VET & TAFE
campusreview.com.au
VET diploma enrolments subsidised by
states and territories are (at present) far
greater in number than those of VET Student
Loans. There is strong overlap in the popular
state funded and VET Student Loan courses,
so in future states have the option to direct
diploma students to approved VET Student
Loan providers and withdraw or minimise
any state subsidies sufficient so students
avoid the 20 per cent loan fee.
Public funding and financing – HE
By comparison the Australian government
in 2018 provided 36 universities with a total
of about $205 million in grants for HE AQF
5/6 sub-bachelor courses, in addition to
which students pay a capped fee that can
be financed by HELP loans, with again
long‑term uncertain cost to government of
any loans not repaid. The $205 million was
for a total of 18,847 ‘designated places’.
Students if enrolled fee-for-service at an HE
provider may choose to access a HELP loan,
for which a 25 per cent loan fee applies if the
provider is eligible to provide such loans.
Proposed AQF 5/6 national policy was
rebuffed and alternate policy adopted
Proposed policy to extend the HE ‘demand
driven’ system to HE sub-bachelor programs
was not pursued. It was strongly supported
by the HE sector but equally strongly
opposed within the VET sector.
From 2019 the Australian government
intends to support sub-bachelor courses that
focus on industry needs that fully articulate
into a bachelor degree. An unresolved
issue for universities is interpreting ‘industry
needs’ and ‘full articulation’ for sub-bachelor
courses. Some HE diplomas are designed
academically to provide pathways into
higher HE qualifications with no direct
industry need.
International perspective: one view about
the UK experience
This contested ground is similar to that
described in the UK, where commentator
Alison Wolf holds the strong view that UK
universities have ‘colonised’ the upper
levels of their vocational training system,
this distortion resulting through power of
finances, prestige and marketing:
“Universities are thus well placed to expand
their recruitment and the range of their
offerings, colonising areas of vocational
education and training which were
traditionally the preserve of apprenticeship
or of vocational schools and colleges.
One policy option is simply to accept this:
everyone should go to university, and all
training should simply take place there. It is a
bad option – financially and substantively.”
There is argument to tilt Britain’s education
system back towards skills training.
SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS AQF 5/6
The present
In Australia, VET/HE AQF 5/6 qualifications
and their ‘boundary’ space presently
operate under separate legislative, funding/
financing and regulatory regimes, including
different accreditation paths for courses
and qualifications, and with separate public
administrative costs.
While there are present overlaps in FoE
and courses across the HE/VET AQF 5/6
levels (e.g. nursing), any future convergence
of popular courses and greater competition
for students – or alternately, course
differentiation providing complementary
purposes, pathways and job-specific
outcomes – will mostly depend on student
choice influenced by policy, funding
and financing.
Present policy and funding arrangements
appear to tilt student choice to the HE
track. Student eligibility and funding/
financing policy is critical, as any inequity
in opportunity or support (such as loan
fees) risks students enrolling in courses not
because of educational/training benefits that
best suit them, but because they perceive
them as financially more favourable.
The Australian government has two
funding/finance programs supporting AQF
5/6 qualifications either side of the VET/
HE boundary: training loans for students
enrolled with approved providers in
legislatively specified VET AQF 5/6 courses,
with notionally unlimited places; and, grant
funded places at universities that are quota-
limited and include specified capped student
fees that are coverable by loans, for students
enrolled in HE AQF 5/6 courses. There are
parallel administrative costs, including $36
million in IT systems and support for VET
Student Loan compliance.
States and territories provide subsidies
for VET AQF 5/6 programs but costs
are unknown, as is longer-term costs to
governments of unpaid loans for VET or HE
courses. This leaves the picture incomplete.
The future
Education futurists point to the disruption of
internet-empowered education interlopers,
offering global reach in digital learning and
corporate packaging of industry-endorsed
‘just when needed’ learning. This is forecast
to impact on existing HE and VET providers.
Such change may not of itself be damaging
to high quality, timely skills formation in the
workforce, provided for example ‘micro-
credentials’ are supplementary and not
alternatives displacing full qualifications.
Solutions may focus on qualification
pathways spanning VET/HE that have a
clear line of sight from training/education
to occupational needs. This presents
opportunity for intermediary standalone
qualifications, supplemented by skill sets and/
or ’micro-credentials’, aligned to evolving
and emerging jobs, as well as tiered-levels
of professional qualifications supporting
job progression. This may work best with
vocationally specific qualifications in fields
such as engineering, design, architecture,
IT technologies, management/finance
and nursing, and linked to professional
registrations and credentials. It would also
better facilitate higher apprentices at VET/HE
AQF 5/6 levels and above.
Fresh approaches may be needed in
best joint practice in pedagogy, combining
knowledge/skill teaching and assessment
supported by a stable continuum of public
funding/financing designed to support a
better integrated tertiary education system.
From the perspective of students, the ability
to pick and mix the best from university
education and vocational training, be it
skilling, academic study or work experience,
should improve job prospects for students
and better meet needs of employers.
The announced review of HE provider
category standards may lead to institutional
reforms (perhaps even redefining
‘university’). A separate review of the AQF
has commenced. Pre-research for this
review notes “ambiguities in having different
qualifications on the same (AQF) level,
but also about differentiation of student
support payments for the same qualification
dependent upon its classification as ‘VET’
or ‘HE’, [and] while funding and support
payments may sit outside the sphere of
influence of the AQF, they nevertheless
potentially promote powerful distortions in
the marketplace for qualifications which is a
core concern for the AQF”.
Both reviews are pertinent to potentially
laying the groundwork for future reforms at
AQF 5/6 levels. ■
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.
25