As a Pre-qualified Supplier under the User Choice 2010 – 2015 program, Simmonds & Bristow Pty Ltd is required to publish audit information in relation to it’s compliance with the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF).
The User Choice program provides public funding paid directly to Pre-qualified Suppliers for the delivery of accredited entry-level training to eligible Apprentices and Trainees.
The AQTF is the national set of standards which assures nationally consistent, high-quality training and assessment services for the clients of Australia’s vocational education and training system.
An AQTF audit reviews evidence of an organisations’ compliance with the requirements of the AQTF Essential Conditions and Standards of Initial/Continuing Registration to confirm that it is achieving quality training and assessment outcomes. The process also identifies opportunities for improvement on these outcomes.
This information is published to assist apprentices, trainees and their employers to make informed decisions regarding their selection of a Pre-qualified Supplier for the delivery of training and assessment services.
|
Audit Date:
|
19 August 2011
|
|
|
|
|
Qualifications audited
|
|
Qualification code
|
Qualification name
|
|
NWP20107
|
Certificate II in Water Operations
|
|
NWP40107
|
Certificate IV in Water Operations
|
|
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
|
Minor
|
NWP218B Perform and record sampling
· The assessment tools did not address all of the requirements of the units of competency, and did not include supporting evidence criteria for the assignment/practical exam or field assessment.
· The Work Readiness Assessment (WRA) consisted of an observation checklist that was a direct copy of the unit of competence, did not have tasks that were contextualised, did not detail tasks that could be observed and did not have sufficient evidence to support the assessor's decision of competence.
|
To provide a suite of assessment tools that address all the requirements of the units of competency, include supporting evidence criteria for the assignment/practical exam or field assessment; the WRAs should include tasks that are contextualised into appropriate workplace language, detail tasks to be observed and to have sufficient evidence to support the assessor's decision of competence.
|
Yes
|
|
Yes
|
Minor
|
NWP259B Operate, monitor and maintain pump stations
· The assessment tools did not address all of the requirements of the units of competency, and did not include supporting evidence criteria for the project.
· The Work Readiness Assessment (WRA) consisted of an observation checklist that was a direct copy of the unit of competence, did not have tasks that were contextualised, did not detail tasks that could be observed and did not have sufficient evidence to support the assessor's decision of competence.
|
To provide assessment tools that address all the requirements of the units of competency, include supporting evidence criteria for the project; the WRAs should have tasks that are contextualised into appropriate workplace language, detail tasks that could be observed and have sufficient evidence to support the assessor's decision of competence.
|
Yes
|
Explanatory notes:
Non-compliance with the AQTF means that requirements 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.
As a Pre-qualified Supplier under the User Choice 2010 – 2015 program, Simmonds & Bristow Pty Ltd is required to publish audit information in relation to it’s compliance with the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF).
The User Choice program provides public funding paid directly to Pre-qualified Suppliers for the delivery of accredited entry-level training to eligible Apprentices and Trainees.
The AQTF is the national set of standards which assures nationally consistent, high-quality training and assessment services for the clients of Australia’s vocational education and training system.
An AQTF audit reviews evidence of an organisations’ compliance with the requirements of the AQTF Essential Conditions and Standards of Initial/Continuing Registration to confirm that it is achieving quality training and assessment outcomes. The process also identifies opportunities for improvement on these outcomes.
This information is published to assist apprentices, trainees and their employers to make informed decisions regarding their selection of a Pre-qualified Supplier for the delivery of training and assessment services.
|
Audit Date:
|
19 August 2011
|
|
|
|
|
Qualifications audited
|
|
Qualification code
|
Qualification name
|
|
NWP20107
|
Certificate II in Water Operations
|
|
NWP40107
|
Certificate IV in Water Operations
|
|
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
|
Minor
|
NWP218B Perform and record sampling
· The assessment tools did not address all of the requirements of the units of competency, and did not include supporting evidence criteria for the assignment/practical exam or field assessment.
· The Work Readiness Assessment (WRA) consisted of an observation checklist that was a direct copy of the unit of competence, did not have tasks that were contextualised, did not detail tasks that could be observed and did not have sufficient evidence to support the assessor's decision of competence.
|
To provide a suite of assessment tools that address all the requirements of the units of competency, include supporting evidence criteria for the assignment/practical exam or field assessment; the WRAs should include tasks that are contextualised into appropriate workplace language, detail tasks to be observed and to have sufficient evidence to support the assessor's decision of competence.
|
Yes
|
|
Yes
|
Minor
|
NWP259B Operate, monitor and maintain pump stations
· The assessment tools did not address all of the requirements of the units of competency, and did not include supporting evidence criteria for the project.
· The Work Readiness Assessment (WRA) consisted of an observation checklist that was a direct copy of the unit of competence, did not have tasks that were contextualised, did not detail tasks that could be observed and did not have sufficient evidence to support the assessor's decision of competence.
|
To provide assessment tools that address all the requirements of the units of competency, include supporting evidence criteria for the project; the WRAs should have tasks that are contextualised into appropriate workplace language, detail tasks that could be observed and have sufficient evidence to support the assessor's decision of competence.
|
Yes
|
Explanatory notes:
Non-compliance with the AQTF means that requirements 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.