Standing Committee on Employment, Education
and Workplace Relations
This document has been scanned from the original printed submission.
It may contain some errors
Submission 5
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND
TOOWOOMBA QUEENSLAND 4350
Re: Inquiry into the Appropriate Roles of Institutes of Technical
and Further Education
Thank you for the invitation in your letter of 18 September 1997 to comment
on
- the appropriate roles of institutes of technical and further education;
and
- the extent to which those roles should overlap with universities.
My comments are as follows:
1 The appropriate roles of institutes of technical and further education
However mission statements and statements of aspiration are dressed up,
the prime roles for these institutes ought to remain as:
a) the provision of at least the theoretical base for
trade training, whether through apprenticeships or traineeships
There is currently a doctrinal dispute about whether
this provision should be undertaken in full competition with private
providers, that is, under the full competitive provisions suggested
in the Hilmer Report. This may be a self-defeating doctrine. Trades
and the training for them form a continuing, evolving tradition. It
is appropriate that the tradition be represented in our community (as
in other OECD countries) by institutions dedicated to the preservation
and development of the trade tradition as it evolves in accordance with
society's needs. It should be clear that this role cannot and will not
be assumed by private providers; it is a role that only government instrumentalities
are equipped to fulfil. The danger is that private providers will seek
out the profitable areas of trade training (eg, where the large numbers
are) and neglect the others.
b) the provision of courses for sub-tradesperson training
This is an area where private providers may have a
legitimate entry, though there is almost certainly an economy of scale
to be achieved through relating the lower levels of training to the
teaching staff and equipment needed for the higher levels.
c) the provision of continuing education, including
retraining for new and emerging jobs.
Again this is an area where private providers may have
a legitimate entry. Indeed, there is probably an advantage in having
competition to identify and supply niche markets as social, economic,
and industrial needs change.
2 The extent to which these roles should overlap with universities
If the functions identified under point 1 constitute the core business
of institutes of technical and further education, there remains the question
of whether there is a further role that overlaps with the role of universities.
The following points are relevant:
a) The Australian Qualifications Framework, developed
in an attempt to secure uniformity of standards and nomenclature in
Australia, identifies two levels of awards as being shared by institutes
and universities: the Diploma and the Advanced Diploma.
There has been a tendency over the past dozen years
for many universities to move out of these levels of award, though there
may be signs that a reverse tendency has begun. In any case there seems
no reason why both sectors should not continue to be regarded as appropriate
locations for these two levels of award.
b) Universities are in the process of developing a
number of articulation arrangements with both institutes of technical
and further education and private providers for the early year or years
of degree programs to be offered on contract. This is a different arrangement
to the long-standing articulation provisions, whereby certain TAFE awards
provided advanced standing into degree programs. The newer development
is for the early year or years of the university syllabus to
be taught outside the university by either a TAFE institute or a private
provider.
With proper safeguards, which are the responsibility of the universities
concerned, there seems no reason why this arrangement should not continue
to be developed.
c) As TAFE institutes see themselves as threatened by the doctrine
of private competition, and as their staff gain better formal qualifications,
there is a natural tendency to want to offer degree programs in competition
with universities.
To put the matter bluntly, TAFE institutes at present
have neither the staff nor the facilities to be able to offer credible
degree programs. In some instances they probably lack the facilities to
be able to offer the early year or years of degree programs even where
their students have access to some university resources during that period.
In any case, there seems no point in accrediting
another kind of educational provider to offer degree programs. It is not
as if there were not an adequate number of universities in Australia already--some
of them needing further resources. There is a good deal to be said for
institutes of technical and further education being better recognised
for what they do well (as a necessary function for Australian society)
and for them to concentrate on that.
Yours sincerely
Peter Swannell
Vice-Chancellor
Back to top