Interconnectivity across tertiary institutions’ curriculum is essential

The widening gap between higher education and VET suggests a serious rethink of the structure of tertiary education is overdue.

Illustration: Sturt Krygsman

Australia’s tertiary education sector is distinguished by the division between higher education and ­vocational education and training. The gap between them is stark.

According to the Mitchell ­Institute, higher education in 2015-16 received $25.9 billion in government funding, while VET received $5.7bn. Although these numbers don’t give a perfect picture of government spending on tertiary education because they include student fees for public ­institutions and research grants to universities, it’s the best comparison available.

The disparity is even more ­obvious when you remember that VET has more than four million students and there are just over one million domestic students in higher education.

Elections are great for tertiary education because major political parties often promise increased funding. This is understandable ­because a vibrant, diversified and quality tertiary education system is critical to a national government’s capacity to respond to the big issues.

But elections rarely canvass the structure of tertiary education. This is a pity because increasing funding to a system that arguably is not fit for purpose is wasteful.

Australia’s public universities dominate higher education and are the beneficiaries of the federal government’s commitment to ­uncapped student places, which arose from the 2009 review into higher education conducted by Denise Bradley.

The outcome was to be an ­increase in the number of graduates in Australia; greater access and success for disadvantaged groups; and the creation of a world-class university system that was diverse, innovative and accountable. Universities would be ­defined by their research ­activity and ability to demonstrate a link between research and teaching, and by the transfer of knowledge gained through ­research to industry and society.

Since the Bradley review, the number of graduates has risen even though graduation rates in many universities are declining. One has a graduation rate of only 36 per cent and six univer­sities have graduation rates below 50 per cent.

The Grattan Institute says that if a student has an Australian Tertiary Admission Rank below 60 or is mature age, they have a 40 per cent risk of not completing. If they are part time, the risk of not completing goes up to 50 per cent.

Other expected outcomes for higher education have not ­occurred either. Universities have a sameness of mission and there is no evidence that research supports teaching.

In fact, there are several universities that produce research that is well below an acceptable standard.

There are also other problems. One is that there has been only modest improvement in student equity. Another is that, even though collaboration is critical to the federal government’s innovation and science agenda, the OECD ranks Australia last in terms of university-industry ­collaboration.

VET also has major challenges that are well documented. It ­suffers from regulatory confusion and policy malaise. Like higher education, it lacks diversity. The last and only time the federal government systematically reviewed VET was 44 years ago. Four million students ­deserve better.

VET’s largest providers are TAFE institutions that are comprehensive organisations delivering a wide range of tertiary programs. The delivery style of VET teaching is practical and ­applied. The largest student ­cohort is mature age. A key ­distinguishing feature is the close relationship (which is not ­always a comfortable one) with ­industry.

The system’s curriculum is ­peculiarly called training pack­ages. These are highly instrumental and consist of competencies determined entirely by industry without reference to educators.

The effect has been to reduce VET to a system centred on the skills needed for the existing industrial order. This has led to a blurring of boundaries because of broader ­social and economic pressures for a more adaptable workforce.

VET caters for some of the most disadvantaged students in Australia, many of whom are ­enrolled in certificates 1 and 2, which have poor completion rates and outcomes.

The widening gap between higher education and VET suggests that a serious rethinking of the structure of tertiary education in Australia is overdue. It is a near $30bn a year investment by government and is vital to Australia.

Questions remain as to how to expand access and success to a wide and diverse group of students, and how to balance the tertiary curriculum, especially in VET, with higher level skills that enable individuals to deal with technological change and encourage ­innovation.

An integrated tertiary system would be a step in the right direction. This system would be configured with a diversity of institu­tional types and missions, especially in higher education.

­Institutional diversity would be combined with educational practices that cater for different learning styles, and an interconnected curriculum. It would have different access points for students. Its purpose would be to meet the full range of learner, industry and community needs.

From a structural perspective, higher education would consist of about 20 research-intensive universities. The remainder would become “teaching first” univer­sities that would adapt delivery styles appropriate to the skills of their student populations.

Added to this mix would be a small number of comprehensive applied universities. These would emanate from TAFE and be distinguished, in part, by their ­emphasis on applied learning within a vocational context.

Mission drift would be minimised by insisting that their ­higher education offerings were underpinned by the provision of lower-level VET qualifications. They would have close ties with industry and the community. They would undertake small-scale applied research that was jointly funded by government and industry. The research would be aimed at fostering local innovation and partnerships.

VET national funding would be directed towards TAFE institutions and not-for-profit registered training organisations. If a risk framework were created then some for-profit RTOs could be supported.

Bradley’s philosophy was that equal value must be given to both VET and higher education. The $20bn funding gap suggests that philosophy needs revisiting. An interconnected curriculum would encompass com­petencies but be broader than training ­packages.

Particular attention needs to be given to educationally disadvantaged students to ensure that literacy and numeracy levels are developed that will enable them to proceed to higher qualifications. At a minimum, this requires an overhaul of certificates 1 and 2.

The preceding assumes ­national control of tertiary education and that VET will be renovated. For too long it has been the hapless victim of policy ineptness. It does not address a raft of issues such as how consensus to change might be reached, whether ­uncapped places should continue unabated, whether for-profit providers should have access to public funds and how industry can ­become more involved.

Questions of governance and co-ordination of a national system and making relevant the national protocols higher education ­remain unanswered.

Bruce Mackenzie is former chief executive of Holmesglen TAFE and was chairman and lead reviewer of the Victorian government’s 2015 VET funding review.