Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy
SUBMISSION
by
Australian National Training Authority
Overview 1
1. Introduction
2.
Issues Identified By the Review
3.
Conclusion
Annexures
The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy. The submission concentrates on the specific references to the relationship between the higher education and Vocational Education Training (VET) sectors and provides a range of information about that relationship.
The points made in this submission have been made by the Authority within the framework of existing government policies for vocational education and training. Comments in relation to any new policy proposals, possibly arising from the Review itself, would be subject to endorsement by the ANTA Ministerial Council.
A consideration of the relationship between VET and higher education should begin with a recognition that the two sectors differ in the following important ways:
Whilst, as will be discussed in some detail, there has been some convergence of the offerings of the higher education and VET sectors, in other ways recent developments have tended to reinforce the differences between the sectors; in particular, the strengthening of industry links and market based resource allocation mechanisms in the VET sector and the growth in post-graduate programs in the higher education sector.
It should be recognised also that the interface between higher education and VET accounts for only a relatively small share of either sector’s activities and the educational dynamics of one sector should not distort the character of the other. Moreover, the major clients of the VET sector support the continued separate identity of the sector on the basis of its vocational focus and industry links.
It is in this context that the interface between the higher education and VET sectors should be discussed.
The interface, where it does exist, extends beyond the traditional one of articulation from VET to higher education and encompasses:
Over the past two decades participation in higher education has grown substantially, at a higher rate than has participation in VET. However, in recent years governments have sought to boost the image and status of vocational education and training and have supported substantial growth in the VET sector. In addition, there has been a significant shift in higher education enrolments towards more vocationally oriented courses and a substantial growth in the movement of students from the higher education to VET sectors (currently twice the rate of VET students moving to higher education).
Market forces and funding pressures have stimulated quite extensive co-operation and collaboration between the sectors and further redevelopment of undergraduate higher education programs to improve vocational outcomes and to cater for the needs of a more diverse study body. For example, many higher education institutions are establishing co-operative and collaborative arrangements with VET institutions involving feeder programs to higher education , double or joint higher education /VET programs and multi-sector campuses.
Longer term demand and supply factors are likely to increase further the size of the interface with clear benefits to students and to industry. Nonetheless, some significant barriers stand in the way of effective and efficient interfaces between higher education and VET institutions.
The potential for further increasing the movement of students between the sectors is constrained by the lack of a common currency of learner achievement and the failure of individual institutions to give articulation and credit transfer an appropriate priority.
Appropriate articulation and credit transfer arrangements will vary among programs and, for this reason, institution to institution approaches should continue within a clear and authoritative national qualifications framework. Outside those programs subject to accreditation arrangements with national professional bodies, there seems little practical scope for a significant move to a national system of articulation and credit transfer agreements in the higher education sector.
At the institutional level, however, a good deal more could be done to improve the flow of students between the sectors. Higher education student entry requirements could be reviewed with a view to placing a lesser reliance on Year 12 entry scores or their equivalent; higher education institutions might review their undergraduate curriculum, involving VET providers and industry bodies in the process; and more higher education institutions might recognise the advantage of negotiated articulation and credit transfer agreements with VET institutions in the increasing competition for students.
The collaborative arrangements higher education institutions have made with VET institutions for the delivery of higher education and joint higher education/VET programs have clear benefits for higher education. Whilst innovative approaches have been brokered at the institutional level, the scope for further inter-sectoral collaboration is constrained nationally by the different funding arrangements for higher education and VET and the consequent issue of how and to whom the costs of shared programs or resources are to be allocated. Moreover, there is concern within the VET sector at the potential displacement of core VET activity by programs which have as their primary purpose access to higher education. Further research is required on the costs and benefits of this activity.
Even larger policy and funding issues arise in relation to the overlap in the offerings of the higher education and VET sectors.
There appears to be a great degree of commonality between vocationally oriented Diploma and, more recently, Associate Degree courses offered by higher education institutions and Diploma courses traditionally offered in the VET sector and between Advanced Diploma and Bachelor Degree courses offered by VET institutions and those traditionally offered in the higher education sector.
Whilst some overlap and competition between higher education and VET is unavoidable and indeed beneficial, ANTA has concerns with aspects of these developments. There is considerable potential student and employer confusion as to the nature of the vocationally oriented products offered by higher education institutions and their vocational credentials with industry or occupational groups. The VET sector has invested heavily in the Australian Qualifications Framework and considerable concern has been expressed within the sector at proposals from higher education institutions to introduce Associate Degrees.
