do when simply trying to talk about WHO is the NVR?)

Things like:

· The National VET Regulator must cooperate with the Ministerial Council when the Council assesses whether the Regulator continues to comply with the Standards for VET Regulators (s178)

· Develop and provide and comply with Strategic, Annual and Operational Plans (s 215 – 222)

The contents of these are detailed in the Act and I hope these plans will also be made public.

· Develop and maintain the National Register (s 216) and there is list of things that it must include and it must be made available on the internet.

Interestingly the NVR also has substantial powers of delegation. According to sections 224 – 226 they can delegate powers to government authorities, occupational licensing bodies and other industry bodies and even NVR RTOs.

But in doing all of this according to s161 “The National VET Regulator has the privileges and immunities of the Crown” and s 233 explicitly states

233 Protection from civil actions

(1) This section applies to:

(a) the National VET Regulator; and

(b) a Commissioner; and

(d) a consultant engaged by the Regulator.

(2) A person mentioned in subsection (1) is not liable to an action or other proceeding for damages for or in relation to an act done or omitted to be done in good faith:

(a) in the performance or purported performance of any of the National VET Regulator’s functions; or

(b) in the exercise or purported exercise of any of the Regulator’s powers.

And I guess this is stand practice but it just reads to me like a ‘all care and no responsibility clause”.

Which in many cases is fair enough, but I just wish somewhere, in relationship to RTOs, there was a clause that also said “an act done or omitted to be done in good faith” would render us “not liable to an action or other proceeding”.

It is a shame the same ‘standards’ for our regulator do not apply to us hey ..

Tomorrow more of a recap on the VET Quality Framework, (VQF?) Legislative Instruments and some comments on comments that are being made by other people

4 days to go - Countdown in Overdrive - So Who does What?

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:46:00 +0000

A few years ago I developed a major document called “Have you Read our Act?” it was based on (Qld) Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 2000 AND the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Regulation 2000. It was shared with colleagues and did receive great feedback especially the fact it

a) identified who did what and

b) pulled together the actual costs (penalties) of non-compliance.

I haven’t had time yet to do up a similar document for our new Act but if there is a demand in the future and I can make time, I may do a similar document for the latest version of the Qld Act as well as the National Vet Regulator Act.

So in some ways this is an abridge ‘first draft version’. (but comments on the penalties will come in a later post)

One of the first thing that strikes me about National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 is the fact it specifically states (s7) (2) (c)

However, referred VET matters does not include the matter of making a law that excludes or limits the operation of a law of a referring State or a Territory to the extent that the law of the referring State or Territory makes provision with respect to:

So it seems to me that while, most of us at least, will be registered and regulated by the NVR our own ‘Bodies’ will still have a role to play in regulating / auditing us with respect to Apprentices /Trainees and any funding we receive. (Personally I am not sure exactly how that will work .. but it does raise a few questions in my mind ...anyway ... )

This post is going to focus on the NVR, their functions, powers and what they have to do.

First up the functions of the NVR are detailed in Section 157 and they are pretty wide ranging.

(1) The National VET Regulator has the following functions:

(a) to register an organisation as an NVR registered training organisation;

(b) to accredit courses that may be offered and/or provided by registered training organisations;

While this is a function of the NVR and RTOs will be paying to be registered I am still not clear if in addition to our ‘registration fees’ we will also have to pay the NVR to do our ‘normal’ 5 year re-registration audit. Some people are saying RTOs will have to pay for this ‘service’ but I don’t see how an organisation can charge us for something they say we have to do?

(d) to promote, and encourage the continuous improvement of, a registered training organisation’s capacity to provide a VET course or part of a VET course;

(e) if requested to do so by the Minister, or on the Regulator’s own initiative, to advise and make recommendations to the Minister on matters relating to vocational education and training;

(f) if requested to do so, in writing, by the Education Minister for a State or Territory, or on the Regulator’s own initiative, to advise and make recommendations to the Education Minister for the State or Territory on specific matters relating to vocational education and training in the State or Territory;

(g) if requested to do so, in writing, by the Chair of the Ministerial Council, or on the Regulator’s own initiative, to advise and make recommendations to the Ministerial Council on general matters relating to vocational education and training in all jurisdictions;

(h) to collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate information about vocational education and training;

(i) to publish performance information, of a kind prescribed by the regulations, relating to NVR registered training organisations;

I think this relates to at least a version of the current Quality Indicators. There are also rumours of a similar to ‘my school’ website that will publish (in some shape or form) ‘results / indicators for RTOs as well as a possibly separate on for Unis.

(j) to conduct training programs relating to the regulation of registered training organisations and/or the accreditation of courses;

(k) to enter into arrangements with occupational licensing bodies, other industry bodies, or both, for the purpose of ensuring compliance by NVR registered training organisations with this Act;

(l) to cooperate with a regulatory authority of another country that has responsibility relating to the quality or regulation of vocational education and training for all, or part, of the country;

(m) to develop relationships with its counterparts in other countries;

(n) to develop key performance indicators, to be agreed by the Minister, against which the Regulator’s performance can be assessed each financial year;

(o) to develop service standards that the Regulator must meet in performing its functions;

I like these last 2 but again with a week to go you would think at least drafts of these would be available and I also think the NVR ‘responsiveness to and understanding of’ RTOs should also be a consideration.

