Implications of QCTO OQSF Policy document

[Des Squire]

Hi Sylvia
My understanding would be as set out by John in the response above. However what does need urgent clarification is the issue of the 4 forms of qualification you quite rightly question above also.
If simulated learning is permitted for all new OQSF qualifications then I perceive a real problem when it comes to practical application of knowledge gained. This cannot be assessed by means of a simulated exercise.
Is it possible that the EISA is intended to bridge this glaring error???

[Lynel Farrell]

Hi Des,
Simulated learning is most definitely not permitted for all Occupational Qualifications – it all depends if it is possible. For generic qualifications, it makes sense. Each Occupational Qualification, whether it is generic, complex/technical, a trade or a part-qualification – the Curriculum Document guides us and gives a clear indication of the requirements that need to be in place: Physical Requirements, Human Resource Requirements, Legal Requirements, and any Exemptions. If we look at a bookkeeper, occupational trainer, office administrator – this can all be done in a simulated environment. Other qualifications that are more technical might have a simulated workplace, but at a huge cost.

If we look at the mining industry, we would think that an underground simulated workplace is impossible, right? I was taken to a simulated “underground” workplace, which I thought could never be done. Yes, it cost a couple of million to build. Once built, it requires continuous maintenance and upkeep.

In order to create a simulated workplace, a lot of planning and funds will be required to have the perfect simulated workplace. For the providers that are not able to create this, the other option is to get a suitable Employer to open their doors for your learners, in order to obtain the workplace experience.

Change is very difficult, but we have to look at all the possible solutions to the problems that providers face. I believe that a simulated workplace is most definately one of the solutions (if at all possible).

[Sylvia F. Hammond]

Hi Des,
Thanks for your posting.

Yes, I believe that Lynel is correct in that it is not all qualifications, because there is a separate clause that indicates that the industry stakeholders could determine differently.

Now, that is not necessarily a straightforward question. It may potentially be a problem, because it depends upon who is making the decisions. What are the power relationships in the industry? Do the stakeholders identified have vested interests, for example: in keeping other industry players out? Does the QCTO have the ability to prevent that happening?

We know that in virtually each economic sector we have a handful of large multi-national and national players. We have a missing middle – for various reasons – and a large component of small, micro, and informal stakeholders.

Lynel’s example is interesting, yes, there are industries where simulations are appropriate, mining certainly is one, and flying aircraft – (when they are flying) is another one.

However, to my mind, instead of putting plasters on the wound, we should solve the injury – working out how to get people into working relationships, where they can be trained should be the ultimate focus.

Our focus is how to get people qualified – although there is no work.

Now I realise that this is an argument for another day – about supply and demand.

• This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Sylvia F. Hammond.

[Author]

Posts