By Dr Craig Fowler, JCSF Consulting
Kipling’s verse “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet” as an idiom reflects ‘when two things …are completely different, unsuitable for each other, or are unable to agree’. This extreme is not true of Australia’s Higher Education (HE) and Vocational Education and Training (VET) sectors. Rather, they are differing, yet connected and complementary sectors that span the post schooling tertiary education system. But it’s their connection; why and how the ‘twain might better meet’; that matters. This is the Key Area for Review – 5: “the connection between VET and HE” in the ongoing Accord process.
What follows is bold assertions on headline policy elements, plus crude “Twain-scores” from zero to 10 (zero is ‘no integration/connection’ and 10 is ‘fully integrated/seamless’) for both current and ‘ideal’ future state. ‘Ideal’ is not homogeneity with 10’s everywhere. The sectors serve, certainly at their more extremes, very different purposes. It’s the tertiary system policy scaffold and architecture that’s being critiqued.
Tertiary system – Constitutional rights and sector control Current Twain 3 Ideal Twain 8
State Parliaments gave birth to most public universities, but the Commonwealth controls and funds HE. States will not constitutionally hand over VET training to the Commonwealth believing in subsidiarity, but they will ‘partner’ if they have local autonomy, genuine collaboration with new bodies like JSA and the 10 JSCs and guaranteed training funds in the new 5 Year National Agreement (NA). It will take our Federated political and policy leadership to trustfully ‘twain up’, imaginatively deal with, and integrate multiple policy issues below, or risk any better tertiary system remaining moribund.
Tertiary system – Australian Qualifications Framework Current Twain 3 Ideal Twain 9
There has been near zero progress in AQF reform implementation. The speculative reasons are that the AQF de facto defines HE/VET sectoral boundaries at their AQF 5/6 overlap and this demarcates the sectors which government(s) control, fund/finance (HE alone or VET shared). AQF reform opens debate about sector relativities, requires a rejig of qualification and credential design, with flow on regulatory changes plus amending legislation, industrial awards and professional standards, all anchored to the AQF. The review anticipated all this. Other experts say reform implementation is urgent and industry agrees. The next best lesser outcome would be refinement of the AQF to direct institutional processes for recognition of prior leaning, credit transfers and practical rules on including (stacked) short credentials.
Tertiary system – Funding and financing Current Twain 3 Ideal Twain 10
The Commonwealth does not have fiscal headroom to much expand the tertiary system and already has pushed back on the impact of HELP loans. Expanded HELP policy is small scale, e.g. loans for young entrepreneurs, and some HE micro credentials. Whilst Fee Free TAFE is undoubtedly generous, coverage is cohort limited. Its first-year tranche of 180,000 places and follow up of 300,000 more over 5 years is, on a per annum basis, ~80,000 over 6 years. Enrolments in nationally recognised VET programs are ~2.1 million (in 2021), so per annum fee-free might cover ~5%. Universities remain more attractive with recurrent Commonwealth Supported Places (CSP) and HELP loans. Even with the fraught Job Ready Graduates regime, students still ‘walk in’ at no cost. HELP in VET penetrates to only Diplomas levels and can cost an extra 20%.
The Productivity Commission is unequivocal – ‘fee-free’ TAFE is inefficient and only justified in foundational and Cert I/II level qualifications. Think literacy, numeracy and digital fluency for students needing multiple supports to overcome barriers to learning. So any revised national tertiary funding/financing framework must be equity-nuanced, accessible life-long for full or short courses, and straddle both sectors to give students fairer access, sector mobility and remove funding as a major determinant of student choice.
Tertiary system – Institutional structures and types Current Twain 4 Ideal Twain 8
The revision of the Provider Category Standards simplified types but opted more on the side of university status quo, indeed more sameness, rather than encouraging diversity, as one prominent ex VC has long argued is needed. Threshold Standards set benchmarks for university-status research to be ‘world standard’ (Sec B1.3 19). TEQSA’s interpretation of this is now more blinded by the suspension of the planned Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) and Engagement and Impact (EI) processes.
Institutional access to recurrent CSPs and HELP is pivotal. As a bold/absurd hypothetical, a few dual sector Unis may opt for a revised policy that allowed them to retain recurrent CSPs, the title of University and drop research to be replaced by new measures of ‘world-standard’ in industry-engagement, e.g. higher-level apprentices as a lynchpin, and so lead a new provider fleet.
This as a measure is no less precise than ‘world standard’ in research. Purists will demand university title be retained only for those doing research. All other categories of HE providers would also instantly signal ‘me-too’ in seeking a slice of the limited CSP pool.
Suggesting a new type of institution is not novel. Commentary on sagging national productivity often points to needing more graduates with a different contemporary mix of knowledge/tech-skills/nous/teaming typically at, or adjacent to, current AQF 5-6, i.e. associate degrees/diplomas and undergraduate certificates. Policy research in NSW led to new hybrid Institutes of Applied Technology. The proposed network of TAFE Centres of Excellence also appear to offer structures for industry-specific engagement and skilling e.g., AUKUS.