(p) any other function relating to vocational education and training that is set out in a legislative instrument made by the Minister;

There is that term again “Legislative Instruments”

(q) such other functions as are conferred on the Regulator by or under:

(i) this Act; or

(ii) the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 or any other law of the Commonwealth;

(r) to do anything incidental to, or conducive to, the performance of any of the above functions.

So to all of this what other ‘powers and responsibilities’ do they have? ....

Tune in tomorrow for more ...

5 days to go and a re-cap on who is running the show

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:43:00 +0000

Ok .. This is just my interpretation and understanding. I would really appreciate any feedback if people read things differently or know differently for that matter.

And just to let you know I am trying to find a bit of humour in this whole thing so please forgive my colloquiums and know I do take this seriously ...

So Whose the Boss?

It seems to me that collectively the States and Territories ‘relevant’ education type Ministers are the Big Big Big Boss within their role in MCTEE assuming that is the Ministerial Council the Act makes reference to.

Then whoever is the relevant Federal Minister (currently Senator the Hon Chris Evans) is the next Big Big Boss as both the ‘The Minister’ (as referenced in the Act) and Chairperson of the Ministerial Council. He (or in the future She) also has the authority or responsibility to be satisfied that the Commissioners have appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience to be “appointed by the Governor‑General”. They can also do things but many of them must have the permission of the Council (ie the Big Big Big Boss)

Then comes the 3 Commissioners (Big Bosses) who collectively are the non- Statutory Body NVR and who as a group do not have ‘a legal identity separate from the Commonwealth’.

Does anyone else think they would be better called something else maybe something like ‘Overseers’ or ‘Advisory / Regulatory Panel’ ... maybe the Big Cheeses? (umm only joking)

One of the Commissioners (woops I almost wrote Overlords) will be the Chief Commissioner and by virtue of that position will also be The Boss (ie the CEO) of the Statutory Agency which will be called the NVR (or versions of) and / or ASQA (or in full).

Interestingly, while they will be the CEO (Big Boss) it is actually them ... ‘and their staff’ that make up the “Statutory Agency”. ... ‘according to the Act?) BUT ...

On the ASQA website it says

Operational structure

The national regulator will be an independent statutory authority and will consist of a Chief Commissioner and two other Commissioners, who will be appointed by the Governor-General for up to five years.

Together the Commissioners and staff form the Authority.

For the purposes of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, the Chief Commissioner is also ASQA’s CEO and is responsible for ASQA’s management and administration. One Commissioner will oversee the Compliance and Regional Operations function and the other will oversee the Risk Analysis and Investigation function.

ASQA will have offices in each state and territory. ASQA staff will support the Commissioners in their regulatory function.

This information doesn’t seem to be in ACT .. but then again maybe it doesn’t need to be?

Names (and some faces) to roles.

What to know more about the people in these roles (or acting in the roles at the moment?)

Here are some links

Members in MCTEE (this doesn’t link to their pages but you can google the member from your State or Territory)

The Federal Member Senator the Hon Chris Evans

Commissioners 1 2 3 – These do not appear to have been ‘appointed yet’ Which is probably fair enough and I guess scheduled to happen on or around the 1/7/11. BUT we do have:

Kaye Schofield who from the 18 April 2011, assumed the roles of both Interim Chair and Interim CEO

Has anyone heard (even rumours) on who the other 2 Commissioners are likely to be? I just think it is interesting that with just over a week to go we (well me at least) have no idea who the other 2 will be?

In the next post I plan to write a bit more about ‘who does what’? But for now ... I just want to make this point.

While in the Act there is a whole section on ‘reviewable decisions of the NVR’ I really wish that in creating this brave new world the powers that be also considered making an ‘RTO Island’. Somewhere WE could go that wasn’t ‘Regulating’ us .. like an Ombudsman or an Advocate. Yes in the FAQs it says there will be ‘offices in each State and Territory’ But with just over a week to go it seems like we as RTOs are just being buffered around, not quite sure of much really. Not even what our fees will be to live in this new world. (and I even heard that NVR staff didn’t stay around for a Q&A session because they didn’t have the answers to the questions they knew would be asked)

The world of ‘Education’ in a variety of forms has been my world for really most of my adult life. As I said in an earlier post I honestly LOVE IT. I’m passionate committed and dedicated. And as I read more and more of this ACT (and associated documents) I am left feeling a bit battered and bruised. But maybe that is just me. I don’t feel so excited any more but I’m willing for that to be re-invigorated!

6 days to go and Pretty Standard VET Terms

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:39:00 +0000

There are no real surprises in these definitions But I have made some comments ...

