'I see nothing has changed': reshaping practitioner concerns about institutional change

My PhD research revealed widespread disquiet that Training Packages are typically written in a complex and abstract institutional language form that excludes all but knowledgeable readers. Many practitioners and participants struggle to understand the units of competency they are trying to work with. In a national VET system which claims that decision making and policy development are based on consultation and research, how can this disquiet go unnoticed? This paper examines a sequence of five texts drawn from the review and development of the Training Package qualifications for VET practitioners. It argues that the impact of an excluding language form has been recognised and then subsumed in two separate review and  development processes. When the first competency standards for workplace trainers and assessors were reviewed in 1997 much of the target population was found to lack awareness, familiarity, experience or expertise in using the standards. Yet the review is reported to have concluded that most users were satisfied with the language used in those standards. When the  Training Package for Assessment and Workplace Training was reviewed in 2001 the complex language was one of the most common issues raised in unprecedented consultations and was identified as a significant accessibility issue. Yet the Training and Assessment Training Package responded by entrenching the use of this language as a compulsory assessable requirement and suggesting that individuals who have difficulty with the language may require training to improve their own (presumed deficient) language and literacy skills. Practitioner input was ‘written down’ but not ‘taken up’. The paper concludes that the concerns expressed by practitioners exposed to public critique fundamental issues about a Training Package that was a ‘lynchpin’ of the VET system and a key component of the ‘rules of the VET game’. But the concerns were reshaped and redefined in a process that was aligned to national VET policy rather than to local needs.<br />