Report critical of tertiary education system sets stage for Noonan qualifications review

Educators are being held back by rigid requirements not suited to 21st-century education practices.

Peter Noonan’s review is expected to report by June 2019. Picture: Stuart McEvoy

The structural foundation of Australia’s tertiary education system needs to be brought up to date to help educators to meet the demands of modern education practice, according to a new report to the federal government.

The report, which paves the way for a major review of the Australian Qualifications Framework, finds that educators are being held back by rigid requirements that are not suited to education practices now preferred by employers and students.

The report, titled Contextual Research for the Australian Qualifications Framework Review, advises Education Minister Simon Birmingham on the terms of reference for the review.

Last week Senator Birmingham and Assistant Vocational Education and Skills Minister Karen Andrews announced that Peter Noonan, from Victoria University’s Mitchell Institute, would chair the review. Other members include Megan Lilly from the Australian Industry Group, academic Sally Kift, and Elizabeth More from the AIM Business School, with two more members yet to be appointed.

Senator Birmingham said the review would include “the changing qualification and course offerings of institutions, such as the rise of micro-credentials”.

A discussion paper will be issued later this year and the review is expected to report by June 2019.

The AQF is the document that sets out the standards of knowledge, skills and understanding required at each level of tertiary education.

Its main purpose has been to ensure the requirements for qualifications are transparent and that there is a standard of equivalency. It sets out a hierarchical ladder of qualifications covering certificates I through to IV, diplomas, advanced diplomas, associate degrees, bachelor degrees, master degrees and doctorates.

The report, prepared by consultants PhillipsKPA, warns that Australia is losing its position of global leadership in the development of qualifications frameworks.

Other countries, particularly those in Europe, are now looking to use the framework “as a tool to facilitate an agile workforce suited to rapid technological, industrial and social change”, it says. The ­report finds there is a widely held view that the AQF has “not created seamless pathways between different levels of education”.

The AQF is also criticised for its assumption that the pathway for education is from the bottom of the ladder to the top.

“A few have suggested it needs to be more ‘three-dimensional’, which implies that it needs to offer greater recognition and encouragement for moving across and around levels and sectors,” the report says.

It also notes that the AQF does not have a way of assigning educational levels to “non-standard” learning.

Nor could it regulate or quality-assure credit towards formal qualifications for work-based learning or micro-credentials in a consistent way, which means that the use of “recognition of prior learning” is not properly ­defined.

The PhillipsKPA report describes the AQF as “exceedingly complex and rich in semantic detail” and points out: “In its printed form the AQF is four times longer than the NZ Qualifications Framework.”