VET course means:

(a) the units of competency of a training package that is endorsed by the Ministerial Council; or

(b) the modules of a VET accredited course; or

I like the separation out of the terms ‘Units of Competency’ (UoC) and ‘modules’. Hopefully we will not hear people talking about ‘modules’ when referring to UoC in Training Packages any more.

VET information means information that is held by the National VET Regulator and relates to the performance of the Regulator’s functions.

VET qualification means a testamur, relating to a VET course, given to a person confirming that the person has achieved learning outcomes and competencies that satisfy the requirements of a qualification.

Standards for VET Accredited Courses has the meaning given by section 188.

And under Section 188 it says ...

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make standards for VET accredited courses, as agreed by the Ministerial Council.

Note: Section 42 (disallowance) and Part 6 (sunsetting) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 do not apply to a legislative instrument that makes the standards (see sections 44 and 54 of that Act).

(See there is ‘that’ Note again!)

(2) The agreed standards are to be known as the Standards for VET Accredited Courses.

Standards for VET Regulators has the meaning given by section 189.

And under Section 189 it says ...

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make standards for VET Regulators, as agreed by the Ministerial Council.

Note: Section 42 (disallowance) and Part 6 (sunsetting) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 do not apply to a legislative instrument that makes the standards (see sections 44 and 54 of that Act).

(2) The agreed standards are to be known as the Standards for VET Regulators.

I love the way we have the Standards for NVR RTOs but apparently the Standards for the VET Regulators are not released yet?

Australian Qualifications Framework has the same meaning as in the Higher Education Support Act 2003.

From that ACT it states in the Dictionary ,,

Australian Qualifications Framework means the framework for recognition and endorsement of qualifications established by the Council

(a) comprised of the Ministers responsible for education, employment, training and youth affairs for the Commonwealth and each State; and

(b) known as the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs;

to give effect to agreed standards in relation to the provision of education in Australia.

It is interesting that they chose to just reference this definition and not actually detail it again especially because it seems like the Higher Education Support Act 2003 actually references MCEETYA which has actually been replaced by MCEECDYA (realignment of the roles and responsibilities of two previously existing councils—the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) and the Ministerial Council for Vocational and Technical Education (MCVTE))

The Law, you got to love it. Are we having fun yet?

7 days to go and getting my head around the NEW VET Quality Framework

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:45:00 +0000

The NEW VET Quality Framework - Under Section 3 definitions this is defined as:

VET Quality Framework means the following:

(a) the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations;

(b) the Australian Qualifications Framework;

(d) the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements;

(e) the Data Provision Requirements.

This also sort of relates to the issue of Legal instruments ... to be further reviewed later .. But for now the other points are:

1. It seems like (a) the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations will replace what we currently call the AQTF (2010). (Some people have asked if it will be as well as . BUT it really seems to be instead of ... )

2. Under Section 21 it states NVR RTOs have to comply with “Conditions” which in and of itself isn’t new. While the term “Conditions” is not defined under Section 3 (s21) states “with the conditions set out in sections 22 to 28” and “comply with any conditions imposed on the organisation’s registration under subsection 29(1)” (which is pretty much anything else we are told to do).

There is then a note

Note: Failure to comply with a condition of registration is a contravention of a civil penalty provision, see section 111.

(more on this to come later)

But the ACT is ‘formatted’ (for want of a better word) like this ..

22 Condition—compliance with the VET Quality Framework

And so I think .. YUP .. saw the definition of what is the VET Quality Framework!

(1) An NVR registered training organisation must comply with the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations.

Yup listed (a) in the definition ..

(2) An NVR registered training organisation must comply with the Australian Qualifications Framework.

Yup listed (b) in the definition ..

(3) An NVR registered training organisation must comply with the Data Provision Requirements.

Ok .. listed (e) in the definition – so it is not in the same order ..but I am following this

BUT then it goes on with the missing (c) and (d) parts of the VET Quality Framework (according to the definition) as referring to them as Condition 23 and 24.

I know in the big scheme of things it is probably just semantics but my question is ..

“So are (c) the Fit and Proper Person Requirements and (d) the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements part of the VET Quality Framework and if so then WHY aren’t they listed above rather than detailed in their own ‘conditions’? “

Condition 25 – 28 pretty much just talk about providing information, telling the NVR about changes and co-operating as per the requirements under AQTF.

One interesting thing is that the second part of Condition 28 is that “The National VET Regulator must publish a general direction on its website”

So hopefully we should all know “on the way in which the VET Quality Framework or other conditions of this Subdivision are to be complied with.” (s28 1)

The last term for this post is:

Risk Assessment Framework has the meaning given by section 190.

And under Section 190 it says ..

(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.

(and I say ‘thank goodness for that I have had all I can take of LIs for the moment)

8 Days to go and The Minister, the Ministerial Council, and a ‘Chair’

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:29:00 +0000

In the last post I began looking at the terms ‘Minister’ who at the moment, I assume to be Senator the Hon Chris Evans as he represents the Commonwealth on MCTEE which is compromised of the ‘relevant’ education type Ministers from all States and Territories.

