The Universities Accord needs to consider a binary system

We have a fundamental confusion between qualifications and the institutions which deliver them.

The whole tone of the Universities Accord discussion paper treats the higher education system and the vocational education and training system as god given. It intimates that all we need to do is to perfect the higher education sector, improve its links with the vocational education and training sector, and we will be in Nirvana.

However I argue this is an unrealistic expectation. The problems we face run much deeper and need a more complex solution. Surely it is time to take up the invitation of Mary O’Kane, who chairs the Accord’s review panel, to be bold and think big, and challenge the way we think about tertiary education.

Why do we start with a supposition that we have higher education on one hand, which focuses on advanced level knowledge and research, and vocational education, with its applied knowledge, on the other? Much of what is taught in universities is vocational in nature. So why don’t we start talking about Australia’s tertiary education sector as a whole?

It is time to question the current structures that treat higher education so differently from vocational education and training. The truth is that different funding and regulatory arrangements in the various state and federal jurisdictions have given Australia an incoherent tertiary education system.

There seems to be a general perception that VET loses out to higher education because of its “lower” status and because VET does not have income contingent loans (apart from some diplomas). This is followed up with a presumption that VET could be made attractive in comparison to higher education if we could just change public perceptions.

Unfortunately this view is misplaced. The reality is that the only area where there is real competition between the sectors is at the diploma level and only in certain fields.

The idea that students choose between undertaking a certificate III/IV and an undergraduate degree is silly. They are not substitutes. The pertinent point is that VET leads to lower status occupations. Income contingent loans for certificates III/IV, or an advertising campaign extolling the virtues of VET, will not address the competitive disadvantage of VET.

The Accord discussion paper talks about better alignment and connection across Australia’s tertiary education. However this is a very static view of the two systems and takes as a given the role of the current universities. One ‘stylised fact’ that has emerged over recent decades is that the universities are largely driven by research success and its impact on university rankings. This has led to the teaching aspect of universities being overshadowed by the research endeavour, and the so called unified national system has resulted in large comprehensive universities all trying to be larger, more comprehensive and more research driven.

If current trends continue, VET will be left in the unfortunate position of being a provider of lower level training to meet short term industry needs. University education, with its emphasis on research and theory, will be the only game in town in the delivery of training for professional occupations. This is in contrast with international practice where there is diversity in terms of the delivery of higher level education, with many examples of specialised, professional or practice orientated institutions which complement the research based universities. To address the decline in Australia of practice based education, we need a new type of tertiary education institution which straddles the VET and higher education worlds – a ‘professional university’, focused on teaching and practice, delivering VET certificates, diplomas bachelor and applied masters degrees. Ideally, there would be pathways from certificates to diplomas to degrees.

However, current structures are very unhelpful. We have a fundamental confusion between qualifications and the institutions which deliver them. We have a qualification classification that separates VET and higher education. We have two regulatory bodies, with quite different ways of operating. We have funding arrangements which reflect history rather than logic. We have fee and loan arrangements which are all over the place.

So when I argue for a new type of tertiary institution, I am really arguing for a new tertiary education system. The reforms that are needed include: changes to the AQF so that it is agnostic in respect to whether a bachelor degree is VET or higher education; a single regulatory framework; a rebalancing of government funding (perhaps the Commonwealth should take over tertiary education funding); and an emphasis within VET on general education so that a student can both acquire technical skills and leave open the possibility of higher level study

Thus, it would need a fundamental shift in philosophy and serious institutional reform.

There are a number of reasons why this is worth arguing for. The first is educational; there are numerous fields where a practice based training philosophy is a good one. The second is a diversity argument. Current arrangements have led to all universities aspiring to become comprehensive research universities. The third is an efficiency argument. Teaching only institutions do not have the option of cross subsidising research. The fourth is an equity argument. It is unarguable that VET has a broader reach than universities in terms of students’ backgrounds.

In effect, we would be creating a binary tertiary education system, within which practice-based professional universities would provide a genuine alternative to the research-focused comprehensive universities.

Tom Karmel is director of the Mackenzie Research Institute at the Holmesglen Institute. He is a former managing director of the National Centre for Vocational Education Research.