Under the Standards for RTOs 2025, Standard 1.1 requires RTOs to deliver training that is:
- Consistent with training product requirements (training.gov.au)
- Engaging, structured, and paced to support student progress
- Includes time for instruction, practice, feedback, and assessment
- Appropriate for the student cohort and delivery mode
- Aligned with industry and workplace expectations
While the Standard does not explicitly require a “Training and Assessment Strategy” (TAS), having a TAS (or equivalent structured document) is the most practical way to demonstrate compliance with all five performance indicators (A–E).
Why a TAS Still Makes Sense in 2025
Some in the sector believe the TAS is “gone.” That’s not quite true.
ASQA’s guidance shows that RTOs need structured documentation demonstrating:
- How training is sequenced and paced
- How the prerequisites and work placement requirements are met
- How resources and trainers are allocated
- How practice and feedback opportunities are built in
A TAS acts as a map for trainers and assessors. It helps them know:
- What to deliver, and when
- What resources to use
- How many assessments and reassessments are planned
- Where practical activities or placements occur
- How the delivery connects to training.gov.au requirements
In my 15+ years of compliance work, I’ve found that well-prepared TAS documents don’t just tick compliance boxes – they give trainers day-to-day clarity and improve student outcomes.
Breaking Down Standard 1.1 (Performance Indicators A–E)
(A) Training is consistent with the training product
- TAS (or structured plan) must align directly with training.gov.au.
- Example: CPC30220 Certificate III in Carpentry requires White Card (CPCCWHS1001) before students go on-site. TAS shows this sequencing.
(B) Training is engaging, well-structured, and paced
- TAS demonstrates logical sequencing and avoids content overload.
- Example: Carpentry TAS breaks delivery into theory → workshop → feedback → assessment.
(C) Training includes instruction, practice, feedback, and assessment
- TAS identifies practice sessions, not just assessment points.
- Trainers keep records of feedback provided before the assessment.
(D) Training is appropriate for the student cohort and delivery mode
- TAS includes flexibility for different cohorts (apprentices vs adult learners).
- Admin processes ensure suitability checks (LLND, pre-training review).
(E) Training is aligned with industry and workplace expectations
- TAS shows where industry input shaped delivery (e.g., employer feedback on site readiness).
Case Study: Certificate III in Carpentry (CPC30220)
Audit Context:
During an ASQA audit of an RTO delivering CPC30220 Certificate III in Carpentry, multiple non-compliances were identified under Standard 1.1.
Findings (Non-Compliance):
1. Amount of Training / Volume of Learning not clearly defined
The TAS did not clearly state the total hours for:
- Theory training
- Practical training
- Practice activities
- Practical assessment
- Feedback sessions
→ Students reported being rushed and unclear about expectations.
2. Hours are not differentiated between training and assessment
- The delivery schedule bundled “training” and “assessment” together without distinction.
- For example, a unit was allocated 40 hours total, but did not state how many were for instruction, practice, feedback, or final assessment.
3. Prerequisites not identified or delivered first
- Students were sent to worksites before completing CPCCWHS1001 – White Card, breaching WHS requirements.
4. Practical resources not documented or available
- Training.gov.au lists specific resources for carpentry units (e.g., tools, equipment, scaffolding).
- The RTO had no documented list of resources. In some cases, students shared one set of tools between six learners, leading to unsafe practices.
Compliant Solution (What the RTO Should Have Done):
Structured TAS with Clear Hours
Each unit is broken into:
- Theory training hours
- Practical training hours
- Practice & feedback hours
- Assessment hours
Example: Unit CPCCCA2002 Use carpentry tools and equipment
- 8 hours theory (classroom)
- 20 hours supervised practice (workshop)
- 4 hours of feedback
- 8 hours final assessment
Prerequisites Sequenced
- White Card was delivered first, before any site-based units.
- Foundation units (measurement, tools) before advanced (framing, roofing).
Practical Resources Documented
- Equipment register aligned to training.gov.au.
- Evidence that all listed tools/resources were available in workshops.
- Safety equipment was documented and signed off in induction records.
Outcome:
If the RTO had implemented these steps:
- Trainers would know exactly how much time was allocated for learning vs assessment.
- Trainers would have clarity on when to provide practice and feedback.
- Industry supervisors would receive prepared, safe students.
- Audit evidence would show clear alignment between TAS, training.gov.au, and delivery.
Key Takeaway from the Case Study:
The most common Standard 1.1 non-compliances in construction training are:
- Volume of learning is not defined.
- Hours not broken down (theory, practice, feedback, assessment).
- Placement is not clearly structured.
- The prerequisites were not completed first.
- Resources not aligned with training.gov.au.
The fix? A well-structured TAS that acts as the roadmap for trainers, students, and auditors alike.
“Want to make sure your TAS meets Standard 1.1 requirements? Get our free TAS Review Checklist — a practical tool to review your delivery plan step by step.”
Common Pitfalls RTOs Face
- Dropping TAS because they think it’s “not required.”
- Rushing training for funding efficiency instead of student outcomes.
- Ignoring prerequisites in training.gov.au.
- No documented evidence of practice or feedback.
- TAS is not updated after industry consultation.
FAQs on Standard 1.1
Not explicitly. But a TAS (or structured equivalent) is the easiest way to demonstrate all requirements of Standard 1.1 (A–E).
Sequencing, prerequisites, resources, practice, feedback, placements, assessment strategy, and industry input.
Yes – but it must be contextualised for your learners, delivery mode, and industry. AI can generate a draft, but compliance judgment must come from trainers and managers.
Delivery plan (TAS or equivalent), trainer session plans, student feedback, assessment tools, placement agreements, and industry consultation records.
It means training that uses varied methods (workshops, simulations, site practice, group tasks), is well-paced, and keeps learners actively involved – not passive or rushed.
Document practice sessions in session plans, keep records of trainer feedback, and show students had multiple attempts before assessment.
Map your TAS directly against the unit requirements: prerequisites, assessment conditions, workplace requirements, and listed resources.
- Volume of learning is not defined.
- Hours are not broken down into separate categories for training, practice, feedback, and assessment.
- Prerequisites were not delivered first.
- Work placement conditions are unclear.
- Resources not aligned with training.gov.au.
Work placement must be clearly documented: hours, tasks, supervision, and evidence required. Pre-placement requirements (e.g., White Card) must be met.
Yes. Online training must still include engagement, practice, and feedback. RTOs must prove that digital tools mirror the intent of the unit requirements.
At least annually, or when training.gov.au updates, industry feedback highlights gaps, or audit/self-assurance reveals risks.
Structured, paced, engaging delivery reduces dropouts, builds confidence, and ensures students feel supported.
Yes – AI can help track student progress, highlight when practice hours aren’t logged, or flag missing prerequisites. But evidence must still be documented by trainers and managers.
Trainers are the frontline evidence – their lesson plans, practice logs, and student feedback directly prove compliance.
Training = instruction + practice + feedback.
Assessment = formal judgement of competency.
Mixing them creates non-compliance.
Compliance starts with structured planning.
Download your Free TAS Review Checklist today and start preparing your RTO for the 2025 Standards.
Disclaimer:
The information presented on the VET Resources blog is for general guidance only. While we strive for accuracy, we cannot guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. VET Resources is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. Always consult a professional for advice tailored to your circumstances.