I am assuming MCTEE is the ‘Ministerial Council’ based on the definition in Section 3 (ie “Ministerial Council means the body known as the Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment on the day on which this definition commences”)

There are 3 interesting things here.

1. I note the inclusion of the words “on the day on which this definition commences” in the above definition. This date I assumed is the 1/7/11. Maybe that is just how laws have to written but no other definition has this phrase stated or included. I am assuming the ‘Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment’ is MCTEE as we know it today, for no other reason than the letters match the current acronym and name of the current Council. I know I am straying into ‘conspiracy theory’ territory here but .... MCTEE will be still MCTEE as we know it after 1/7/11 won’t it?

2. Under (s 157) (1) (g) it talks about the Chair of the Ministerial Council but given MCTEE is chaired by the Commonwealth Government Minister (ie the same person who is referred to as “The Minister” in the rest of the ACT) I don’t understand why they didn’t just say The Minister again.

3. The information on ‘Training.com.au’ about MCTEE (@ 21/6/11) is very different to the information (it is old and outdated) to the information on DEEWR which again I assume is current as of this date. But given NTIS is being relaced by Training.gov.au which is scheduled to go live in July 2011 (and currently has a ‘holding page’ at that website) I guess we can also assume that the Training.com.au website will also be replaced by the currently being built Trainign.gov.au site. Once all the replacements happen let us hope that information on 2 government sites actually is the same to help avoid confusion and providing out of date references.

The role of MCTEE is important and will be further outlined in a later post. The current structure of MCTEE ensures that all States and Territories are represented, not to mention it also means there are at least 9 people sitting around a table discussing these issues.

While The Minster can do a fair amount of things according to this ACT, his individual power, (and therefore I assume the ultimate power of the 3 Commissioners) appears to be somewhat shared, diluted, constrained through the required involvement of and reference to ‘The Ministerial Council’

For example: (s 157) (3) it states

“The Minister must not set out a function in a legislative instrument under paragraph (1)(p) unless the Ministerial Council has agreed to the function.”

Now 2 things:

1. A new for us (I think) term is “legislative instrument” and in the last post I noted ‘remember’ that term. In trying to research and understand all the implications of this I am reminded again that I did not study law at Uni but rather teaching! At the moment, it is ‘doing my head in’. Suffice to say that I will look into this more over the next couple of days but from what I can gather it is all about making something legally enforceable rather than a guideline, recommendation, requested action.

Perhaps the difference between a mother saying “You will clean your room NOW” (i.e. not negotiable). But the thing is, I always thought our Standards were like this anyway. Why they have to enshrined in this manner I don’t really understand but I guess there is a reason.

2. Right under (s 157) (3) there is 2 notes

Note 1: For how the Ministerial Council gives agreement, see section 191.

This is pretty easy .. basically it says they give their agreement in line with the procedures for them to give their agreement ..

Note 2: Section 42 (disallowance) and Part 6 (sunsetting) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 do not apply to a legislative instrument that sets out a function (see sections 44 and 54 of that Act).

BUT this one is the one that is doing my head in. Similar wording is all through the ACT so obviously it is important but I don’t understand what it means enough to be able to explain it.

The other thing to note is that at this date of posting any copies of any proposed legislative Instruments are DRAFT ONLY. More to come on the topic of legislative instruments later ... and I assume at some time we will have some information session on them BUT again with only 9 days to go would actually hope we know all this by now!

I’ll post later on some of the other terms

Stop Press! NVR IS ASQA!

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 01:17:00 +0000

Oh thank goodness it wasn’t just me!

I just got a notice from a google alert I set up and ‘our Act’ has got its first Regulation. It says in part

“Name specified for National VET Regulator

For subsection 155 (2) of the Act, the National VET Regulator may also be know as the Australian Skills Quality Authority.”

Right that solves that little confusion / mystery.

If you want to see the Regulation either access it from comlaw direct or you can go to LM TWR - Legislation & Regulations: A Live Binder with “links and references to a wide range of ACTS and associated documents for Australian workplaces with an emphasis on the VET Sector”

Go to Nat Vet Tab and see Nat Vet Regulations

9 days to go and whose got a new title?

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 03:24:00 +0000

It is not just the terms ‘NVR’ and ‘ASQA’ that is a bit confusing or new. There are a few other aspects I am trying to clarify in my own mind as well.

First, given there is the option to have ‘short title’ for the actual National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 and given our industry’s love of acronyms I am surprised there isn’t one!

A suggestion would be say .. National VET Regulator ACT 11.

For those of us who will be regulated by the NVR we will become NVR RTOs!

