VIC Regulations and guidelines

[Andrew Lal]

FROM RECULATIONS: Schedule 8 clause 5 of the Education and Training Reform Regulations 2017
A senior secondary education provider must have:
a. qualified and competent staff to teach and assess the course; and
b. suitable teaching resources and physical facilities to provide the course; and
c. processes to ensure the consistent application of assessment criteria and practices; and
d. processes to oversee the conduct of assessments of the course including processes to conduct investigations and hearings and, if necessary, amend or cancel assessments.

FROM GUIDELINES -
VRQA Guidelines for Non-school Senior Secondary Education Providers


Qualifications of teachers
Evidence Guide
There must be evidence for non-VET VCE teachers in the form of:
• qualifications, Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) registration and other relevant information showing that teachers meet the requirements for the delivery and/or assessment of the qualification

REFERRING TO THE ABOVE:
- is it discriminatory to only include the "non-VET VCE teachers"
- is there a difference between what the regulation talks about "course" and the last word in dot point one "qualification"

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

- Discriminatory? Yes. Unlawfully discriminatory? Almost assuredly not.
- Yes. A course refers to the training being delivered. A qualification is the end result attainment for having successfully completed a course.

 

[Andrew Lal]

What is lawful about this discrimination? if you can explain that would be helpful. thnx

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

It's a common error that discrimination is illegal or unlawful. Discrimination is everywhere. When we prefer one thing over another it is discrimination - preferring coffee over tea is discrimination.

It is only discrimination on certain grounds that is unlawful, such as age, sex, religion and so forth.

Simply put, anything that requires you to have a qualification, licence or the like is not unlawfully discriminatory.

Otherwise, as a simple not directly relevant example, it would be unfair discrimination to not allow people without law degrees, admission in a relevant Supreme Court, law society membership and professional indemnity insurance to practice law in Australia.

 

[Rod]

The Regulations are inclusionary, not exclusionary, and provide for minimum standards.

A course refers to a course of instruction which leads to a recognised qualification for the student completing the course.
Qualification in your context refers to what the teacher must have to meet minimum requirements in order to teach the course.

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

A course refers to a course of instruction which leads to a recognised qualification for the student completing the course.

Bear in mind that a course does not necessarily lead to a qualification, recognised or otherwise. A course may result in 'no' outcome, a statement of attainment, a qualification (not recognised), or a qualification which is recognised under the Australian Qualifications Framework. Statements of Attainment (in appropriate Units of Competency) and AQF qualifications are Nationally Recognised Training when issued by appropriately credentialled institutions, e.g. Registered Training Organisations.

Long winded explanation but the takeaway is - doing a 'course' does not mean you have a 'qualification'.

 

[Rod]

I bow to your superior knowledge in this area I am not being facetious, but concede and acknowledge you know more than me on this topic.

It seemed to me the OP doesn't really understand a fundamental point and is reading too much into something where he feels disadvantaged.

 

[Scruff]

It's a common error that discrimination is illegal or unlawful. Discrimination is everywhere. When we prefer one thing over another it is discrimination - preferring coffee over tea is discrimination.

It is only discrimination on certain grounds that is unlawful, such as age, sex, religion and so forth.

If this site gave out gold stars for answers, then that would deserve a whole bunch of them - and here's why...

If you type "discrimination meaning" into Google, you'll see a bunch of responses from the various online dictionaries. If you discard "dictionary.com", which mostly sources it's information from other dictionaries, then you get this from the four "big boys" (Cambridge, Collins, Oxford and Merriam-Webster):

1. The first definition from the Cambridge, Collins and Oxford dictionaries all relate to the narrow context of discrimination against people. Only after that, do they list definitions of a more generic or wider context thereby providing the "common meaning" of the word itself.

2. Only the Merriam-Webster has something resembling a common meaning as it's first definition (but does provide "racial discrimination" as an example).

All dictionaries would serve the world a lot better if they provided a common meaning first, then moved on to narrower contexts if applicable. But unfortunately, they rarely do this.

What Rob has done, is provide a common meaning of the word up front, exactly where it should be, before moving on to the legal aspect of his explanation. So kudos for the intelligent approach - all dictionaries should take note.