Risk levels

Very low risk. The risks are very low if you taught the students yourself and monitored their learning progress.

Low risk. The prima facie risks are low when, for example:

• The student gives you primary documents (reports, theses, etc)
• The student satisfactorily answers all reasonable questions about what they have done
• The student works under a well-documented accountability system
• The student has another qualification that is relevant to the units you are assessing
• You can verify the reference through a phone call or email based on information not received through the student (e.g. phone book, website, training.gov.au, etc.)
• The student has been observed by a range of persons over a period of time
• You already trust the expertise and judgement of the people giving references
• The student has been independently assessed by industry or statutory bodies according to standards that you know to be rigorous. (And it’s not a bad idea to keep a copy of the standards and/or procedures in the student’s evidence file.)

Higher risks. The opposite is also true. Risks are higher when:

• The student has a weak or poorly documented accountability system
• You suspect that the student is dishonest
• References are not convincing (making them nearly worthless):
  • References only refer to character and omit competency
  • You do not know the people or organizations giving references
  • References from people in organizations are given personally rather than through the organization
  • References cannot be verified in any way
• The student has no related qualifications or assessment records
• The items of evidence are inconsistent with each other
• Only you have observed the student the minimum number of times
• The students’ actions are inconsistent with the competencies to be assessed. (For example, a student taking the assessment units offers evidence that is not authentic, not current, or insufficient.)

 

And risk levels can change ...

To make matters more complex, the risk status might change during the assessment. For example, you might doubt a reference from an obscure organization. Yet the organization might be excellent and highly credible, just that it was previously unknown to you.

Change in risk status can also go the other way. A reference appears very useful, but then you find that the person giving the reference has a possible conflict of interest. You might still count the reference as evidence, but only to corroborate lower-risk evidence items.

As another example, a student might offer a license from an international organization as evidence of competence. So far, it appears to be low risk.

But then you find out that one person acting alone is the "international organization", with no formal recognition other than a registered business name, and the procedure for getting the license is very weak. That is, the license is nearly worthless as evidence of competence. The assessment is also higher risk because the student has offered such flimsy evidence.

In case of a higher risk assessment, you may simply need to get better evidence to minimize risk. In fact, people who know that their current credentials are weak or poorly recognized are those who most need a successful RPL assessment to gain a recognized qualification.