Who is in and who is not is actually quite confusing and almost needs a flowchart along the lines of the “Should you be friends with your parents on facebook?” maybe .. J

Anyway, in our NVR RTOs we will still have an ‘executive officer’ but we might also have a “high managerial agent”. Both of these terms are explained in detail in Section 3 under definitions but one thing I think is interesting relates to the fact that a person who owns 15% or more and / or is entitled to receive 15% or more of the dividends is deemed to be an ‘executive officer’.

I’m not sure where the 15% figure came from. Maybe that is an amount in other laws?

A high managerial agent of a registered training organisation is defined as “an employee or agent of the organisation with duties of such responsibility that his or her conduct may fairly be assumed to represent the organisation in relation to the business of providing courses.”

I rather like that term. ..It is a shame I own L&M and am not an employee, as I would rather like to be able to introduce myself as .. “Hi, I’m Kathleen, the high managerial agent of L&M.”

The language surrounding the non NVR RTOs and associated Non-Referring States is cumbersome and in my opinion clumsy. Just as one example, under Section 7 it explains the meaning of a non-referring State is “if the State is not a referring State” and then has a note “For the meaning of referring State, see section 5” and Section 5 is very convoluted .. but in this section under (2) it then goes on to say

(2) A State is taken not to be a non‑referring State for the period mentioned in subsection (4) if the Minister determines, by legislative instrument, that the State is covered by this subsection.

Isn’t this a double negative? Wouldn’t it be easier to just say it will be a referring State? But maybe that is just how ACTS have to written.

Tomorrow I will write more about The Minister, the Ministerial Council, and a ‘Chair’

10 days to go PART 2 The Statutory Body

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 01:00:00 +0000

Right I have just seen this:

Division 6—Staff and consultants

182 Staff

(1) The staff of the National VET Regulator are to be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999.

(2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999:

(a) the Chief Executive Officer and the staff of the National VET Regulator together constitute a Statutory Agency; and

(b) the Chief Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.

Ok so a little more terminology ...

Chief Executive Officer

Under (s 179) (and beyond) it talks about a Chief Executive Officer. It goes on to say that the NVR will have one and the Chief Commissioner is the Chief Executive Officer

I really should have picked that up at the beginning when under definitions (Section 3) it said

Chief Commissioner means the Chief Commissioner appointed in accordance with subsection 162(4).

Chief Executive Officer means the Chief Commissioner: see section 179.

So the 3 Commissioners together are “the NVR” but they are NOT a Statutory Body

BUT the Chief Commissioner who is also the Chief Executive Officer (with their staff ... well staff of the NVR) constitute a Statutory Agency and Chief Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.

(Still doesn’t really explain AQSA ... but does it?)

Stay tuned more to come ..

10 days to go but first, exactly who is the NVR?

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:30:00 +0000

As we step into this brave new world, one of the first things I want to do is make sure I understand any terms, acronyms, labels, roles/positions, authorities and responsibilities. In previous L&M Newsletters we had a regular section called “Who’s Who (or New) in the Zoo” and this post is sort of like that.

I have used the actual National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 as my as my base reference (it is the Law after all) and supplemented this with information from the ASQA website and any other reference where relevant.

For more information, examples and links to lots of legislation you can go to LM TWR - Legislation & Regulations: A Live Binder with “links and references to a wide range of ACTS and associated documents for Australian workplaces with an emphasis on the VET Sector”

I expected to be able to post a list of new ‘terms etc’ possibly with links to any old ones and a brief reference as to where to get more information. I also expected this to be a fairly easy and clear cut activity. Unfortunately as you will see, neither of these expectations was completely realised. (So much so that I ended up doing a number of posts of this ‘issue’ ... see later posts for further information)

To begin at a beginning. “Uummm ... So who and what is the national VET Regulator?”

Well according to the definitions (s3) “National VET Regulator means the body established by section155”

(s155 (2)) states “The National VET Regulator may also be known by a name specified in the regulations” and (s155 (1)) which establishes the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator also has the term “National VET Regulator” in brackets.

Throughout the ACT there is constant reference to “NVR registered training organisation(s)” and in the definitions section (s3) it states “NVR registered training organisation means a training organisation that is registered by the National VET Regulator as a registered training organisation under this Act.”

In my research I am sure I read somewhere that the National VET Regulator may also be known as the ‘NVR’ however, I can’t find that reference again. (If anyone else spots it can you let me know).

So when we talk about the body which regulates us (RTOs) we can refer to it as

a) the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator or

b) the National VET Regulator or (assumedly)

c) the NVR.

So ... who or what is the “Australian Skills Quality Authority” (ASQA)?

According to their website (and as we have all heard ..)

“The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) will become Australia’s national regulator for vocational education and training from 1 July 2011”

But interestingly the body, term or organisation “Australian Skills Quality Authority” or “ASQA” is not mentioned at all in any of the legislation.

I guess we are meant to understand that reference to the NVR means or is the same as ASQA or perhaps the NVR will ‘give power to’ the ASQA to operate on its behalf?

And this is where it gets even a bit more confusing, for me anyway.

