VET & TAFE
campusreview.com.au
Reforms
and new
ideas:
Part 1
Making friends with new
ideas – tertiary system
reforms of AQF levels 5–6.
By Craig Fowler
W
hile the nation awaits future policy directions on
‘post schooling’ education and training following
the outcomes of the 2019 federal election, there are
a number of Government initiated reviews and consultations
ongoing, as well as other published independent policy proposals.
The sense is that the present policy malaise will be heaved along in
2019 by the outcomes of these formal reviews, and by stakeholder
ideas expressed in thought-leadership proposals mounting up
outside of government.
While these independent industry and expert views may have
differing emphases and nuance, they are unanimous in expressing
the need for new approaches and urgency in framing reforms of
the tertiary education system, especially funding and financing.
Table 1 lists key reviews ‘in progress’ (or planned) as well as
examples of independent expert views on new policy directions
and ideas.
These independent commentaries have broad consensus that
the HE and VET sectors should cooperatively co-exist, recognising
their differing and ideally complementary student-centric, industry,
research and employer-connected missions.
20
More far reaching is the ‘binary system’ to ‘tertiary ecosystem’
proposal that sees a future state where the Australian
Qualifications Framework (AQF) recognises different levels
of courses all of which could have theoretical and practical
components, with the HE/VET sectoral distinction to go.
Such reforms require an underpinning of effective foundational
enablers supporting an integrated tertiary education system. This
includes policies and practices such as: a qualifications framework;
international student legislation and policy/visa regimes; HE and
VET sector regulation that is separate yet overlaps; and common
data standards, systems and student surveys.
Much of this enabling framework is in place (and under review
e.g. AQF). These enablers support tertiary system-wide design,
common policy standards and platforms, with ripe opportunity
for major improvements (e.g. integrated data standards, common
student surveys and identifiers).
The standout exception and tertiary system failure is funding
and financing. HE by way of financing (its resources and associated
policy and programs) is operationally and fiscally controlled by the
Commonwealth. VET has federated arrangements where funding
and associated policy/programs have both separate and shared
jurisdictional responsibilities. This gives rise to fertile opportunity
for cost-shifting. All independent commentary points to VET’s
steady and steep de-funding relative to HE, its funding complexity
and obscurity, and for students, unequal access and opportunity.
One proposed tertiary-wide solution is a student-centric capped
lifelong skills/learner account.
Any proposals to address steadily declining VET funding that
the university sector senses may be to their detriment is rebuffed.
Equally, were the Commonwealth to overstep its present federated