Welcome to the RTO Superhero Podcast. Today's episode breaks down the latest ASCA IQ update in depth. This issue covers a wide span of compliance pressure points, and each point signals real expectations for RTOs under the 2025 standards. The update is dense, detailed, and strategic. This episode expands every theme so your systems can match the level of scrutiny ASCOR is applying. Settle in because there is a lot to cover. The first major theme is international delivery. ASCA highlights a rapid rise in risk across the sector. This rise includes weak oversight of offshore training, unclear third-party controls, gaps in supervision, and missing evidence of equivalency in delivery. ASCA notes that some organizations still treat international delivery as a separate or lower risk stream. It is not. International students must receive the same level of training, assessment, support and oversight as domestic learners. If delivery occurs offshore, the organization must show clear control over the service. This includes documented agreements, mapped responsibilities, access to trainers, monitoring systems, escalation points, and evidence of how issues are resolved. No part of the arrangement can be left vague. ASCA has seen cases where partners deliver most of the service with little supervision. This is a direct governance risk. It breaches the new accountability and risk management standards. The organization must show that it owns every part of the service. It must show how each risk is controlled, tested, and reviewed. Another part of the international delivery focus is student experience. ASCA highlights cases where international students receive limited support, unclear timetables, and inconsistent information about attendance rules. Support services must be accessible, relevant, and timely. Language, literacy, and digital needs must be addressed before enrolment and throughout delivery. If offshore delivery uses digital platforms, the organization must show that the platform allows meaningful engagement, real practice, and real assessment. If supervision is remote, the evidence must show how trainers observe performance, provide feedback, and check skill progression. If students require placement, the organization must verify that placement environments meet the training product requirements. International delivery cannot rely on assumptions. It must be documented, monitored, and aligned to the same standard as every domestic program. The second theme in the update is marketing and recruitment. ASCA reports an increase in misleading claims, unclear fee structures, and vague information about pathways. The update warns against any message that suggests rapid completion, guaranteed outcomes or shortcuts around volume of learning. Marketing must match reality. It must show accurate codes and titles. It must use correct licensing information from the relevant industry regulator. It must provide clear fee details, refund terms, payment schedules, and any additional costs that a student may face. This includes materials, equipment, software, travel, and placement expenses. If a third party promotes the course, the organisation owns the message. Every detail must match the national register and the organization's own scope. Incorrect claims lead to breaches of information and transparency and can also lead to regulatory action for misleading conduct. One of the biggest risks in the update is pressure recruitment. ASCA notes cases where recruiters push students to enrol without explaining workload, attendance expectations or support needs. The new standards require pre-training review that checks skills, digital readiness and suitability for the qualification. This is not just an LLN tool. It is a structured review of whether the student can meet the course demands. If the student needs extra support, the organization must provide it and document it. If a qualification is not suitable, the organization must advise the student before enrolment. The update makes it clear that poor recruitment feeds poor outcomes and poor outcomes signal systemic risk. The third theme is recognition of prior learning. ASCA highlights widespread issues in RPL practice. Common problems include missing evidence, poor mapping, quick decisions, unclear assessor comments, and inconsistent outcomes. RPL must meet the same standard as any assessment. It must comply with the principles of assessment and the rules of evidence. The decision must be fair, flexible, valid, and reliable. Evidence must be sufficient, current, and authentic. If evidence is incomplete, the organization must not issue the unit. If gaps exist, the student must have the chance to complete gap training. The update warns against treating RPL as a fast track to completion. This practice harms students, workplaces, and the integrity of the VET system. The outcome standards require rigorous judgment. Records must show how the assessor reached the decision. If multiple assessors assess the same unit, outcomes must be consistent. Where third parties are involved, oversight must be strong. The organization must validate RPL decisions and adjust tools where issues appear. A deeper point in the update is consistency of evidence. ASCA notes that some RPL files use evidence that is outdated or irrelevant. Currency is critical. Evidence must show current capability. If the evidence is from an industry that has changed significantly since the work was completed, the assessor must check that the skills still match the training product. If the student holds overseas qualifications, the organization must confirm alignment with Australian standards. This includes safety, legislation, and industry requirements. RPL decisions must never rely on job titles or assumptions. They must rely on evidence. The next major theme is student progression and attendance. ASCA highlights gaps in attendance logs, inconsistent tracking of progress, poor intervention records, and missing evidence of trainer feedback. Under the 2025 standards, progress must be monitored through structured systems. Each student must receive enough time for instruction, practice, application, and feedback. If students fall behind, the organisation must act early. Intervention must be documented. If a student needs extra time, additional support or a modified schedule, the organisation must record this. If the student disengages, the organization must follow its policy, notify relevant parties, and ensure fairness in its approach. Attendance is also linked to training design. ASCA highlights cases where scheduled delivery hours do not match the actual hours delivered. If the delivery mode claims supervised learning, students must receive supervised learning. If the schedule claims set practice hours, those hours must exist. If the course uses online delivery, the organization must show how practice is supervised and how engagement is monitored. Attendance is not just a formality. It forms part of the training and assessment strategy. It must be accurate, consistent, and traceable. The update also covers a wider set of issues across the sector. This includes incomplete training plans, outdated learning materials, missing placement agreements, limited industry engagement, and weak assessment validation. Every one of these issues connects directly to the new outcome standards. Training must be engaging and structured. Assessment must be fit for purpose. Work placements must meet the requirements of the training product. Industry engagement must inform delivery. Continuous improvement must use data, feedback, and validation outcomes. The update also highlights governance. Governing persons must understand risks, track finances, manage third parties, and oversee quality. They must have access to accurate information. They must review compliance reports, student data, validation outcomes, and risk registers. They must take action when issues appear. The new standards are clear. Governance cannot be passive. It must be active, present, and accountable. Now let's move through practical steps. Start with a full marketing review. Check every public message. If anything is unclear, correct it. If any third party promotes your courses, check their content too. Update your marketing register. Record your checks. This aligns with information and transparency. Next, run a deep RPL audit. Select a sample of files from multiple training products. Check the mapping. Check the evidence. Check assessor comments. Fix any issues. Update your RPL tools if needed. Strengthen your guidance for assessors. This aligns with assessment and RPL standards. Then review your student monitoring system. Check your attendance records. Check progress logs. Check trainer feedback comments. Check how interventions are recorded. Create clear rules for when a student is considered at risk. Train staff on these rules. This aligns with training support and student progress monitoring. If you deliver internationally or through third parties, map the entire delivery chain. Check agreements, supervision structures, escalation processes and reporting. Check whether partners provide the same quality of delivery. Schedule regular reviews. Document every step. This aligns with governance and third party oversight. Finally, review your risk register. Add items for misleading marketing, poor RPL, weak attendance systems, international delivery risk, and any gaps identified through internal audits. Assign controls, review them often. The ASCAIQ update is clear. Quality is built through strong systems, accurate information, valid assessment, and real oversight. No shortcuts, no assumptions, no gaps. Use this update as a wide angle review of your RTO. Strengthen every part of your operation. Record improvements, keep evidence, protect your students, protect your training products, protect your registration. Thank you for listening to the RTO Superhero podcast. Keep reviewing, keep checking, and keep delivering strong training built on quality and integrity.