Tertiary system – Regulation of education and training activity Current Twain 3 Ideal Twain 9
Recommendation 43 of the Brady Review was for one tertiary regulator. The nation got two (except for in Vic and WA). Dual sector Institutions seek now to be covered only by TEQSA (even if overwhelmingly delivering VET). Annual Reports indicate AQSA and TEQSA have an MoU on information exchange and seek to stream line processes e.g. CRICOS and dual sector regulation. As Statutory Authorities they could be directed to merge all corporate functions and unify all IT infrastructure and systems, plus staff development. The future would be one Board, multiple leadership Commissioners of two divisions in one entity, with modest cost savings.
One controversial stumble stone. There are ~3,500 RTOs and ~200 registered HE providers nationally. There is need to analyse VET provider market structures, recognising across the sector that student completions and satisfaction is as good if not better at quality private RTOs. This inquiry may lead to no change, or RTO-led and government supported consolidations. Fisheries ministers do sometimes buy back fishing licences.
Tertiary system – Educational products/content Current Twain 2 Ideal Twain 7
Given their funding/financing power, universities over the last decade have deeply penetrated a breadth of fields of education in vocationally oriented courses, at bachelor/sub bachelor and micro credential levels. They have not entered VET courses covering high risk licenced occupations and trades but have some ‘higher level’ apprenticeships. An ex-Vice Chancellor laments all this as gross degree inflation of degrees.
The second reason is that universities and limited HE providers have self-governance to approve their own courses, including working with industry in instances of course professional accreditation. They evolve and adapt as fast as their Academic Senates approvals allow.
The VET sector has had a very different experience. The positive view is that VET Training Package (TP) qualifications have led to consistently constructed industry and job specific standards, nationally recognised transferable qualifications and, in recent years, fewer TPs and an accelerated effort to ensure these qualifications were up to date with skills needs of employers. The now closed AISC diligently led this work.
The alternate view is that of a widely impacting, costly and monumental public policy failure. The AISC-led/ISC/SSO regime outputs were increasingly seen as excessive, duplicative, rigid and unfit for purpose, with real-world job skills accelerating away from decliningly relevant training products. Industry may now be disillusioned, but RTOs remain hugely burdened by implementing change and frustrated their expertise and input has been long excluded. TAFEs especially, want course self-accreditation. Much depends on cooperation between RTOs and new JSCs in any new training product reform set up.
Working with JSCs, an agile mechanism of course self-accreditation could be trialled with proven quality RTOs, akin to the regulated model used in the HE sector.
Tertiary system – International Current Twain 8 Ideal Twain 10
Whilst there have been oscillations in policy (due to Covid) and ongoing contest over visas, on education to migration opportunities, skills in demand lists, country and provider risk rating, provider burden and agent quality – in overall the ESOS Act and CRICOS etc. has been sustaining and effective. It has underpinned vast non-government revenue, especially for universities, and supported international linkages and relations.
Tertiary system – Data and research Current Twain 3 Ideal Twain 8
The VET sector has been serviced for decades by a Ministerial company (NCVER) providing authoritative, independent, reliable and informative VET data and research. The HE sector relies on the output/timing of data from the Cwlth Education agency and contracted QILT surveys. It took 6 years for the USI introduced in VET (2015) to be mandated for use in HE (2021). There is public release of HE performance at a provider level, in VET there is not. Data standards and systems also differ. One fully independent Authority is possible.
Tertiary system – Policy leadership and authorities Current Twain 2 Ideal Twain 9
Since 2000, there have been ~8 iterations of an education department in the Australian Government, all wrought by machinery of government changes. There has been pop up and abandoned advisory bodies, like Australian National Training Authority, Skills Australia, Australian Workforce Productivity Agency and now Jobs and Skills Australia. Current disgruntlement with extant bureaucracy leads to the Go8 recommending two new independent bodies, a Tertiary Education Commission and National Agency for Research and Innovation. Such Commissions risk role confusion and cost, based on NZ experience. But the Go8 is right that the HE and VET sectors need to have better overarching governance as an integrated tertiary system.
Warning: Both HE and VET sectors are being overrun by non-accredited education/training; both good and bad quality; accessed globally mostly online by individuals and corporates. Disruption has bolted and any fixation on formal educational sectors being sufficient to fix national skills is wrong. Quality non-accredited training and industry-proprietary certifications, need to be tracked, detailed and leveraged into any reforms.
In conclusion
Laud or laugh at assertions and scores, a few may meet O’Kane’s ‘bold-big ideas’ test. Regardless, the purpose was to consolidate headline policy elements, demonstrate overlaps, and flag integrated solutions. Enthusiasts for Twain-scoring can assess future O’Kane Accord recommendations, when published, with regard to its Key Area for Review – 5: “the connection between the VET and HE …ensuring a cohesive …tertiary education system”.
