// Network Blog

Written by Network and select guest authors, this blog is designed to keep you up to speed with everything fitness industry related. Contribute and help shape the industry.

Response to criticism of 8-week fitness courses

by Jack Lee | Thursday, February 18, 2010

In response to Siobhan Moylan’s article that appeared online on 1 February, criticising the fitness industry’s 8-week qualification courses, Vicki Tuchtan writes this:

My hand is up high and proud Siobhan Moylan, as I am a fitness guru.
And as such, I feel compelled to respond to your recent article surrounding the training of fitness professionals in Australia (Hands up if you’re a fitness guru, 1/2/10). Before we get to that, let me indulge with a brief history of the training system in Australia.

More than two decades ago, the national training reform agenda of the Labor years resulted in the birth of Vocational Education and Training (VET), from the previous Australian technical education system. This shift saw the replacement of accredited courses with Training Packages, across many industry sectors over a number of years. Significant in the shift to Training Packages was the move to student assessment directly against competency standards.

So what is a Training Package? It is a set of nationally endorsed standards that describes the skills and knowledge needed to perform effectively in the workplace. These standards are developed by industry advisory panels, and must be endorsed by industry sectors and government before they are released for use in training the future workforce. Training Packages are kept up-to-date through a process of regular review and continuous improvement. Such reviews ensure Training Packages remain current to the needs of industry. Training providers (Registered Training Organisations) must implement Training Packages when they deliver qualifications for industry, and the content of the package as stipulated by industry informs the training provider on what should be delivered and how assessments should be conducted.

So how are training providers monitored to ensure they deliver a quality product that meets the requirements of industry? The Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) was implemented almost a decade ago and serves to provide the basis for a nationally consistent VET system. As the quality system that underpins the Australian training market, it is compulsory for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) to comply with the requirements of the AQTF. RTOs undergo audits to ensure they are compliant under the AQTF. Such audits are conducted by State and Territory Training Authorities, of which VETAB (the NSW Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board) is one. It is the responsible of authorities like VETAB to monitor and regulate the performance of RTOs operating in their State or Territory. VETAB do not however hold the job of ‘creating standard training packages’ as stated in your article, this role is performed by industry.

Your article spoke of the growing consumer demand for fitness professionals and their services, and pointed out the perceived greater boom of fitness training providers. Any such growth in the emergence of training providers in the fitness industry would also be the result of a growing consumer demand for students wanting to find a career in the fitness industry.

The article queried the training of fitness professionals and whether the qualifications issued by such training providers were ‘worth the paper they’re written on?’ Provided the training organisation is an RTO that is deemed compliant under the AQTF by the regulating authority then the answer to this would be a resounding ‘YES’!

In trivialising the profession and training of the fitness industry, what your article alludes to but doesn’t quite identify is a valid question surrounding the training of Australia’s workforce. The greater question that should be asked – and this is not a question of the fitness industry but of the VET sector as a whole – is whether the current system of registration and regulation of RTOs in this country is adequate?

What we can look forward to for the future of the VET sector is tighter regulatory control when a national regulator comes into play in 2011, and in the interim updated guidelines that make it tougher for new providers to gain RTO registration in the first place.

When we do have a nation that’s in need of a major fitness overhaul, why knock an industry such as fitness that can do so much good for our nation? If we are concerned that consumers seek advice and guidance from a qualified trainer, then your recommendations should be for all budding fitness gurus to ensure their fitness trainer is registered with Fitness Australia, the registration body for the fitness industry that monitors adherence to industry standards of service, care and safety.  Equally, members of gyms would be wise to inquire if their fitness centre is too registered with Fitness Australia.

Vicki Tuchtan
National Training Team Captain
Australian Institute of Fitness
www.fitness.edu.au

 

 

Network members
pton

// Featured Partner

Feature Sponsors