Standing Committee on Employment, Education
and Workplace Relations
This document has been scanned from the original printed submission.
It may contain some errors
Submission 47
National Union of Students
National Office
NUS submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee
on Employment Education and Training inquiry into the appropriate roles
of institutes of technology and further education
The National Union of Students Incorporated (NUS) is the national representative
body for students universities in Australia. NUS is a federation of 48
affiliated campus student Organisations.
NUS currently represents in excess of 530,000 university students from
all around the country. NUS represents students in every state and territory
in the country and maintains six branches and one national office.
N US was formed in December 1987 and has become the recognised national
voice for university students. Since its inception, NUS has fought for
the interests of students in opposing the introduction of fees and campaigned
for increased funding for universities and student financial support,
consistent with the view that educational opportunities should be available
to all who desire them.
The primary role of NUS is to represent the interests
of university students in Australia. Specifically this includes working
for
- the rights of all people to gain access on an equal basis, to a fully
publicly funded quality education;
- scholarship, academic freedom, educational quality, freedom of thought,
expression and association;
- the rights of students in the fields of social security, cultural
activities,
- health, welfare and sport;
- the principles of student unionism:
- the provision of quality services to students;
- the democratisation of the education system; and
- an end to discrimination in education institutions.
Introduction
NUS is primarily concerned to ensure that access t:) the education system
is equitable and equally importantly that the educator-, system itself
is equitably structured. To this end NUS seeks to ensure that the education
system minimises hierarchies between educational institutions and se,-tors,
both in terms of status and resource allocation.
This is submission will address the role which education should play
in society, the current educational divisions and their basis in social
class and some comments on the potential for increasing inter-relation
between universities and technical and further education.
The role of education
NUS believes that values attached to quality education transcend the
boundaries of the current education system. All good education must] incorporate
a multi-faceted approach, which incorporates a gradation of activities
covering practical and abstract components. Accordingly, NUS holds a qualitatively
different vision of the higher education sector and its aims to those
which have achieved orthodoxy in recent years.
Democracy by definition, cannot mean merely that an unskilled worker
can become skilled. It must mean that every citizen can govern and that
society places him [sic], even if only abstractly, in a general condition
to achieve this. Political democracy tends towards a coincidence of the
rulers and the ruled (in the sense of government with the consent of the
governed), ensuring for each non-ruler a free training in the skills and
general technical preparation necessary to that end.
Antonio Gramsci
It Is undeniable that power and wealth are unequally distributed within
our current society. NUS strongly believes that this inequality is reinforced
and replicated d rough unequal access to all forms of education and accordingly,
that rectification o the imbalance in access to education is fundamental
to efforts at creating social equity. Social equity in this context includes
both of Gramsci's prerequisites for democracy, in the form of material
equality and political liberation.
More than thirty years ago, the Report of the Committee on the Future
of Tertiary & Education in Australia (the Martin Committee) recognised
the fundamental and intrinsic value of higher education when it reported
that education is "... the very stuff of a free and democratic society".1
NUS concurs in believing that an education system which encompasses all
the aims articulated above is an essential underpinning of any society
which wishes to lay claim to aspirations of becoming truly democratic.
Within this paradigm true education is fundamentally about learning to
learn. It is the process by which we are able to challenge any set of
accepted principles- be they in chemistry, politics or any other discipline-
and to independently inquire and extend our individual, and therefore
collective, understanding of the world and society. It has the potential
to equip the population with the ability to both increase the a material
comforts which are available to its members and ensuring more equitable
distribution of these resources, whilst simultaneously providing individuals
with the knowledge and confidence to culturally and politically enrich
their own lives and those of their community. Education should be about
self determination and liberation - allowing people political and economic
control over their own lives.
The analytical and liberating nature of quality education is central
to its value to society and underpins the rationale for accessibility.
It is not possible to divorce the , availability of education from its
content. It is unacceptable to condone an education which does not fulfil
the criteria of being both accessible and liberating. To provide one without
the other leads to an unacceptable replication of existing power structures.
