VET & TAFE
campusreview.com.au
The $205 million in grants for HE AQF 5–6 sub-bachelor courses
paid to 36 universities in 2018 for 18,847 ‘designated places’ would
be re-purposed (to off-set loans or for other purposes).
Universities predictably would argue for a ‘full demand’ driven
policy, but this in any case may yet be curbed even at bachelor
level (under the present government) by restraints or overriding
conditions like population growth or performance-based
measures.
Under the present VET Student Loan legislation, it is possible
for a departmental secretary to cap loans at an institution-
specific level by imposing conditions of a ‘provider fee limit’
(S.34). From the Commonwealth’s perspective, this controls their
loan exposure. They could also, or alternatively, impose general
requirements by legislating course conditions requiring ‘focus
on industry needs’ (but importantly exempting foreign language
diplomas) and ‘full articulation’.
The upside for universities would be freedom from periodic
negotiation and quota accountability of places and operational
consistency with bachelor-level funding.
Students get the benefit of a unified and simpler system
regarding their HELP obligations, with loans potentially flowing into
their enrolment at higher AQF levels.
The Commonwealth would benefit by running one program,
not two, and exercise both policy and funding implementation
controls.
This would require the Commonwealth to step over old VET/
FEE-HELP shadows in opening up Tertiary AQF 5–6 [HE/VET]
Student Loans to financing courses that they have not specifically
and individually approved to be listed. Rather the Commonwealth
would exercise control by setting policies on course requirements
regarding ‘industry needs’ and ‘articulation’ and/or by conditional
provider-fee limits. The latter could operate broadly at a sectoral
or, more acutely, at a provider-specific level. Periodic adjustments
in institution-specific loan caps could be performance linked, both
to the positive and negative.
Both HE and VET providers would be able to set a total course
price to include any ‘student out of pockets’ (but likely capped
overall to avoid risks of fee gouging).
Separately, state and territory governments would continue to
fund or subsidise VET AQF 5–6 levels for qualifications of their
choice, or part-subsidise Tertiary AQF 5–6 [HE/VET] Student
Loans.
PROPOSAL 5: New arrangements will have joint oversight of
both TEQSA and ASQA.
Regulatory oversight would be strengthened. The regulators
would operate a joint task force in course accreditation, any self-
accreditation applications and ‘in the field’ quality compliance. This
implies regulators would have shared data systems and some joint
staff and training. Rectifications and sanctions would remain the
province of either ASQA or TEQSA consistent with the specific VET/
HE qualification(s) in dispute and the provider’s (main) registration.
PROPOSAL 6: Unify all HELP policy, associated systems and
administration at AQF 5–6 levels.
The current duality and costs of Commonwealth policy, systems
and administration would be potentially simplified. Differences in
any loan service fees would be eliminated. To test this proposal,
an examination of net administration cost outlays/savings and
modelling of new alternates would be made, with any savings
reinvested into offset of student loans. Benefit/cost burdens for
both provider institutions and any impacts especially on students
would likewise need to be tested.
PROPOSAL 7: Actively track the outcomes by way of subsequent
student pathways either to work and/or into higher learning. In
addition, track diversity and quality of course offerings.
Qualifications being offered across the market would need to be
monitored over time, those of high use or specialist need, detailing
student pathways, employment and/or further education benefits.
Clearly, the above proposal is dependent on the advice from
the Australian Qualifications Framework Review, which might
recommend specific changes/abolishing the distinction at these
levels anyway.
There is arguably a risk that, over time, implementing the above
will erode the differences between VET and HE and make a
bland blancmange of all AQF 5–6 levels. However, the unification
of financing mechanisms of AQF 5–6 qualifications need not
diminish the discrete purposes and differences between them (and
this can be monitored). Indeed, diversity is the desired outcome.
Consider the logic of the nation’s chief scientist and the
benefits of the ‘T-shaped graduate’. The chief scientist accepted
graduates need deep discipline knowledge, education, training
and skills (depth of the vertical line in the T shape) as well as
expansive enterprise or so-called ’softer’ skills (breadth of the
horizontal line in the T shape). His strident warning was however
of the balance between the two, and that enterprise skills (such
as critical thinking, problem solving and emotional intelligence).
are not somehow magical replacement for credible and assessed
discipline knowledge and research skills (such as in STEM).
This caution echoes the sentiment in the maxim ‘to break the
rules you must first master them’. Mastery is just as relevant in
education and inquiry as it is in applied knowledge and trades.
As noted recently, 1 Aristotle’s analysis in 350 BC helpfully
classified three types of knowledge: knowing why (knowledge,
inquiry and research), knowing how (application, practice and
craft) and knowing what to do (accumulated wisdom and
experience gleaned from practice). Graduates and employees
need a dose of all knowledge sources best relevant to their role.
Subject to unflinching quality standards, Australia needs a tertiary
education system based on a qualifications framework that is freed
up to allow providers to cultivate in their own way blends of all
three such knowledges.
Under the proposed regime, institutions can then be left to
decide their own stand-point of competitive excellence and major
emphasis in delivering T-shaped graduates. Students likewise can
pursue options as they may wish with equal access and facility.
And the best thing about new ideas is that they can get
knocked over by even better ideas – best friends to stride over
old shadows. ■
Dr Craig Fowler is an analyst and observer of national policies
impacting tertiary education, science and innovation after
decades of experience in private, public and university sectors.
‘Aristotle knew what worked’, Stephen Parker, The Australian:
Higher Education, 12 December 2018
* Links to papers and further reading at campusreview.com.au
1
21