The existing Australian Qualifications Framework is wrong for the times

Last week Google announced its Certificates programme (via Coursera) for Australians who want to train for :”high-growth tech” (CMM October 13).

It’s happening independent of the conventional training system – which may not bother people picking up skills, until they want to do another course at a conventional VET or HE provider and find they get not credit for what they learned with Google.

This could be fixed, if the Australian Qualifications Framework was updated, to make possible recognising as for-credit corporate provided training – which the 2019 review of the AQF by the late Peter Noonan and colleagues recommended (CMM October 24 2019).

But while governments and HE/VET groups were positive about the review when released, nothing much has happened since, (CMM December 10 2109, December 8 2020)).

So what’s the problem: The Noonan review is branded as too hard – but as the Australian Industry Group points out there are

Six myths about a new AQF.

* the existing AQF is okay: it’s not, it’s confusing, complex, and was not designed for life-long learning as the norm

* only some bits need changing: sorry, the new model is for “a connected tertiary sector” and it’s not for carving up.  And if you think that does not matter, “micro-credentials have proceeded, without attending to the necessary policy underpinning for credit recognition”

* it’s too complicated: in fact, changes to the existing structure will make the AQF easier to use, and “transparency and accuracy in qualification design and its representation of learning outcomes” has to happen

* it’s it’s irrelevant or over-reach: not if Australia is “to activate lifelong learning as a practical reality”

*  there are bigger issues: what, than replacing present “workarounds” with “qualifications and recognition pathways to better meet industry’s skills requirements”?

* formal qualifications aren’t relevant anymore: which is not the key issue. “A revised AQF can help unlock recognition pathways for different types of learning – including how we can better integrate industry certification or non-formal learning, and better support individuals to build their capabilities throughout their career.”

so what needs be done: What the previous government indicated it would do – it accepted all the Noonan review recommendations (CMM December 10 2019). But accepting was not followed by implementing.  Which needs to happen now.