Curricula, as well as access, must encourage the development of people
able and willing to challenge the status quo and to develop a critical
and questioning community- this is the essence of the democratic liberation
of individuals and societies. The role of curricula was succinctly expressed
by Richard
Shaull when he wrote that:
There is no such thing as a neutral educational process. Education either
functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration
of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring
about conformity to it, c; r it becomes 'the practice of freedom', the
means by which men and women dew critically and creatively with reality
and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.2
This current role which education plays in facilitating conformity in
society is also fundamentally integrated with its role in highly advanced
social selection and segregation. Within the Australian market economy,
education plays a integral role in sorting and ranking individuals in
the labour market and, accordingly, further rewards existing social and
economic advantage. Jr. order to create a system which is more than an
adjunct to the labour market and contributes to social and cultural development
of the community it is necessary to create a system of education which
is non-hierarchical. This does not preclude an education system which
is diverse, it instead requires that difference rather can hierarchy be
encouraged.
Too often debates surrounding education policy have focused
exclusively on access to education- this is merely a means to the end
of achieving greater social equity as a result of the communal effort
in providing education. This has been to the ' detriment of public discussion
by ignoring the rationale for support for high levels participation in
education- the desire to create a. more socially and economically equitable
society. Accordingly a call for an accessible education system flows from
desire to create equity within society, rather than for its own sake.
Essentially, NUS promotes equitable access in the quest for equitable
outcomes.
In contrast to these aims the higher education sector is increasingly
focused too narrowly on the needs of commerce and industry at the expense
of the community and social cohesion. This situation is exemplified by
the disproportionate funding cuts which have been experienced by many
of the less vocationally oriented teaching departments at a number of
institutions around the country. More recently and more starkly the increasing
role which education plays in directly meeting the needs of specific industries
and companies has been highlighted through the introduction of McDonalds
training into the Victorian high school system.3 This type of intervention
is both anti-educational and not in the public interest.
Divisions between tertiary education sectors
In order to achieve equitable outcomes through education, the structure
of the system must not be hierarchical. Fundamental to the role of education
described above is the need for all institutions to offer a high :quality
education to all students. It @ s not merely enough to ensure that access
is equitable, as access to substandard education is little better than
no access at all. It is therefore of equal importance that no institutions
are consigned to the role of under-resourced providers unable to offer
education which fosters analytical and creative thinking. This is clearly
a difficult task, given the relative status and resources available to
the range of institutions already within the sector.
In contrast to current trends, it is essential that no institutions are
able to gain a competitive advantage over other institutions as a result
of their age or relative standing in the community. Such competition is
anathema to true educational values. There can be no justification for
the fostering of competition between and within tertiary education institutions.
The extension, transmission and preservation of knowledge must once again
become the guiding principle of each institution which is clear and compelling
motivation for all those who work within or have contact with the sectors.
It is clear that a 'level playing field' does not currently exist between
institutions 4 and, as such, that if an equitable system is a desirable
outcome, active use of public policy is the only means of achieving it.
It is equally clear that the current trend of deregulation is working
in the opposite direction a.-id is assisting older more prestigious institutions
to entrench their positions. There can be little doubt about the intention
of institutions such as those in the Group of Eight 5 when the University
of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor, Professor Alan Gilbert, makes statements
such as: "we do need the gaps between institutions to be able to
get w der, and quite quickly".' The explicit aim of such. institutions
is to increase the levels of resources available to themselves, particularly
in research funding, to the obvious detriment of all other institutions
in the system. This is a clear example of the manner in which competition
leads to self interest which is rational and works to the betterment of
the individual but which detracts from the collective good.
Whilst NUS remains critical of the content and process of many of the
Dawkins reforms which took place in the late 1980's, the principle underpinning
the Unified National System (UNS) is undoubtedly sound and equitable.
