There is an old saying that people are hired for their skills and fired for their behaviour. In a competency-based world we could change this slightly to read that people are hired for their qualifications and fired for their (lack of) competence.
As readers will know, I have posted numerous articles over the years (which I really must put into a single volume) on the subject of competence and, more widely, the issue of change right across our VET sector. Some of these articles have been helpful, while others were written more out of frustration at the world on that particular day and thereby viewed for what they were - a much needed venting of the spleen.
In looking back over these articles, I began to wonder why it has been so hard to gain traction on a serious discussion about not only the need for change to our VET system but the many dangers of not doing so. For example, I have written ad infinitum (or is that ad nauseam?) about the difference between summative and competency-based assessment (not that this discussion has done any good because there still seems to be much confusion about this), and why the two should never be confused. I have also written - often and at length - about the need to give equal consideration to the ‘V’, the ‘E’ and the ‘T’ when thinking about adult and technical education.
I also remember sitting back and watching heated discussions arise when the notion of a regulated training industry has been the subject, and how much it makes life difficult for trainers to keep up with the myriad of changes, amendments, rules, and threats which permeate the industry. But none of these articles appear to have as much as scratched the surface of the issues concerning our struggling VET system.
Then it struck me that what I have been challenging experienced and novice trainers and assessors to engage in is something that does not even belong to them. And because it doesn't belong to them then the necessity to give it a good scratch has never been that important.
You see what I have failed to focus a light on is the fact that trainers and assessors do not own the objective of all their training and assessment – competence, and in particular the way competence is described and assessed.
A thread running through all of my articles is the frustration at the way terminology is so often wrongly employed throughout the VET sector and the failure to recognise the resultant confusion that arises about where such concepts as competence fits and to whom it refers. For example, we hear of summative or formative assessment referred to as competency-based, but they are not. And the way the Rules of Evidence are applied in determining whether or not someone is competent seems to depend more on how they are interpreted by the trainer than how they were designed.
The continuous misinterpretation...
The continuous misinterpretation of the terminology is probably because in today's VET system training is accepted as a more critical factor than assessment in the notion of who is or is not competent. In other words, whether someone is competent depends more on what they have been trained in than on what they can do. Everything seems to focus on how someone is trained (and, for the regulators, by whom), or whether or not training has even been a factor in their learning. As a result, a belief has emerged that trainers can determine whether or not students and trainees have achieved the desired level of competence.
Before the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are loosed in my direction, let me explain. For many there is a belief that to be qualified is the same as to be competent. It is not – for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is that competence can only be recognised through the application of skills and knowledge, in the workplace, over time.
Now, I know many will say that they do assess individuals either in a real workplace or in an environment which as close as possible replicates that found in the world of work. I acknowledge this, but we must hasten to add that the assessment is that which is found in the guidelines which underpin the qualification the student is seeking. If the trainer employs any other standards, then by rights the qualification cannot be issued.
The problem is...
Unless the standards against which the assessment is carried out are endorsed by employers then a gap remains between what the person has been assessed as competent at, and what they must do in order to be competent on the job.
And here is where the problem begins to arise:
The standards against which all assessments are carried out for the purpose of a qualification are 'endorsed' (to one degree or another) by representatives of the industry concerned. (Except, ironically, in the case of the standards for trainers and assessors.) The purpose of this is to ensure training is relevant across an industry sector thereby enabling qualified staff to transfer their skills and knowledge to different workplaces.
That is all well and good for the industry, but no employer is ever going to hire someone on the basis that they have a level of competence which is more relevant across an industry than within their workplace.
Which brings us to the question of ownership: Who owns the competence against which students are assessed?
You see, every part of the VET system is ‘owned’ by somebody – except competence. The bureaucrats don’t own competence even though they try very hard to put rules and regulations around it. And nor do the highly paid consultants who are constantly writing and revising training packages or curricula in which they claim competence is described. More importantly, competence is not owned by industry, even though we are constantly told that everything within the VET sector is ‘industry-driven’.
Everything – the training program the potential recruit attended, the qualification they gained, and the skills and knowledge which are attained through attendance at a course of instruction – are created by and therefore belong to others. The trainer, for example, owns the training program and the bureaucrats own the regulations (which is why they can so freely change them whenever they wish). The qualification is owned by the relevant qualifications’ authority, and the skills and knowledge are an essential part of the person, but competence, well that is owned by the person who must use it in order to achieve business and strategic objectives.
"Competence is owned by employers."
And there are the employers...
That is right, competence is owned by employers. Those in whose companies or workshops individuals are paid to apply the skills and knowledge which form what we term as competent performance. It is the employer (or his/her delegate, e.g., supervisor or line manager) who determines what skills and knowledge must be applied in the achievement of day-to-day activities, and the standard of both the application and the achievement. And employers hold on tightly to this ownership because competence provides the key performance which provides the foundation for the building bricks that support the achievement of business and strategic objectives essential to any business, large or small.
People may know many things, but what they do in the workplace separates the qualified from the competent performer. And while the average employer could not tell the difference between a certificate gained at one institution over a similar one gained at another (or the quality of the respective institutions), they can certainly tell the difference between someone who can do a job and a person who cannot.
They understand these differences because the performance of the individual, once acceptable to the employer and appropriately compensated, belongs to that employer. More importantly, what is acceptable to one employer may not be acceptable to another. Sure, someone who is demonstrably competent can take their skills and knowledge (and experience) and move to another workplace, but competence is only measured at the time and in the context within which it is applied. Not before, and not after.
So, from a trainer’s perspective, it is inappropriate to believe that a student body from different industries and workplaces can all be trained to a level of competence acceptable to their current or prospective employer. They can’t. This is demonstrated time and again by analysts who are so fond of using the Bell Curve to illustrate educational achievements. The ‘mean’ is the average score, and the closer the mean is to a central point the more successful has been the training. But there are many scores either side of the mean indicating that some students are lower in terms of competence (at the time the assessment was conducted) and others are higher. At the end of the day, however, all will be presented with the same qualification.
"Average competence, is not what employers seek."
To employers, ‘average’ is not what they seek. They seek competent workers, employees who can meet the standards that the employer demands because only through the application of such competence, to these standards, will the organisation achieve its objectives. And it is the employer alone who can determine who is or is not competent (despite all being qualified).
It is as simple as that.
Important Note to Trainers
So, trainers, next time you are tempted to discuss how competent your students or trainees are, or how relevant their qualification is to the labour market, ask yourself who is the only person who can make that judgement. By doing so you may find that you are more effective in preparing your students for whatever may face them in the future.
sourced from an article by Dr. Phil Rutherford PhD
Comments