Qualiopi indicator 6: building content and a teaching plan matched to your objectives and audiences

A training programme with well-stated objectives is not enough to convince a Qualiopi auditor — the content, methods and organisation of the course also need to be genuinely built to reach those objectives, and adapted to the people who will take it. That is exactly what indicator 6 of the French National Quality Framework (RNQ) checks — a foundational indicator, carrying a major non-conformity, that hinges almost entirely on a single document: the teaching plan.

What indicator 6 covers

Attached to criterion 2 of the framework (the objectives of the services), indicator 6 requires that content and delivery arrangements — teaching plan, methods, duration, pace, organisation — flow directly from the course’s operational objectives and take the beneficiaries’ characteristics into account. It applies to every category of action: continuing training, skills assessments, VAE and apprenticeship, each with its own form of evidence.

A gap on this indicator is classed as a major non-conformity, and it applies from the initial audit onward. For an organisation that has not yet run a single session, compliance is judged on the design documents: a complete teaching plan, consistent with the objectives and clearly designed for the target audience, is enough to convince an auditor — even without any track record yet.

The method: from objective to content, with no break in the chain

The most common mistake is designing a course’s content independently of its objectives, then writing the commercial programme afterwards. Auditors work the other way round: they start from the operational objective set under indicator 5 and look, sequence by sequence, for proof that it is genuinely being worked on.

Three questions structure this check:

1. Is every objective covered by at least one identifiable sequence? An objective with no dedicated sequence, or a sequence with no demonstrable link to an objective, are both red flags that trigger a gap.
2. Does the teaching method match the type of objective? A “know-how” objective (operating a piece of equipment, drafting a document) calls for a simulation or a practical exercise, not just a lecture.
3. Is the time allotted realistic? Stacking ten ambitious objectives into a single training day is one of the most frequently reported gaps: consistency between pedagogical ambition and the time actually available is part of the indicator.

This requirement for consistency between objectives, activities and assessment is not unique to the French framework. Education researcher M. David Merrill formalised it in his “First Principles of Instruction,” published in 2002 in Educational Technology Research and Development: a training programme is more effective when learners are confronted with real problems, prior knowledge is activated, demonstration precedes application, and new skills are integrated into the learner’s own practice (see the study). The teaching plan required under indicator 6 is, very concretely, where this consistency has to appear in writing.

Adapting delivery formats to the audience and the format

Adapting content is not just about adjusting vocabulary. Auditors look at how the course accounts for the beneficiaries’ real-world context:

• pace and organisation: schedules compatible with employees still in work, a pace adapted to jobseekers retraining, coordination with in-company periods for an apprentice;
• prerequisites and level: the same topic covered differently depending on whether the audience is new to it or already experienced;
• disability situations: possible accommodations, consistent with the work already done under indicator 26;
• delivery format: in-person, synchronous or asynchronous remote learning, blended learning.

Auditor scrutiny on this last point has intensified since remote learning became mainstream: a poorly designed remote course — simply posting videos with no activity or support — is today one of the most common gaps on indicator 6. The research literature actually confirms that the quality gap between formats has less to do with remote learning itself than with instructional design: the landmark meta-analysis led by Barbara Means and colleagues, published in 2013 in Teachers College Record and drawing on more than 45 comparative studies, shows that well-designed blended courses — combining structured instructor-led time with structured remote activities — achieve learning outcomes at least equivalent to in-person instruction alone, provided the instructional design is genuinely built for the format (see the study). That is exactly what the auditor checks: the instructional design, not just the choice of medium.

Mistakes that keep coming up in audits

• A missing or too vague teaching plan: only the commercial programme exists, with no internal document detailing sequences, durations and methods.
• Identical content regardless of audience, with no documented variant accounting for the beneficiaries’ level or sector.
• Remote delivery reduced to a video-call link or online resources, with no planned activities or support.
• Teaching materials that cannot be found or are not finalised on audit day, despite being referenced in the teaching plan.
• A broken chain from needs analysis (indicator 4) → objectives (indicator 5) → content (indicator 6): the three documents exist but do not correspond to each other.

A special case: skills assessments, VAE and apprenticeship

For a skills assessment or a VAE support process, the “teaching plan” takes the form of a structured description of the support phases — preliminary, investigation, conclusions for a skills assessment; eligibility, support, filing the application for VAE — with the tools used at each stage. For a CFA (apprenticeship centre), the expected evidence is the teaching progression coordinated with the targeted diploma’s framework and the in-company training periods, consistent with indicator 13 on coordinating alternance training.

In every case, keep in mind that the commercial programme (covered under indicator 1) and the internal teaching plan are two distinct documents: the former informs the client, the latter proves your instructional design. Auditors systematically ask for both, and it is the latter that makes the difference on indicator 6.

To see where indicator 6 sits within the full framework, check the table of the 32 Qualiopi indicators, and run your teaching plans through the audit preparation checklist before your next meeting with your certifying body.

Take action

The Complete Kit Certif (€297, 14-day guarantee) includes the teaching plan template and the indicator 6 evidence table, ready to adapt to your courses. Starting a training organisation or apprenticeship centre? The ebook “Create your training organisation in 30 days” (€67) lays the groundwork from day one, and the full pack (€347) bundles both resources.