Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations

Inquiry into the Role of Institutes of TAFE
Submissions

This document has been scanned from the original printed submission. It may contain some errors

Submission 7

SUBMISSION FROM GAVIN MOODIE

Author

I have worked as an administrator in Australian universities since 1975. 1 currently work in a dual sector institution, a university that teaches both higher education and technical and further education (tafe) courses.

 

Glossary

This is how I use various terms to refer to different levels, institutions and sectors of tertiary

education.

Courses	Levels	Institutions	Sectors
PhD Masters Bachelors	University-level	Universities	Higher education
Bachelors Diplomas	Advanced education	Universities
Diplomas Certificates	Vocational education and training	Public TAFE institutes Private vet providers	Vocational education and training

 

Key issues for the vet and higher education sectors

For tafe institutes and vocational education and training (vet) providers generally I believe that the key issue over the next 5 years will be the structuring and management of competition: how much of government funding will be open to competition between providers; how will this competition be structured; how much of the admission of students will be competitive; and how governments, institutes, providers, industry and students manage the competition.

For universities the key medium term issue related to the committee's inquiry will be the management of boundaries with tafe: credit transfer; joint courses; and in the competition with tafe for students, legitimating offering lower level and more vocational courses while protecting higher education from intrusion by tafe institutes. Thus, the committee's terms of inquiry seem from this perspective to be taking the universities' side in a competition for students, for courses - for broadened and enhanced roles - and for the accompanying resources.

 

Key issue for the Commonwealth

But the key issue for the Commonwealth, I believe, is how it will structure the provision of tertiary education, from high level and prolonged research training leading to the award of a PhD to low level and short vocational courses leading to a basic certificate. In one sense this is neither a new nor a substantive issue. Australia's oldest universities offered sub-degree certificates and diplomas at least until the Murray Committee of 1957 - that is, for by far the larger part of their histories. The four dual sector universities have been offering both tafe and advanced education courses for almost a century and PhDs since 1988. Each university is successful in its own way, and just as successful in each sector as single sector institutions. They offer the prospect if not yet quite the reality of providing the 'seamless web' of tertiary education sought by many.

Notwithstanding those historical and current exceptions, tertiary education remains heavily structured between vet and higher education. Governments structure the sector by level of government, by accountability and co-ordination processes, by accreditation processes and by funding levels and arrangements. The sectors are also structured by their relations with business, by their relations with students and by their relations with the general community local, national and, increasingly, international. The economic and social structuring of tertiary education is outside governments' direct and immediate control, but well within their broad and long-term influence.

The dual sector institutions are therefore only apparent counter-examples to the structuring of vet and higher education. For even the best integrated dual sector universities are forced by their external circumstances to remain essentially two institutions within one. The question is whether this is desirable and whether governments and the general community should seek to structure tertiary education differently.

 

Disadvantages of different structures

The different structures of vet and higher education (and, indeed, the different structures of tertiary education, of post-compulsory secondary education and of adult and community education) establish barriers to the transfer of students and resources between the sectors. They institutionalise anomalies in the treatment of students and staff and in the services that can be provided to the community. They establish inefficiencies and unproductive competition at the boundaries between the sectors. They increase the complexities of government and hence community accountability.

 

Reasons for structuring different types of tertiary education

But different structures have the advantage of supporting different arrangements to meet different needs of tertiary education.

Courses of different lengths and response times. Australia needs tertiary education courses that are short in duration and respond quickly to society's needs. Australia also needs courses of longer duration that serve the community's longer term needs. This argues for different course development, accreditation and accountability processes.

Courses in different disciplines and that develop different skills. Australia needs courses in different disciplines and ones that develop different types of skills - academic skills, motor or physical skills and affective or social skills. This argues for different curricula, different teaching-learning methods and teachers with different skills.

Skills at different levels. Australian students need courses that develop basic skills and courses that develop skills to the highest level, and a range of courses in between. This also argues for different curricula, different teaching-learning methods and teachers with different skills.

Courses with different cost structures. Australia needs tertiary courses with different cost structures so that money may be saved in some areas to spend in others. This argues for different funding levels.

Students in different geographic, social and economic circumstances. Australia needs tertiary courses accessible to students in different geographic areas, from different socioeconomic backgrounds and for students with different personal circumstances - some want to study fulltime, some want to study in conjunction with family or work; others aren't intrinsically motivated to study but undertake courses in response to external pressures. This argues for different funding arrangements.

