|
AQTF Audit Results
|
Audit Date:
|
26th May 2010
|
|
|
|
|
Qualifications audited
|
|
Qualification code
|
Qualification name
|
|
30841QLD
|
Certificate III Construction Materials Testing
|
|
BCC20107
|
Certificate II Civil Construction
|
|
BCC30707
|
Certificate III Civil Construction
|
|
BCC30507
|
Certificate III Civil Construction
|
|
LGA20104
|
Certificate II in Local Government
|
|
BCC30703
|
Certificate III Civil Construction
|
|
BCC20103
|
Certificate II Civil Construction
|
|
30390QLD
|
Certificate III Construction Materials Testing
|
|
Audit Outcome
|
Rectification
|
|
Was non-compliance identified?
|
If 'Yes', non-compliance type
|
Summary of non-compliance
|
Actions taken to rectify the non-compliance
|
Has the non-compliance been rectified?
|
|
Yes/No
|
Minor, Significant, Critical
|
Yes/No
|
|
Yes
|
Minor
|
30841QLD CMT2009A Conduct Computer Operations. The organisation did not have access to training materials for the delivery of this unit
|
The organisation advised that learners use specific software at the employer site specific to the geotechnical and civil construction industry
|
Yes
|
|
Yes
|
Minor
|
BCC20107 BCCCM2006B Support Plant BCCCM1005B Handle Construction Material and safely dispose of non-toxic materials
30841QLD
CMT2009A Conduct Computer Operations CMT2004C Read and interpret test standards
The organisation provided evidence of observation checklists for the above units of competency.
These checklists include broad descriptions of tasks observed by assessor and workplace supervisor.
They do not evidence sufficient interpretation of unit requirements into observable tasks.
Whilst the organisation has developed detailed benchmark criteria to guide the assessor,
the actual recording of evidence is conducted on observation checklists which do not clearly outline specific skills.
|
BCC20107
BCCCM2006B BCCCM1005B
30841QLD
Demonstration of access to Training materials for CMT2009A which meet all requirements of industry and support the learner in achieving required level of competence. CMT2009A CMT2004C Organisation amended its observation checklists to include sufficient interpretation of the units’ requirements into observable tasks for the required skills and critical aspects of evidence. Created sufficient assessment evidence supported by suitable benchmark criteria, where 3rd party reports are required, the organisation has included sufficient interpretation of unit requirements that are meaningful to the 3rd party.
|
Yes
|
|
Yes
|
Minor
|
Lack of consistency in the retention of assessment records Organisation’s staff have not met their obligation with regard to record keeping
|
Process created to ensure staff meets their obligation’s with regard to record keeping.
|
Yes
|
|
Yes
|
Minor
|
Postcodes identified where the majority of training took place were inconsistent with AVETMISS submissions.
Organisation advised that it had maintained a central postcode for all students to avoid discrepancies within
student management system.
|
Verification of actual postcodes determined that the use of a common postcode had not impacted or resulted in additional claims except for 1 student to the detriment of the organisation
|
Yes
|
|
Yes
|
Minor
|
BCC20107
BCCCM1005B – inaccurately reported the outcome identifier code as 51 (RPL) however training and assessment had been conducted.
This outcome should be 20 (competency achieved).
BCCC2006B – 1 student file contained evidence of self assessment, however, the checklist was not signed by supervisor and assessor.
Student 2 – Answer 2 in written assessment marked incorrect, however, there is no comment from the assessor explaining oral questioning
was conducted and student was deemed competent.
30841QLD
Inaccurate claim for 1 student – Outcome ID Code 51 (RPL) - should have been a credit (60)
|
Outcome changed to 20
Organisation has developed mechanisms to ensure all assessments are marked by the assessor before competency is achieved, and all signatures are to be attained.
Outcome changed to 60
|
Yes
Yes
|
Explanatory notes:
Non-compliance with the AQTF means that requirements of the have not been met based on the evidence reviewed.
Non-compliances are categorised as minor, significant or critical. For the purposes of the User Choice 2010 – 2015 program,
only significant and Critical non-compliances need to be published
Minor: No, or minor, adverse impact on learners with no serious breakdown of provision of quality training and assessment.
Significant: Significant adverse impact on learners with insufficient focus on quality training and assessment outcomes.
Critical: Critical adverse impact on learners with widespread or persistent dissatisfaction with services and outcomes.
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-26219373-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
|