Where higher education institutions seek to offer qualifications which are recognised under the National Training Framework for VET, in ANTA’s view, the institutions should meet the relevant provider registration requirements and provide and assess the programs on the basis of the endorsed requirements within the Framework.
Decisions on the funding of delivery of recognised VET programs by higher education institutions are matters for State and Territory Training Authorities. However, these arrangements should be monitored to ensure "cost shifting" between the sectors is minimised.
Although resolution of some of the above issues requires inter-governmental and inter-sectoral co-operation, there seems little justification at present for additional policy co-ordination mechanisms at the national level beyond the existing MCEETYA (Ministerial Council for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs) arrangements.
In these circumstances, devolved and co-operative arrangements rather than attempts to blur the differences between the sectors should serve as the model for future higher education/VET relationships. These arrangements should recognise the distinct characteristics and the parity of esteem of the programs and products of the higher education and VET sectors and focus on the capacity of individual students to move between institutions.
1.1 The nature and scope of the VET Sector
The development of the National Vocational Education and Training System in Australia flows from three important initiatives. The first was the Commonwealth and State Governments’ collective commitment to the development of a distinct technical and further education sector following the Kangan report in 1974, and the Commonwealth’s subsequent involvement in that sector through the Australian Council of Technical and Further Education and the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) Council of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission.
This initiative created a funding partnership between the Commonwealth, State and, subsequently, Territory Governments which led to the progressive development of a substantial education sector which became increasingly differentiated from its predecessors in State technical education systems and institutions. By the mid 1980’s, and despite differing governance arrangements in the States and Territories, TAFE was more characterised by its similarities in terms of program offerings across Australia than by its differences.
The second development was a decision by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to adopt a system of national skill standards and competency based training (CBT). The introduction of CBT provided the basis for the broadening of the range of institutions capable of delivering those outcomes beyond that of TAFE institutions and a national regulatory framework with which the providers would operate. The term "vocational education and training" began to refer to this broader range of providers. This provided for a system of national recognition of outcomes and gave industry the explicit authority to define the nature of those outcomes. The agreement by Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments on the Australian Qualifications Framework provided for these outcomes to also be nationally recognised through formal qualifications and for an inter-sectoral framework using consistent titles and descriptors to be available for the first time.
The third major decision in the development of the National VET system was that by Heads of Government to create the Australian National Training Authority to establish a "National System of Vocational Education and Training" as a cooperative venture between the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, with industry leadership through an independent Board reporting to a Council of Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers. Part of the ANTA Agreement sought to define the "scope and boundaries" of the VET sector for the purposes of the Agreement.
1.2 Definitions of Vocational Education and Training
There are, however, broader definitions of the nature and purpose of VET. Most seek to encompass that part of the post-compulsory education and training system aimed at "providing individuals with the skills and learning expressly required by enterprises and industry" (Allen Consulting Group).
Figure 1.1 illustrates the broad diversity of VET. Figure1.1(a) shows that apart from TAFE, a substantial proportion of VET is delivered by enterprises, equipment suppliers and manufacturers, secondary schools, non-profit training organisations and commercial training businesses. Figure 1.1(b) indicates that the vast majority of expenditure on VET is from government and enterprise sources. Such broad definitions could logically be extended to include a large part of higher education and elements of secondary schooling..
Figure 1.1: Composition of the National VET System
a) Who Delivers
VET
b) Who Pays for VET
(VET Expenditure)
Source: The Allen Consulting Group, Establishing an Effective Training Market, 1994.
In terms of the ANTA Agreement the VET sector is defined more narrowly as comprising the public TAFE systems in the States and Territories; Adult and Community Education institutions delivering VET programs; private providers (including schools and community organisations); and enterprises and industry bodies running nationally recognised vocational programs from levels 1-6 in the Australian Qualifications Framework . This narrower definition is used in this submission.
1.3 ANTA and the ANTA Agreement
ANTA was established under Commonwealth legislation in 1992 after agreement by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments. This decision followed a protracted debate over responsibility for TAFE funding which arose from a proposal by the previous Federal Government to assume full funding responsibility for TAFE, with management of the TAFE systems to be left to the States and Territories. The ANTA Agreement reflects a continuation of the joint funding arrangements with the Commonwealth making a commitment to substantial growth in funding and with the States and Territories agreeing to maintain "effort", initially in financial and subsequently in "outcome" terms.
ANTA is led by a Board comprised of industry representatives and reports to the Ministerial Council made up of the Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers responsible for VET. It formally commenced operations in January 1994. Subsequently, Ministers agreed to incorporate the activities of the National Training Board and the Australian Committee on Training Curriculum into the scope of ANTA’s operations, through the establishment of a specific Advisory Committee to the ANTA Board (the National Training Framework Committee) which is serviced by the ANTA Office.