 

Necessary, contingent and convenient organisational structures

Many of these different types of tertiary education serving different needs are provided within one organisational structure. Thus, one TAFE institute within one State and Commonwealth system may offer short courses developing vocational technical skills funded entirely by industry at the same time as offering extended courses developing academic skills serving broad social purposes which are funded entirely by the Commonwealth. Conversely, some courses that achieve the same vocational outcome are provided in quite different organisational structures, for example, by single-sector universities and TAFE institutes with different financing and fee arrangements within differing governing and accountability processes.

There is therefore no essential organisational structure that is necessary for any particular form or type of tertiary education. We may observe similar structural variability in other sectors. Some health centres - the teaching hospitals - provide a full range of services from major surgery and other sophisticated treatments to preventative social and community health services. Other teaching hospitals provide only specialist treatments, and other health centres provide only social and community health services. And in the simpler activity of serving peoples' private transport wishes, some business sell new cars, used cars and spare parts, provide full mechanical and panel beating services and sell petrol; while others only sell petrol and junk food. Again, there is no necessary or essential organisational structure for any particular segment of the private transport sector just as there is no one best structuring of tertiary education.

At least in my view, there is little current justification for the present division of responsibility between different levels of government for different types of tertiary education. The Constitution reserves to the States power over all education - higher education as much as primary education. The Constitution allows the Commonwealth to give the States conditional grants to provide the bulk of tafe funding just as much as it does for higher education. The historical explanation is clear enough in outline, and, interestingly, is probably due to the historical failures of Australian higher education and the success of tafe.

The Commonwealth provided similar special grants to the States to develop university and tafe courses the defence forces needed for WWII. Again, the Commonwealth provided special grants similarly to fund the expansion of university and tafe courses for post-war reconstruction. Following that period the Commonwealth withdrew from tertiary education, leaving university and tafe funding and accountability almost entirely to the States. In the 1950s two reports were published which documented the poor conditions of Australia's universities - low academic standards, poor teaching, low student demand, poor management and lack of resources. In response to the second of those reports (of the Murray Committee) the Commonwealth established a joint funding arrangement with the States for universities. Another review in the 1960s (of the Martin Committee) prompted the Commonwealth to intervene to correct the deficiencies in advanced education.

That there were was no such national crises in tafe indicates the comparative success of tafe and the States in meeting Australia's expectations of vet.

The justification for tertiary education's present division of responsibility between different levels of government is therefore primarily historical. While some organisational structures may be more convenient than others were one starting from scratch, the costs and risks of restructuring argue for trying to achieve change within current structures if possible, but changing structures where they become major impediments to reform.

 

Structure on courses and client groups, not organisations

I described different needs justifying different types of tertiary education first, to provide different types of courses. I would therefore structure accreditation and accountability processes and funding levels and arrangements by types of courses. Secondly, I also described different needs by different client groups. I would structure different teaching-learning and financing arrangements by students' major different social and economic circumstances. Different arrangements again are appropriate where the primary client group is an organisation seeking training for their staff or a community or government seeking some broad social benefit such as literacy, numeracy or useful occupations for otherwise unemployed people.

We already have elements of a structuring by type of course and type of client group, which does not coincide with current sectoral divisions. Thus, arrangements for apprenticeships are quite different to those for other types of vet courses and students pay different fees according to their socioeconomic circumstances. The arrangements for research higher degree courses and students are quite different to those for coursework postgraduate degrees which are different again for undergraduate degrees and students. Higher education and vet institutions alike provide courses for full tuition fees, in-house programs for industry and specially funded or contracted courses for governments.

I believe that these different arrangements by course and client group should be applied more consistently throughout tertiary education, and that therefore differences by type of institution and level of government should be dismantled.

 

Implications

Implementation of this proposal would not result in all institutions attempting to provide a full range of courses in every discipline, just as not every car yard seeks to stock every model and make of car. Neither would institutions stop offering less prestigious courses or providing for people from low socioeconomic backgrounds: BMWs are stocked by only a few car yards.

 

Conclusion

I have argued that focussing on the appropriate roles of tafe institutes adopts the universities' perspective in their competition with tafe for courses, students and therefore resources. I argue that the central issue is the purposes and clients served by vet courses, and that this issue arises equally for higher education. I conclude that governments should structure their funding and accountability by type of course and student. This will result in some adjustment of the client groups served by and the portfolio of courses offered by tafe and higher education institutes, but I do not believe that this will result in a stampede up market and to the top of the credential ladder: tertiary institutions are aware and mature enough to build on their distinctive strengths.

I would be happy to provide the committee with any further information it might seek.

Gavin Moodie

Back to top