Illegitimate Withholding of Professional or Trade Qualifications

Professional and work-based learning

Core EQ is an expert in focussing on the lifelong learning potential of individuals. Its senior consultant has designed and delivered enterprise wide capability training and assessment frameworks, programs and assessment.

Therefore it is able to equip students with the knowledge skills and insights to understand how they have been failed by their accrediting body.

Recognising and Accrediting this Learning

Core EQ specialises in understanding, designing and applying enterprise, trade and professionally based capability Learning and Development Frameworks. A key aspect is recognising work-based and professional learning. The way this can be done is by engaging experienced practitioners in a profession, trade or enterprise to step up and scope this learning with L & D experts.

However Industries, professions and accrediting institutes are reluctant to go up this learning curve without expert assistance. It is hard work requiring smarter feeling and kind thinking.

The importance of credentialing professional learning and accrediting such learning @ work is misunderstood. There are competing interests in this field. Let's call this out. Accrediting bodies employ mostly sessional teachers and trainers who are not paid to undertake this extra work. Neither will their on-going and management staff lead this work. No one wants to pay or fund this work. This can be described as non-canonical work.

When individuals step up to become experts, by undertaking formal post-graduate training their credentials are not recognised. Core EQ calls this work Leaderwork.

The 3 real-life stories below illustrate some of these issues.

3 Real-life Stories

3 young people recently completed the formal part of their university or TAFE education and work in 3 different occupations. One went on to even complete the formal part of her admission to practice law. All were born and educated in Australia with English as their first language.

Yet in recent years all 3 have experienced the illegitimate withholding of their qualifications or professional accreditation by their employer/professional association. Core EQ can set this out.

How and why does this occur? Let's examine the facts.

Sophie: Law Graduate

Sophie worked very hard through her twenties. After graduating with a business degree and the university prize for Trusts Law she secured a law clerk role at one of the large corporate law firms. Soon after she was accepted in the Monash Masters of Law JD Program. Whilst working 3 days a week she undertook a full-time load completing her Degree with distinction 2 years later. After a well earned holiday overseas Sophie completed the College of Law Summer Online Course. She was admitted to Practise as a Solicitor and Barrister that year.

There was only one problem - the law firm where she was working was not prepared to offer her a first year solicitor's role. They continued to employ and pay her as a law clerk even after her formal admission. Interestingly they attended her celebration lunch but did not pay for her lunch which is is one of the accepted practices when a person is admitted. Certainly my supervisor did this for me some 30 years earlier.

Because Sophie was not working as a solicitor she was not able to obtain her first year practising certificate. Given that there is a limited practising certificate for the first 2 years it is vital that a person gets on the first rung of the ladder. Time only runs when the law firm authorises this. Needless to say as soon as she could Sophie obtained a first year's solicitor role and left her position.

Luke: Mechanic

Luke took a different path and obtained extensive retail experience in customer facing roles in his early twenties. In his later twenties he made the brave decision to return to study completing the pre-apprenticeship course at his local TAFE. He chased down a job as an apprentice with a firm that was looking for a third year. He negotiated with them that they give him a day's trial. This went to a week and finally he was offered the apprenticeship as a first year.

Because he was people smart Luke was able to communicate with the firm's clients at a sophisticated level well beyond his role. He also demonstrated considerable aptitude in working on the engines. However despite this there was no consideration of fast tracking his apprenticeship and so he completed all the coursework and work modules within the 3 years. Unfortunately the Victorian government, although with good intentions, announced a special grant to employers who kept apprentices on during the first Covid 19 year in 2020.

You guessed it Luke's apprenticeship was not finalised by his employer and the relevant TAFE when he had completed all the required assessments. This meant that the employer made more money by him remaining an apprentice. And of course Luke was not promoted or paid a full-time wage despite the fact he was now 30. Again time did not run until her was qualified. How is this inaction permitted?

Purdeep: Diploma in Community Work

Another highly motivated young person living independently enrolled in the Diploma in Community Work. She supported herself by working night shift whilst undertaking a full study load. So far so good.

Covid19 intervened and she was unable to complete the required work experience hours in the Community Services Industry. Did her TAFE review its assessment strategy and offer a practicum based alternative to the work-based learning approach such as that offered by Leo Cussen Institute for lawyers? No. No steps were taken.

Purdeep continued her night shift work waiting waiting waiting. Eventually on her own initiative and with some assistance from Core EQ she obtained a casual position in the field and commenced working. Still no action taken by the relevant TAFE to work with her employer to ensure this work would constitute the required 140 hours.

Purdeep is still waiting waiting waiting. Why does this happen in 2021?

The Bigger Picture

How many other people in Australia are also currently in this situation?

Do our university, technical and professional educational bodies even admit this occurs?

Who cares?

Presently there is no independent means by which a person can challenge such inaction. The business or professional decision maker inaction may be legitimate applying the strict letter of the law.

But in the context of a young person being denied access to their full wage or access to their recognised years of service these 3 stories reveal a callous and disrespectful approach.

Core EQ cares.

We have connected with Sophie, Luke and Sophie to provide coaching and strategic support. In all three cases a successful outcome was achieved.

In doing this we draw on the Smarter Feeling and Kinder Thinking Method. It provides, a balanced approach, across feeling and thinking domains. We we are to examine and reframe the accrediting bodies inaction and to understand how this behaviour was adversely affecting them. Then we put in place a plan to overcome this reckless indifference.

Core EQ has taken the following steps

• Conducted conversations to help Sophie, Luke and Purdeep understand the illegitimacy of what is happening to them (Kind thinking and smart feeling)

• Facilitated the expression of their feelings of anger, despair, frustration, incredulity, that they have not received their qualification even though they have completed the assessment requirements. Foster an understanding that it is in the interests of their employer not to recognise their competence/capability.

• Supported them to make an informed decision about moving forward (kinder thinking)

• Explained their rights and obligations and provided a safe place again for them to express their feelings so that they progressed to smart feelings, i.e. they could feel frustrated while understanding the bigger picture

• Examined the frameworks under which these bodies operated and devised a plan to challenge their inaction.

How Can This Happen?

What could be the possible motivation of a professional organisation, or a registered educational institute in either the vocational or higher educational field to deny a person who has satisfied the performance criteria of the competency-based qualification the timely issue of their formal qualification?

Is this lawful?

For example is it a breach of any employment common law or statutory requirement?

And if not why not?

How is it that a formal system of accrediting individuals who undertake blended learning, the combination of classroom theory and learning at work disenfranchises the learner and worker?

Why would such as Educational Institute or an employer deny a young person (or mature learner) access to their formal qualification and/or to their chosen work, industry and profession? And therefore remuneration as a qualified person?

Where is the fairness in the decision to withhold the qualification and therefore membership of any relevant professional or industry body?

Without going into the complexities of assessment theory and leaving aside possible expensive legal remedies there is nowhere a person affected by this failure by these bodies to complete and/or recognise their assessment can go that is independent.

The power rests with the employer and the accrediting body. This means that if they chose to specify that the person is not yet competent or does not in some other way meet the performance criteria (for example, is not working at the required complexity level) the person is left in limbo, awaiting the arbitrary exercise of the employer’s discretion to sign them off.

The only voice not listened to is the actual learner-worker themselves.

Let us choose to hear them.

Dr Deb 2023