The Australian Industry Group Engineering Excellence Report November 2015 Competency based progression and completion for engineering trades Engineering Excellence Report APPENDICES Careers Australia Case Study Systems in place before the project started How was training and assessment timetabled? CAIT was mainly using a campus based delivery model for the majority of engineering training when the project started, having only just commenced a blended delivery model. This had commenced in late 2012, early 2013 and involved campus based training and on-the-job (workplace) training for engineering apprentices. CAIT delivery had been designed so that an apprentice should be able to complete training and assessment for a minimum of their required units every year of their training contract. There were no rules that stopped the apprentice from attending more than the minimum training as per their training plan, unless they had pre-requisites that they needed to complete first. CAIT training plans were majority of 4 stage plans but most training was scheduled over 3 years where possible, to ensure the apprentice still had ample time to complete assessment on the job if necessary. Most training and assessment prior to November 2012 for CAIT apprentices was on campus training which was timetabled by Campus Managers and/or administration staff in Brisbane. If training occurred on campus most assessment was also undertaken on campus, but competency was not completed until the employer signed the third party verification form to say the apprentice was competent in the workplace. How were employers engaged with the training? Employers were engaged with the training from the Induction process and negotiation of the training plans. CAIT training plans were in a template form, however employers could negotiate to swap electives where required to suit their workplace if workplace delivery was negotiated, or where there was an elective that CAIT could deliver on campus. Otherwise training plans were agreed to at the point of sign up and electives were recommended by CAIT as the most relevant units required by industry to support that trade. The majority of training plans at the time were the same for most employers as not as many employers then negotiated for changes in units. Employers were visited at the beginning of the apprenticeship, then if workplace delivery had been arranged they were visited regularly by the trainer, every 6–8 weeks at a minimum, to train their apprentice. If the apprentice was to attend campus based training and assessment, then the employer was only visited if there was a concern or a site visit was necessary. The majority of employers were visited face to face approximately once a year by a CAIT staff member to check on the apprentice and the training. 53 Careers Australia Case Study The majority of contact with the employer who had apprentices attending campus based training was done over the phone, with some email. Confirmation of training dates were always posted out to the employer with a reminder email sent the week before the scheduled training date. How were employers engaged with confirming assessments? CAIT required the employer to be involved with the college training at their own discretion. The only formal requirement that CAIT requested of the employer was to monitor and sign the training record book of the apprentice as they progressed through their training, or when the employer was satisfied with the apprentice’s ability to perform unit specific tasks to industry standard. CAIT did require the employer to confirm the apprentice’s competency by a third party verification form. The employer was not always contacted by CAIT personally. Often the apprentice was requested to take the third party form back to work with them after attending training and ask their employer to sign it and send it back if they were satisfied that the apprentice was industry competent in the tasks for that unit. Most employers were contacted directly, by phone, email or fax to sign the third party verification of assessment for their apprentices. This occurred after every unit of competency had been trained and assessed. Employers were not informed of the apprentice’s progression formally. All notification to the employer was either done informally when a trainer was on site and spoke to the employer, or it was assumed the employer would be aware of their progression from training notices which notified the employer of the units the apprentice was now up to on their training plan. Systems that needed to be changed or developed CAIT Identified that many engineering training plans did not specify that all units of competency required a third party verification. CAIT implemented a process where all units of competency must have a third party verification to be signed by the employer before competency is issued. The CAIT purchasing system did not align to the revenue reports, so if a campus purchased items for training, they may not have been coded to the relevant qualification and therefore did not report accurately the costs of running the program compared to the revenue being received on that campus. CAIT did not have a system in place to notify employers that their apprentice had completed a stage in their apprenticeship. Many of the trainers were not confident in delivering workplace-based training, and believed it was not delivering quality training and assessment to apprentices. Most of these trainers preferred classroom delivery methods. 54 Careers Australia Case Study Barriers to making changes Staff attitudes Many staff did not believe that apprentices should be able to progress before their anniversary dates, which contradicts the intent of competency based progression. Many staff did not believe the workplace training model allowed them enough time to train the apprentice in all aspects of the trade. Many staff did not have confidence speaking with employers directly about the apprentice and their progression. Managers and internal management/funding systems The constant re-structuring of the organisation during the project meant that there were many mangers in charge of the project officer and representing CAIT at the SIG meetings. Over 2 years there were four general managers and two project officers. External barriers Reducing commencement numbers nationally in the engineering trades and economic concerns for some local employers losing big contracts to China were a barrier. STA funding was an issue. It can be a long process to get payment for apprentices when employers don’t want to sign off on competency. Attitudes of employers Many employers did not believe that apprentices should progress before their anniversary dates. They believed that apprentices are not competent until they have had a full year at that level, and many attitudes included “I took 4 years so they should too”. Some employers held back apprentice’s competency verification as this would delay the trigger for wage progression. Employers were sometimes not happy with the level of equipment available on campus in Townsville for practical aspects of training delivery. Addressing the barriers Information sessions were held for staff about competency based progression processes to gain “buy in” with trainers that these methods benefit everyone. This assisted the staff who did not believe that apprentices should be able to progress before their anniversary dates. Professional development was held for all the staff on the “blended learning model”. This assisted those who did not believe the workplace training model allowed enough time to train apprentices in 55 Careers Australia Case Study all aspects of the trade. Trainers were also made aware that their role in the workplace setting is to “assess and gap train”, as employers accept the responsibility for the bulk of the training activity when choosing this mode of delivery. CAIT developed a performance management process which allowed supervisors and managers to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the training staff, then programmed staff according to those who are best suited to work based training models and those who are classroom based trainers. Through this process it also identified those staff who may be good at the on the job training component but that did not have confidence in speaking with employers directly about the apprentice and their progression. CAIT developed ‘mini’ training sessions for those staff. CAIT also took all staff through a revised TAE qualification to help develop their skills in all aspects of training and assessment, along with additional training in the LLN competency for all trainers. CAIT modified tools developed by SkillsTech Australia under the project for Employer Resource Assessments. These allow the CAIT trainers to identify the resources in place at a workshop which then allows them to develop the training plan, and train more accurately and confidently, knowing what tools and equipment will be available for training in the workplace. CAIT has considered the implementation of a Competency Based Mapping Model developed by the TasTAFE project officer to help identify the skills and knowledge of trainers and assist in identifying gaps for further development of staff. The project also allowed for CAIT trainers to be involved in the “WorldSkills Engineering Excellence Team Challenge”. This gave trainers the opportunity to identify apprentices who have been studying through the blended learning model and workplace delivery and see their skills were on par or even above those apprentices who study under the lock step model. This assisted staff with the attitudes that on the job training did not allow apprentices to learn all aspects of their trade. CAIT established a new area in the organisation that is wholly dedicated to Program Development of specific trade areas, including engineering. This again has enabled the identification of staff who are strong in the development of on the job training and assessment tools, along with allowing CAIT to recruit current industry professionals who have broad experience in the Trade areas.