The attempt to foster a system which encourages a flattening of hierarchies
between institutions, and between formerly separate sectors, is both worthy
and desirable. NUS believes that whilst the Dawkins reforms and the creation
of the UNS has not fully achieved this aim, it has played a vital role
in ensuring a level of consistency across the sector at a time when there
was fast growth in the number of universities. Despite the fact that clear
status hierarchies exist between institutions, these are relatively small
given the vast differences in the age and level :)f resources available
across the sector. The decrease in central regulation which has begun
in recent years is already posing a threat to the overall well being of
the higher education sector and NUS believes that in light of current
policies this trend is likely to get worse.
Increasing links between universities and TAFEs
NUS views education as a lifelong process, in which higher education
plays an increasingly important part- As such, it is vital that -!he hierarchical
barriers between the various sectors, in particular Vocational Education
and Training (VET), be minimised rather than exacerbated. Increasingly,
the need exists to move freely between differing modes of education many
times throughout the lifelong education process.
NUS believes that education and training are inextricably linked and
accordingly that O e traditional delineation is extremely arbitrary. Educationally
no distinction needs to exist between education and training. Well resourced,
high quality 'training' 7 should incorporate elements which challenge
accepted theories and principles, nurturing a desire to continue to learn
(both formally and informally). Likewise, virtually all forms of 'education'
incorporate Instruction in specific skills. This is mast true for many
of the most traditional highest prestige areas of teaching in universities
such as professions including medicine, law, architecture and engineering.
This leads to the belief that the determination of which category given
disciplines fall within is not determined on educational grounds, but
instead social and economic concerns. These decisions are strongly influenced
by the relative prestige attached to various skills and related professions
and the level of resources which are made available to teach various courses.
NUS strongly believes that vocationalism must not overwhelm the educational
experience, which is equally true for all education sectors and is not
confined to universities.
Given that the divide between what has been deemed education and training
is not educational, another rationale must be established. The traditional
role of education has been one of maintaining relative social position.
This must be recognised in order to fully appreciate the anti-educational
delineation between education and training and therefore between educational
sectors.. In essence the divide between sectors has been based on social
class- This phenomenon is not new. Gramsci recognised it sixty five years
ago when he wrote:
The fundamental division into classical and vocational (professional)
schools was a rational formula: the vocational school for the instrumentalist
classes, the classical school for the dominant classes and the intellectuals!
This has served two purposes, in both maintaining the social, economic
and political advantage of the 'dominant classes' whilst !-simultaneously
minimising the expenditure required to provide basic skills to the workforce.
To this and the abolition of the binary divide between universities and
Colleges of Advanced Education (CAEs) was an extremely positive step in
the development of a coherent higher education system. It may be best
viewed as the first stage in a longer term plan to fully integrate post
school education into a seamless system which marries analytical thinking
with the acquisition of specific skills and which is accessible, to all.
This would constitute an extremely influential step towards creating a
system which is capable of delivering the aims outlined above to a much
larger proportion of the population.
Accordingly, NUS strongly advocates a system of hither education which
is not only accessible to the greatest possible number of peoples but
which is also of a consistently high standard in order to achieve the
overall alms articulated above. In order for this to be achieved it is
essential to minimise hierarchies both within ex sting structures and
between educational sector. Practical issues raised by closer ties between
educational sectors
Whilst NUS is entirely supportive of closer links I-between universities
and technical arid further education, for the reasons outlined above,
a large degree of cynicism exists around the Government's motivation for
attempting to achieve greater integration between the sectors. In light
of the effects of deregulation on the university sector and the hierarchies
which it is creating. there could be no suggestion that efforts to integrate
the university with technical and further education sectors were motivated
by the values outlined above.
In keeping with the above concerns, NUS is particularly opposed to moves
to further integrate universities and institutes of technical and further
education which are motivated by efforts at rationalisation or reducing
the allocation of resources per student, This is of particular concern
given that this process has already taken place within the education system.
