This article has also been submitted to ACAL so apologies if you are reading it for the second time!

Here in WA we have had some consultation workshops relating to “Scoping a foundation skills professional standards framework” which is one of the facets of the Foundation Skills Workforce Development Project. As well as the more formal workshops (both online and face-to-face) the topic has been raised and discussed (over recent weeks) more informally with a variety of stakeholders. This article relates to the Perth (face-to-face) and online workshops and to informal conversations.

There have been some strongly recurring points and concerns raised by practitioners as well as some disconcerting opinions expressed by program managers.

Recurring themes and concerns from practitioners

• There is concern that as with TAE, there will be an ongoing requirement to revisit qualifications (especially if they are vocational ones) and this wastes time that could be better spent on meaningful professional development.
• A progressive career pathway to higher level skills and knowledge could have a positive impact on practitioner credibility, however there is a risk that the required skills and knowledge for a literacy and numeracy specialist teacher will be “watered down”.
• Foundation skills is NOT one entity however the basis for delivering foundation skills lies on the existing specialisations (language, literacy and numeracy teaching – with the possible addition of digital literacy/citizenship).
• Existing membership organisations could potentially play a significant role in implementing and maintaining a professional standards framework but would need to be funded for this.

Misapprehensions expressed by non-practitioners

• A qualification is not needed to deliver literacy – particularly at the lower levels.
• The TAELLN401 or TAELLN411 is a suitable “qualification” for those delivering foundation skills.
• Continuing PD should be organisation based and managed.

The concern looming largest for most practitioners was that of ending up in a situation similar to that with the Cert IV in Training and Assessment with a requirement that they continually re-do the qualification. It is also perhaps significant that the worries relating to the risk of lowering standards expressed by practitioners seem already to be mirrored by the opinions of some managers.

Jo Hart