Feedback on Foundation Skills Training Package units November 2018 version

The Western Australian Adult Literacy Council has a long history in supporting adult educators to build their understanding of issues related to literacy and numeracy for adults. The following paper documents some issues with the November 2018 draft of the Foundation Skills Training Package. Please note that the size of the package means that the short time frame provided for feedback does not allow for a word by word response.

POSITIVES1. Standalone qualifications are more flexible

Requiring less core units in the standalone qualifications makes them more adaptable for different vocational contexts. Since these qualifications do not fulfil the purpose of providing preparatory general education for a broad range of purposes, they are should allow for a high degree of contextualization for particular purposes.Proposal: Accept new qualification structure.

2. Changes to unit names

This version proposes numerous changes to unit titles which is consistent with the Australian Core Skills Framework (ACSF) levels that units are pitched at. This is a useful use of the ACSF to flag which skills are needed (more complex skills or more simple; more familiar or more unique; more routine or more challenging).Proposal: Accept new names proposed for units.

3. Amended assessor statement

We support the removal of the ACSF from the definition of assessor expertise. The ACSF is only one component of the expertise of an LLN specialist and using it as proxy for this expertise suggests that some short training is sufficient to create a specialist. Workers with an adequate background in teaching literacy and numeracy to adults can add knowledge of the ACSF to their skills profile fairly easily but without this necessary background (which involves years of study and experience), a superficial knowledge of the ACSF does not equip a worker to adequately provide foundation skills support.Proposal: Accept removal of reference to ACSF in assessor statement.

NEGATIVES4. Removal of Training Package units as electives for qualifications

The standalone qualifications should be delivered in a vocational context when they are used as a full program separate to a vocational course of study. Allowing Training Package

units to be incorporated as electives is one way to provide the vocational context. Stripping the qualifications of this context removes all justification for their use. Students would be better to complete a more rigorous general education qualification which provides some credential that provides entry to other study options and a broader range of skills for a variety of pathways. Proposal: Retain provision for Training Package units to be imported into standalone qualifications.

5. Vague definition of purpose of units

Definition of the units as being designed for vocational and workplace contexts has been re-worded from:“This unit is designed for integration and contextualisation with vocational training to support achievement of vocational competency. “to“This unit should be integrated and contextualised with vocational training to support achievement of vocational competency. “The original wording is a clear statement of purpose, while the proposed replacement expresses a vague hope. Proposal: Retain the existing wording “This unit is designed for integration and contextualisation with vocational units to support achievement of vocational competency.“

6. Increased content from ACSF used in the performance evidence of each unit

Much more has been included from the ACSF to define the performance evidence of each unit. Where previously, the specialist LLN assessor was required to use the ACSF to pitch the unit at a level but the actual learning activities were driven by the vocational context, now a great deal of evidence must be collected which will often be entirely superfluous to the particular industry area and/or the needs of the student.

One of the reasons that so few individual FSKTP units are used to support vocational students is that they impose additional time and assessment requirements. If you incorporate even more unnecessary assessment requirements through comprehensive performance evidence, this means the units will have to be made longer to allow students to be taught and assessed against these broader requirements. This means that even fewer students will be able to access the support as they will spend longer meeting assessment requirements rather than receiving the support required by the demands of their vocational course.

Performance evidence cannot be used like a range statement to define the possible extent of the unit. As the current performance evidence is defined, it contradicts the statements in the application section of the unit “This unit is aligned to, but does not fully address, Australian Core Skills Framework (ACSF) numeracy core skill indicators (specific numbers) at level (nominated level)”. Copying all the performance features over means that the entire ACSF has been imported.

2

Proposal: Refer assessors to ACSF for relevant performance features, reminding them that the vocational context and students current capabilities will drive the needed skill development focus.

7. Vague assessor specifications

The Project summary states that there is no definition of LLN specialist. WAALC argues that the work on the Foundation Skills Professional Standards Framework (2017) has superseded this finding. Levels 3 and 4 of this Framework carefully defines the skills of specialist practitioners. Level 1 and 2 defines those who work in limited contexts and under supervision. Workers will vary in skill levels across different capabilities (eg someone might be higher in numeracy than digital technology and have another level for literacy) but the Framework can definitely be used to describe specialist skills needed to work in a particular role.

Since the Certificate IV LLN unit was added to the core of the basic entry level qualification for VET sector workers, some VET sector workers with no LLN teaching experience or other qualifications think they are qualified to meet their students’ foundation skills needs. However the TAE Training package itself defines the levels of skill required of a specialist adult literacy language numeracy par actioner so there is no excuse for allowing such misconceptions to go unchallenged.

We contend that better foundation skills outcomes are not achieved by making students enrol in more hours, nor by making students do more assessment: they are achieved by providing better teaching. The FSK units need to provide clear direction to identify this need.

Each state will have different pathways for adult literacy and numeracy specialists to build their skills, some common across Australia and others that are unique and long standing in the jurisdiction. RTOs with literacy on their scope have demonstrated to the relevant accreditation authority that they understand what specialist LLN provision entails. While to an outsider, it may seem difficult to define a LLN specialist, for those within the field, the judgement is reasonably consistent across different contexts.

Proposal: Wording be amended to: “Assessors must demonstrate specialist knowledge for teaching and assessment of the Core Skill – Numeracy (or reading, writing, learning, oral communication, digital technology) in a vocational or workplace context. “

8. Core skills areas naming

Digital cannot be used as the equivalent of reading, oral communication, writing, numeracy: it is incorrect grammatically as it is an adjective not a noun. It must be “digital capability” or “digital technology” or “digital communication”.

Proposal: Replace “digital” in the assessor statement for the digital stream with the terminology used in the Foundation Skills Professional Standards Framework: “digital technology”.

3

GENERAL COMMENTSThe Western Australian VET system has incorporated the Course in Applied Vocational Study Skills (CAVSS) as the primary methodology to provide embedded literacy support to vocational students in face to face classes because it focuses on quality of teaching rather than assessment and allows students to access high quality support without additional fees or assessment. This is a much more cost effective and useful service than using FSK units. WAALC does not believe units based on assessment offer good value in comparison.

However, some schools and Commonwealth funded providers doing jobseeker training use the qualifications from the FSK Training Package in WA and thus we offer feedback so that these disadvantaged students receive good services based on a fit for purpose training product.

The FSK units are also sometimes incorporated into other curricula. In some cases, we believe this is based on ignoring their role as learning support units for vocational and workplace contexts and attempting to make them also meet the broader needs of general education students. WAALC believes this needs to be addressed promptly especially where it means that students learning English are provided with very small number of hours to learn and demonstrate important skills. One size does not fit all. Using general education units for learning support for mainstream students in vocational qualifications means students are required to spend time acquiring skills that are not required for their core reason for study. The opposite is even worse, as using learning support units like the FSK in general education and English Language courses does not allow these students enough time to achieve their core reason for study (learning English or achieving a school equivalent qualification). The FSK needs to provide clear direction so curriculum writers are not forced to use the units inappropriately.

Western Australian Adult Literacy Council 18th December 2018

4