Recognition of prior learning

Risk overview

Students who gain qualifications via recognition of prior learning (RPL), yet lack the required competency or knowledge, compromise the confidence that industry employers and the community have in national qualifications. Inadequate assessment practices and business models that are cutting corners in issuing RPL allow unqualified persons entry into critical roles, which poses a risk to themselves and others in the workplace and adversely impacts community safety.

Behaviours of concern include marketing and sales tactics that promote an easier path to qualification and outsourcing of RPL assessments to unregulated third parties. We are also concerned about potential collusion between providers and are looking into credit transfer practices between providers that are based on issuance of RPL.  

Key points from research

1. Some provider practices of unethical marketing of RPL services are impacting student expectations and damaging sector reputation. 
2. RPL may be exploited as a skilled migration pathway, with some third parties explicitly targeting RPL marketing toward international students.
3. Some providers who do not adequately assess RPL evidence for authenticity, completeness or currency against training package requirements are compromising the integrity of qualifications.
4. Providers that lack in-house or third-party gap training options to support RPL assessment are at increased risk of non-compliant assessments, resulting in students entering the workforce without essential skills.
5. Some licensing bodies report high rates of application rejection due to inadequate evidence to support RPL competency assessments in key areas.

Our regulatory response

We have a low tolerance of inadequate assessment practices and business models that are cutting corners in issuing RPL.

We are:

• sharing intelligence and working with occupational licensing bodies, other industry bodies, or both, for the purpose of ensuring compliance by RTOs with the NVETR Act 
• monitoring provider compliance targeting on inadequate assessment practices, credit transfer practices, false or misleading marketing of RPL, gap training unavailability and issuance of fraudulent qualifications
• focusing on RTOs being able to provide evidence that demonstrates how competence was determined prior to issuing AQF qualifications or statements of attainment. For example, the RTO must be able to demonstrate compliance with Clause 1.8, ensuring that assessment complies with the requirements of the training package, is conducted in accordance with the principles of assessment and rules of evidence. In addition, the trainer and assessor delivering the training and conducting assessment must comply with Clauses 1.13-1.16
• applying a range of escalating actions including issuing sanctions in response to non-compliance, including applying expanded offence and civil penalty provisions to cover a broader range of false or misleading representations by RTOs about their operations.