However, NUS is strongly supportive of greater integration of the respective
sectors with the intention of facilitating easier transfer between educational
systems and increasing the teaching and research resources for students
and staff. In particular, NUS is opposed to fees for articulation between
universities andtechnical and further education as this imposes a significant
barrier to the effective transfer between two complementary systems of
education.
Recommendation 1
That the Committee recommend that fees for articulation between universities
and technical and further education be prohibited as at condition of receipt
of Commonwealth funding
NUS believes that there is much to be gained both educationally and socially
from the creation of a more balanced system in which both theory and practice
are valued side by side. However, the lack of balance which currently
exists in many courses would require a greater increase in theoretical
and abstract content than would be required of practical components. It
is also imperative that the practical component of education remain generic
and is not tailored to meet the needs of a specific company or interest,
as in the case of McDonalds and the Victorian Certificate of Education
(VCE).
On the issue of tuition fees, NUS is opposed to Incorporation of TAFE
courses within HECS, due to the very large difference which currently
exists in the respective level of fees applicable to each. Whilst HECS
is able to be deferred. the relatively low level of the fee charged by
TAFEs outweighs this advantage. In Victoria for example TAFE fees are
set at $ 1.00 per contact hour with a minimum fee of $40 and a maximum
fee of $500. In addition fees capped at $390 for apprentices and $40 for
anyone in receipt of a pension. If the Committee is concerned that the
current nature of up front fees in TAFE are a barrier to study, NUS recommends
that a system of payment by instalment be introduced. This is considered
preferable to the adoption of HECS in TAFE with its accompanying exponential
increase in the level of fees.
Recommendation 2
That the Committee recommend that the Higher Education Contribution
Scheme (HECS) not be extended to technical and further Education due to
the unacceptable increase in tuition fees which this would constitute.
It is hoped that this submission is of benefit to the Committee In its
deliberations
NUS looks forward to providing any further reformation or clarification
as seen
October 1997
Presented by:
John Carey
NUS National President
Jackie Lynch
NUS National Education Officer
Prepared by:
Simon Kent
Research Co-ordinator
Footnotes
1 Commonwealth of Australia (The Martin Committee), Tertiary Education
in Australia.- Report of theCommittee on the Future of Tertiary Education
in Australia to the Australian Universities
Commission, Vol. 1. AGPS, Canberra, August 1964, p. 4.
2 Paulo Friere, Pedagogy of the oppressed. Sheed and Ward. London,
1972, p. 14.
3 Alex Messina, "What's cooking at school of fast food", The
Age 15/10/97, pp. 1-2.
4 For example, "The Go8 have an advantage in attracting private
funds for research over public money. If translated to a situation
where all higher education research was funded from private sources, the
Go8 in 1994 would have taken $28.08 million from the non-Go8 universities
- equivalent to the combined income from all sources for research of the
bottom earners" Jim Wellsmore, "Investment in Higher Education:
The Public-Private Mix" in Research and Education Staff of Student
Organisations 1996 National Conference: Papers and Minutes,
University of Queensland Union May 1997, p. 13.
5 The self proclaimed Group of Eight Includes Adelaide University, Australian
National University, Monash University, University of Melbourne, University
of New South Wales, University of Queensland, University of , Sydney and
University of Western Australia.
6 Catherine Armitage, "Class Division" The Weekend Australian.
12.13 April 1997. p, 24.
7 Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (eds.) Selections from
the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, Lawrence and Wishart, London,
197 1, p. 1(b.
Bibliography
Armitage, Catherine, "Class Division". The Weekend
Australian, 12-13 April-
Commonwealth of Australia (The Martin Committee), Tertiary Education
in
Australia: Report of the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education
in
Australia to the Australian Universities Commission, Vol. 1,
AGPS, Canberra,
August 1964.
Friere, Paulo, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Sheed and Ward. London.
1972.
Hoare, Quintin and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (eds.) :Selections from
the Prison
Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1971.
Messina, Alex, "What's cooking at school of
fast food", The Age, 15 October 1997.
Back to top