The objectives for ANTA that are outlined in the Act include the promotion of:
A review of the ANTA Agreement, as required by the original Agreement, was established by the then Prime Minister on behalf of Heads of Government in August 1995. This review, which was conducted by Mr Rae Taylor, highlighted the need to address several key issues, including: the membership and role of the ANTA Board; the apparent complexity of the system; regulatory arrangements; and the role of competition in improving service delivery.
The Ministerial Council has considered a draft submission to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) resulting from the ANTA Review and agreed to the formation of a Working Group to progress a revised version of the ANTA Agreement in 1997.
1.4 Reforms to the National Training Framework
The somewhat ad hoc process for national training reform since 1989 has led to an overly complex regulatory system of national skills standards, curriculum development, course accreditation, provider registration, assessment and qualifications. As outlined above, these arrangements were considered in the Review of the ANTA Agreement and are being substantially modified as a result.
In the future, skill standards, assessment guidelines and the relevant qualification alignment will be endorsed nationally. A range of optional resources (including learning strategies) will continue to be produced nationally, but will not be endorsed at a State or National level. This will give providers greater scope and choice as to how they meet national requirements. This change will be accompanied at the State level by a more comprehensive provider registration process, based on the capacity of providers to meet National and State requirements. Providers registered in one State will be able to operate in and have their outcomes recognised by providers and regulatory bodies in all States.
1.5 Comparisons with the Higher Education Sector
As outlined above, a National VET system in Australia is well on the way to full implementation. The system has important and distinct characteristics which are different to those operating in higher education. In terms of student numbers, the VET sector is over twice the size of the higher education sector. However, the bulk of VET students are enrolled in shorter courses and attend on a part-time basis. Much lower costs per student in VET mean that the VET sector is roughly half the size of the higher education sector in terms of gross expenditures.
The VET sector also operates from a larger and more dispersed network of TAFE campuses, private providers and industry and community based providers.
Whilst both sectors depend for the majority of their revenue on government, the VET sector is much more dependent on direct government funding. Whilst the great bulk of public funding for higher education is from the Commonwealth Government, the bulk of public funding for VET is from State and Territory Governments (although the Commonwealth share of public VET funding has grown substantially over recent years). VET students contribute less to the cost of programs, but do not have access to a deferred payment system such as HECS.
Although established from State, Territory and, in a few cases, Commonwealth legislation, higher education institutions operate with a great degree of autonomy whereas VET institutions relate to State and Territory administrative systems and operate under a greater number of external regulatory constraints.
The following tables and diagrams outline some of the key measurable differences between the higher education and VET sectors.
Table 1.1 : Overview of Higher Education and VET 1995 as Reported in Institutional Data Collections
Higher Ed |
VET |
|
| Students1 | 604,177 |
1,272,748 |
| Activity Load | ||
| - Equivalent Full Time Student Units (EFTSUs/EFTs) | 467,748 |
485,922 |
| - Course Annual Hours (‘000s) | 262,398 |
|
| Average Cost/Full Time Student2 | 13,800 |
7,500 |
| Institutions3 | 44 |
84 |
Source: Data supplied from Institutional collections. DEETYA, Selected Higher Education Student Statistics 1996; NCVER, Selected VET Statistics 1995.
1The number of VET Students varies from the number in the ABS publication, Transition from Education to Work (May 1996) due to differences in collections methods.
2 Average Cost per full time student has been derived from dividing the total operating expenditure into the equivalent full time (EFT) students. For VET, EFT was derived by dividing total course annual hours by 720 hours.
3 Many major TAFE and other government VET providers use multi-campus delivery to service the needs of students in their locality. These major institutions comprise 692 campuses. In addition, there are 2503 private providers including Adult and Community Education providers and schools. In 1995, there were 603 institutions, including private providers, receiving public funding for VET.
Table 1.2 : Gross Expenditures for Higher Ed and VET from all Revenue Sources - 1995
Source: DEETYA, Selected Higher Education Financial Statistics 1995; ACVETS, Collection of National Financial Data on Vocational Education and Training.
Table 1.3 : Operating Revenue by Source - Higher Education and VET 1995.
Source: DEETYA, Selected Higher Education Financial Statistics 1995; ACVETS, Collection of National Financial Data on Vocational Education and Training.
There are also important policy and program differences which further differentiate the VET and higher education sectors. These differences and some areas of convergence are explored in the following sections of the submission and seek to address some of the specific issues raised in the submission guidelines provided by the Review Committee.