Section 156 states

The National VET Regulator consists of:

(a) a Chief Commissioner; and

(b) 2 Commissioners.

Note: The National VET Regulator does not have a legal identity separate from the Commonwealth.

So 2 things jump out at me straight away: So the body that regulates us (RTOs) is

1) Made up of just 3 people? (That is a lot of power in the hands of just 3 people) And

2) Not a ‘legal identity’ separate from the Commonwealth?

I was expecting the Regulator would have been a ‘Statutory Body’ (if that is right term) BUT then on the ASQA website, under organisational structure .. it does say ...

“The national regulator will be an independent statutory authority …..”

Hummm ... I will look into that more .. BUT getting back to the 3 people situation ..

So how do the 3 people get ‘chosen’?

Section 162 explains that the Commissioners will be “appointed by the Governor‑General by written instrument, on a full‑time basis.” (Well I think you would WANT then to be full time!) And ..

They can ‘only’ be appointed if “the Minister is satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience”

You would hope they had the appropriate qualifications, knowledge AND experience but the term ‘Minister’ is not definitively defined in the ACT but I assume it means ‘the’ Federal Minister. There is further references to Ministerial Council .. see later in this post ... Either way .. So I person is responsible for appointing 3 other people who will make all the decisions to regulate our industry?

If they have been “an executive officer of a registered training organisation” in the previous 2 years they can not be appointed.

I guess this is to try and avoid bias or conflict of interest?

Out of the 3 people or Commissioners, one must be appointed Chief Commissioner and another one Deputy Chief Commissioner. It also notes that they can be ‘re-appointed’ .. and somewhere I read something about them being appointed for a 5 year term (but I can’t locate that reference at the moment)

Section 159 entitled “Independence of the National VET Regulator” states that apart from Section 160, “the National VET Regulator is not subject to direction from anyone in relation to the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers”.

Section 160 begins with “The Minister may, by legislative instrument, give a direction to the National VET Regulator if the Minister considers that the direction is necessary to protect the integrity of the VET sector” then lists the 4 areas the Minister can’t give direction about which basically includes registering individual RTOs, particular NVR RTOs and the accreditation of courses.

Again .. more on ‘The Minister’ in a later post and remember the term “legislative instrument” it becomes very important to us under this ACT!

So at the moment we have the GG appointing 3 people to be the NVR (I assume on the recommendation of ‘The Minister’?) ...

Also in the ACT there is substantial reference to Ministerial Council which is defined as “the body known as the Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment on the day on which this definition commences.”

This is commonly know as MCTEE and is compromised of the ‘relevant’ education type Ministers from all States and Territories and Senator the Hon Chris Evans represents the Commonwealth, so I assume at the moment he is “The Minister” that the ACTS references.

In another post I’ll look at the role of MCTEE in greater detail ..

There is a lot more information about the powers, roles and procedures of the NVR in the ACT which I will try and summarise in a later post.

But at this point it seems to me that the Body which Regulates our Industry:

· May be or may not be a ‘Statutory Body’;

· Should be known as some version of ‘NVR’ and / or maybe also ASQA?

· Comprises of 3 people appointed by one person but hopefully in consultation at least with a Ministerial Council made up of representatives from all over Australia.

Right. Good. That is all as clear as mud.

Finally, to close this post here is one thing we should NOT say.

Let’s never refer to just “The Vet Regulator” because according to the definitions in Section 3 this can mean EITHER the National VET Regulator OR .. “a body of a non‑referring State that is responsible for the kinds of matters dealt with by this Act”

We really do not want or need to be confused by what and which regulator we are talking about.

11 days to go and the Law is the Law .... and more ...

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 12:42:00 +0000

Have you actually read the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 ? Ok .. probability not. BUT .. we all should!

This IS 'our' new law! It is in many ways the ultimately authority for and of our new authority and regulator. I'm not a lawyer and any posts I make are not legal advice (obviously).
Over the next few days I will be making some comments on my reading and understanding of 'this law'. (which actually isn't a 'law' yet but rather a proclamation ? - Feel free to correct me! but it can't and won't be law until 1/7/11 ?? Feel free to correct me!) ...anyway . it is pretty close to being 'our law' as I understand it!
And there is HEAPS I want to say about it ... (especially about the composition of our leaders and the other 'legal instruments' that will govern what we do and who we are ...)
So more to come ... but in the meantime ... I think we all should read our (soon to be) ACT!
(see links above!)

Update on TVET

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 06:42:00 +0000

The attached link is a letter from Neil Edwards Chief Executive Officer of TVET (16/6/11) and provides an update on a range of TVET activities and programs.

It is worth a read to keep update on our ever changing landscape.

I think part of it, with respect to the FLAG Secretariat might also be related to Coach Carole’s comment on the last post of this blog.

And so the ride continues!

PS I would recommend anyone interested in learning and personal and professional development check out Coach Carole’s Blog. You will really find a wealth of information there!

12 days to go ... & so many things to say ‘goodbye’ to ..

