More consultation will help the Accord panel get it right on VET

Claire Field

As the Universities Accord panel charts a future for higher educa­tion, it is timely to ask: What impact will its proposals have on vocational education and training?

In the past two decades universities have experienced a 39 per cent increase in domestic enrolments in undergraduate degrees and enabling programs. Across the same period the number of government-funded enrolments in VET declined by 19 per cent.

More than 90 per cent of new jobs in Australia in the next five years will require VET or higher education qualifications, and hence the panel’s terms of reference include how to achieve more engagement between the sectors.

While some of the proposals in the panel’s interim report would be positive for VET, others could damage the sector. The proposed VET student funding measures are well intentioned but unlikely to achieve positive change.

The proposed extension of higher education funding through commonwealth-supported places to the TAFE sector for courses “in areas of crucial skill need” is meant to address the disparity in VET and higher education funding. But while VET desperately needs more funding, “crucial skill need” courses in VET are already government-subsidised and increasingly also fee-free.

The difference between the sectors is that all university undergraduate degrees are government-subsidised, but in VET there are substantial differences in what gets funded.

For example, the West Australian government subsidises 222 VET courses compared with 588 in NSW.

There are also significant differences in the level of funding VET providers receive, and while the new National Skills Agreement’s focus on “shared stewardship” will introduce more nationally consistent funding for VET qualifications, the changes are likely to be disruptive initially.

For example, the diploma of early childhood education and care is funded at between $6800 and $26,500 a student depending on jurisdiction.

The disparity in VET and higher education funding is therefore unlikely to be addressed by introducing CSP funding for some crucial TAFE courses, and it also ignores the much bigger adverse impact the rollout of 300,000 additional higher education CSPs by 2030 will have on the VET sector. Unless universities are incentivised to enrol more VET pathways students, the rollout of these extra places (particularly in a period of low unemployment) will further “cannibalise” VET – as it was put to me recently by a senior VET leader.

If universities are given a choice between enrolling a student directly into an undergraduate degree (earning three years of CSP funding) or enrolling a student with a VET diploma into the second year of the degree, they not only have extra administrative work to do (mapping how the courses align), they also forgo an extra year of funding.

Hence the relatively low levels of VET to university transition by domestic students.

The panel’s proposed universal learning entitlement also requires serious thought if it means students could use their entitlement at any approved provider.

As we saw in VET previously, a shift to student-centred funding can have dramatic impacts on institutional enrolment numbers (let alone create opportunities for fraud if not well implemented).

In this environment, providers with the biggest marketing budgets end up the winners.

The regulatory changes being considered to allow all dual-sector providers and selected TAFEs (and potentially other VET providers with a strong quality history) to be regulated solely by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency are a must.

They would reduce regulatory duplication for providers and allow the VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, to better target its regulatory activities on areas of serious non-compliance it increasingly has been missing.

With the only significant difference between the VET and higher education regulatory standards being the specifics of VET teaching and assessment, it would be straightforward for TEQSA to hire VET experts and for this change to be acted on immediately.

Relatedly, the advent of generative AI is placing strain on VET’s national training packages in industries such as business, information and communications technology, and the creative arts. New approaches are required and dual-sector providers with self-accrediting powers could be allowed to trial different approaches.

The panel also is considering a competitive funding program for the development of teaching and learning materials based on the ARC Centres of Excellence.

Dual-sector universities could be initial demonstration vehicles for this proposal given their research, higher education and VET expertise.

Finally, the panel highlights the NSW Institute of Applied Technology as an example of its proposed co-operative skills centres linking higher education, VET and industry. There is a strong argument that CSCs should also include research.

For example, SuniTAFE’s SMART Farm partnership with the University of Melbourne offers farmers the chance to trial and test new technologies. And there are other similar examples of VET providers helping universities commercialise their research and make it more widely available, especially to smaller businesses.

The panel is to be commended for its engagement on VET issues. More consultation with the sector will ensure a well-balanced set of reform recommendations.

Claire Field is a former public servant and VET regulator. She now operates a consultancy practice in the tertiary education sector.