campusreview. com. au
VET & TAFE
ABC Radio National program RN Breakfast on June 22, in a session titled“ TAFE‘ in trouble’ as higher education reviews are promised”. In the program, ABC presenter Fran Kelly interviewed TAFE Directors Australia chief executive Martin Riordan and Grattan Institute higher education program director Andrew Norton.
Kelly sought to identify clearly why higher education and TAFE were struggling and what could be done to rectify matters. She opened her program by noting that higher and vocational education had received much less attention in the election campaign than the health sector, yet both sectors were having difficulties.“ With the vocational sector in crisis, the private college sector in disgrace and funding for universities flat-lining, what are both major parties promising to do about higher [ including vocational ] education?” she asked her interviewees.
In relation to higher education, Norton said the government had issued a discussion paper at the start of the election campaign that he described as a“ budget saving” and“ tinkering at the edges” approach. In contrast, Labor had offered essentially“ the status quo” in terms of funding and the promise to develop 10 polytechnics to cater for students who shouldn’ t be going directly into a bachelor degree but should be undertaking a qualification directly linked to the workplace. On balance,“ Labor is actually more ambitious in the long run”, Norton said, in offering to conduct reviews of the two sectors.
In answer to Kelly’ s question about whether an independent commission of review would assist higher education, TDA’ s Riordan supported the concept and said,“ I think there has been a gap in policy knowledge and management in higher education … and why stop at higher education?”
Norton agreed:“ I think we do need [ a review ] and we have had a real problem with a lack of depth of expertise around highereducation policy.”
HOW MUCH TROUBLE IS TAFE IN AND WHY? Turning to VET and TAFE, Kelly asked the pair how much trouble TAFE was in and what the solution was. She noted that“ year after year after year, TAFE seems to be getting less funding, even though every budget they seem to be promised more funding. I’ m not sure how this works.”
Norton acknowledged that“ TAFE is in a lot of trouble” but said institutes have been progressively redefining their mission and adjusting the programs they have offered, so that they are more closely aligned with what business wants. However, he noted that higher-education students in TAFE institutes have to pay more than students in universities and this“ is biasing the market against these sorts of courses”.
While agreeing that funding for TAFE was important, as was a redefinition of its role, Riordan argued“ the fundamental issue is being wedged between the states and Canberra”, with states taking funds from TAFE to assist other initiatives, such as the Gonski scheme for schools. The federal government’ s previous minister for vocational education, Senator Simon Birmingham, toyed with the idea of a federal takeover of TAFE before changing his mind. A $ 450 million gap or shortfall in funding for VET will emerge next year unless the government decides to fill it.“ Both sides have agreed to negotiate on it, but it’ s been very murky about how and what sort of funding will happen,” Riordan said.
Kelly then asked whether the rise of private providers and competitive pressures have been the main problems for TAFE. Riordan said there was always a place for quality, specialist private courses but“ no one had any idea the changed rules that applied in the last number of years were going to completely de-stabilise the pivotal role of TAFE in tertiary education and lead [ to less ] quality.” He added that even the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars on extra regulation has not removed the problem of low-quality providers.
Riordan emphasised that governments“ ripping out quarters of billions of dollars” from TAFE budgets in some eastern states in each of the last few years was a“ hopeless way of running a business”.
LABOR’ S NUMEROUS POLICIES During the election campaign, Labor demonstrated more awareness of the crisis in VET than the Coalition by tabling many more policies related to it, including a proposed major review of the sector. Labor promised about 10 other policy initiatives, including $ 430 million to establish 10 pilot polytechnics, and a proposed National Priority Plan that would define the unique role of TAFE and provide ongoing guaranteed funding. Labor also promised to cap at $ 8000 a year all VET FEE-HELP student loans, with a ministerial exemption for some high-cost courses such as nursing and engineering. And it would guarantee to unemployed youth a fully funded Certificate III under the Working Futures employment program.
The party also said it would create 2600 new apprenticeships by ensuring 1 in 10 jobs on priority federally funded infrastructure projects would be for apprentices. It would fund 5000 apprenticeships for mature-aged, retrenched workers, and it would ensure 10,000 places would be delivered through a 20-week, pre-apprenticeship course for trades on the National Skills Needs List. Labor also pledged to provide $ 10 million a year over four years for group training organisations, and would reinstall the Tools for Your Trade payments of up to $ 3000 to apprentices, at a cost of $ 285 million.
In contrast, the Coalition promised little on the policy front, aside from its flagship $ 752 million Youth Jobs PaTH Program, which aims to help young jobseekers gain skills and internships. It also promoted the discussion paper it released several months ago about the redesign of VET FEE-HELP. Another Coalition announcement indirectly related to VET was the promise of $ 4.6 million for 12 new pilot P-TECH( Pathways in Technology Early College High School) sites to promote STEM skills. But unlike Labor, it did not propose an independent review of the sector.
GIVE VET A GONSKI Politicians from all along the political spectrum would agree with the mantra that a highly skilled workforce is a key to the prosperity of the nation. Yet, the Coalition seems incapable of commissioning a thorough, independent review of the VET sector that could address the crisis the sector is facing and help bring about a highly skilled workforce.
Given VET’ s lack of a profile during the recent federal election campaign, it needs a highly visible and comprehensive Gonski-style review and report, not only to flush out all the scandals and the reasons they have emerged, but also to help voters and the media work out what’ s wrong with the sector, why it must be fixed and how it can be fixed. Then the sustainability of VET would be a certain election issue next time, like the Gonski school reforms. ■
Dr John Mitchell is a VET researcher and analyst. � jma. com. au
19