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:32:00 +0000

Wow. Not only is the 1/7/11 the beginning of a new era but the 30/6/11 is also the ending (and the beginning of the ending ) of so many things that have been a part of our VET landscape for so long.

Hopefully it will be end of ...the crazy differences between state borders which lead to the discussions (read arguments) on who said what because of a post code!

While we are looking forward to the new VET era, it is also pertinent to take a moment and reflect on some goodbyes.

SixtySeconds, the enewsletter from Education Services Australia announced that this June newsletter is their final one “following a decision to consolidate Education Services Australia’s communication services” They go on to say ...

“We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support and contributions over the many years. In bringing SixtySeconds to you we hope we have been able to keep you informed about research and trends in education as we, together, embraced ICT in education and in our daily lives.”

I am sad to this newsletter go as I have always found something of interest in it and I have loved the way it always has had such a broad scope of national and international news and information.

Then in the next breadth they say edna is to be decommissioned commencing 30 June 2011

While I may not have been a visually active member of edna I have been a frequent lurker and often spent many hours on this site. Launched in my home town of Brisbane in 1997, she has been a big part of my personal learning and development over the years. “

Direct from the website is ...

edna news, events and resources

The edna website and most associated services will cease, including:

news headlines, newsletters, news RSS feeds (AND I have heaps of these)

resources, theme pages, search and browse functions and associated RSS feeds

event listings, schools calendar, event RSS feeds

Content currently on the site will be accessible until 30 September 2011

The me.edu.au professional networking service will cease on 30 September 2011

OzProjects (http://www.ozprojects.edu.au) .. funded as part of the edna suite of services and therefore will cease on 31 December 2011.

They do say ...

Every effort will be made to assist users to extract their own content where this applies. Please email your enquiries to support@edna.edu.au

And some good news is edna Groups (http://www.groups.edna.edu.au) and edna Lists (http://www.lists.edna.edu.au) will continue and they note

“It is expected that this service will be more community-based with help information provided on the site and through user forums”

Finally, in what feels like (well to me anyway..) a sad farewell they note ..

An edna Feedback Forum has been set up for anyone who would like to provide comments or take a journey through the history of edna.

Goodbye Edna, I for one will really miss you and I will make an entry in the feedback forum and finally turn from a lurker into a contributor. (I hope my lack of visual participation, combined with I’m sure so many others isn’t the reason for this demise)

And at least she will sort of continue albeit in another form.

And then there is the IBSA Wiki. Yup Gone as well. Now I did contribute on this a fair bit and it is true that it was always getting spammed and there just wasn’t the critical mass of constant contributions to make it really vibrant.

I am pleased to note from both IBSA Website and in replay to an email I sent to them that they ...” are in the process of moving to other social networking opportunities in the near future, and will be in contact with you when this has occurred.”

One thing is though that in the past I had used some of my comments as evidence of my currency and engaging in industry consultations. Now all of that is gone I guess! (Another good reason to keep up my blogging and get my own Wiki up and running!)

Who Else? ... Yes that is right ...

TVET Australia is being ‘wound up’ and despite comments on the 25/3/11 in an open letter from the chairman Mr John Dawkins that there would be ... “A detailed transition plan .... with implementation in the second part of 2011” and noting back then “we would expect to provide advice in a number of weeks” ...

I haven’t heard anymore... Have you? I could easily have missed it with everything going on, So if there has been further information I’d really like to know what it is please.

And of course TVET also has Training Products Australia (TPA). I am assuming ‘this’ is staying but as well know Training Packages as we currently know them are changing too with the first lot of new and improved versions due to be released sometime mid July.

Personally I am quite excited about this! ... I just can’t wait to see them. I just wish I knew which ones were going to be unveiled FIRST!

Another part of the reason I am so interested in TVET is because it supports (or did support) such things as: the Flexible Learning Advisory Group (an incredibly GREAT organisation / program) as well as AEShareNet, and the Learning Objects Repository Network (LORN).

I’m just wondering what their future is in this changing landscape.

The other part of TVET’s other core business includes the management of the National Audit and Registration Agency (NARA), we were actually having a good discussion on this on Linked In but it seems like it has been ‘archived’ and I don’t seem to be able to access it anymore.

Anyway, one of my points was ... I was always impressed by what appeared to be the ‘set up’ of NARA (I know some people felt differently) but the only thing that stoped me going over was the difference in fees. NOW it seems like we are going to have an increase in fees anyway with no indication that concepts like a relationship manager will be incorporated.

But who knows what the fees will be! And with only 12 days to go ... I wonder how those RTOs are feeling who know in less than 2 weeks they have a new regulator but no idea of how much they will be paying for the privilege.

Actually, through some other discussions I do have some idea about how some of them feel!

Which leads me into my last comment on ‘goodbyes’. I don’t want to be dramatic or overly pessimistic but I can’t help wondering and even being a bit fearful that the rest of 2011 and 2012 will see us saying ‘goodbye’ to a number of our brother and sister RTOs.

I’m not talking about the few bad eggs or the coupe of cowboys every industry has. To them I say ‘good riddance’. But rather I am thinking about the small niche RTOs and maybe even a few of the not so small RTOs. The RTOs who have been and continue to do a great job with and for their clients.

The ones who do care so much, who do provide such excellent, quality services and have glowing testimonials to prove it.

I am fearful for them (and to be honest even a little for L&M) that the speed and degree of change, combined with almost an undercurrent of suspicion and distrust and then topped off with (perhaps) a substantial increase in fees ... will just mean that the ‘good guys’ just throw up their hands and say

“Seriously! It is just not worth it!”

Our VET landscape will be poorer, less diverse and most importantly our collective clients will be worse off, if that was to happen.

All of US ...surfing the swells

http://articlevolcano.net/surfing-the-swells-on-a-lanzarote-holiday.html

So from L&M’s point of view, we are riding the wave.

We know we have a strong board and the skills to match

Layne or even Occy

(back in his day .. and now I’m showing my age!).

There is only 12 days till the first breakers of

this new dawn...

and in the meantime ...

‘Surf’s Up’ and the ride is exhilarating isn’t it!

PS If there is anything or anyone else we should ‘say goodbye’ to please let me know or just leave a comment below

13 days to go & AO RTOs are ‘allowed’

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:15:00 +0000

A few days ago I emailed the ASQA to just confirm that Assessment Only RTOs would be allowed under the new regime. I pleased to say that I got a timely response. Admittedly I had to email them back to clarify their answer as parts of it didn’t seem to make sense and in fact was ‘contradictory’.

As in the first sentence said NO (ie We can clarify that under the National VET Regulator registration system, RTOs will no longer be able to be identified as ‘Assessment Only”.) but then went on to say “Where an organisation applies for assessment only delivery, this will be acknowledged when their application is risk assessed and the consequent audit scoped.”

BUT when I emailed them back saying ‘ummm can you clarify please?’ they responded really quickly with

“RTOs will be able to apply to ‘assessment only’. The required audit will be scoped to account for this. The national register will not differentiate RTOS that are assessment only, from training and assessment.

Your current model will be permissible based on what you have advised.”

So YAH! L&M has had a question answered and we can remain assessment only! Exactly what Qualifications we will be able to maintain on scope will depend on exactly what the Fees end up being and how and when they charged.

We wait with bated breath for that information.

14 days to go: When & to whom will I actually pay my fee(s)?

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:12:00 +0000

Lifetimes & Milestones is registered in Queensland and our registration as an RTO expires on the 20/10/2013. Normally our annual fee is invoiced by the department at the commencement of each financial year (ie 1/7/11).

So this year, on the 1/7/11 we will not technically be part of the NVR as Qld RTOs will be "transfer(ed) to ASQA later in 2011, at dates currently being negotiated".

Question 2 in this count down has 5 parts.

2a) Will the Queensland Department still invoice me on or the 1/7/11? (I am assuming YES)
2b) Will the amount be in line with previous amounts? (I am assuming YES)
2c) When 'we' are transferred to ASQA will they 'charge' me? (I am assuming YES)
2d) Will they charge me a / the FULL Registration Fee or just the 'to be released' Annual Fee? (I have no idea BUT I HOPE it will only be the Annual Fee)
Remember, in the May 2011 National update newsletter they said "The fee structure also includes an annual registration fee, which spreads the ongoing cost of registration over the life of the registration period."
2e) Will they credit me with the amount of the annual fee I have already paid the Queensland Department? (I am assuming YES and in some kind of pro-rata way)
And that makes me wonder if then the Queensland department will have to hand over (pro-rata) the annual fee I paid?
With 14 days to go until my colleagues in NSW, ACT & NT become the first wave of NVR RTOs ...
Do any RTOs in NSW, ACT & NT know ... how much you are going to be charged?
(I am assuming you will be charged by the ASQA/NVR)
And for the rest of us
Can anyone answer any of the 5 part (a-e) Questions above please?

15 days to go: Q1 What Fees?

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Zarubin) — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:36:00 +0000

1. What fees, as an RTO, (i.e. member of this new family structure) will I be paying?There was a discussion document released (earlier last month) and I know "The submissions received are currently being analysed, and the proposed schedule will be revised to reflect the excellent and considered feedback that stakeholders have provided" and thankyou for your thankyou for the feedback BUT ... with 15 days to go before 'our' big launch .... ummm ... as far as I know no one actually knows what we will be paying. (?)

Yes ... in the May 2011 National update newsletter I saw and appreciate the comment "ASQA's proposed fees and charges schedule has now been recalibrated to increase the number of organisations that are eligible to pay the minimum registration fees. The fee structure also includes an annual registration fee, which spreads the ongoing cost of registration over the life of the registration period."

That is great! But with 'only' 15 days to go I'd really like to know exactly what "has now been recalibrated" means and what the "an annual registration fee" will be.