Submission to the Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy

Ian Cosier

The following views are my own which derive from my Phd research and are not necessarily the views of my employer, the Australian National Training Authority.

As well as having senior management experience in higher education and VET I am a Phd student in the final stages of a doctoral dissertation in the Department of Government at the University of Queensland. My research question relates directly to the terms of reference of your review. "Is intersectoral post-compulsory education and training planning possible in a federal system?". My interdisciplinary research includes political science, management, economic and educational interests and concerns and explores factors that have influenced and are likely to influence education and training systems and governance in the future.

This submission includes three attachments:

1. The cover page of a paper I gave at the International Seminar on Staff and Educational Development (ISSED) in Melbourne July 1996 which had representatives from more than thirty different countries. The theme of the seminar was " Higher educations interface with vocational education and training and business".
2. Following the ISSED conference I was invited and presented a slightly reworked version of this paper to the European-American University Forum in Lisbon Portugal in October/November 1996. The theme of the conference was "Bridging the Atlantic: Timeless Traditions and New Models in Higher Education" My conference paper was entitled " Is higher education losing the battle to differentiate its products from the vocational education and training sector and increasingly industry ?".
3. Following the international consultative component of my Phd research I was invited by Professor Colin Power, Assistant Director-General for Education at UNESCO and Andreas Schleicher, head of Education and training management information systems at the OECD to submit my ideas to the review of the International Standard Classification of Educational Development (ISCED). My submission was the only non national government submission to the review.

My research suggested that there is increasing international evidence that approaches to classify types of education and training are converging. Education and training governance and accountability models may have more to do with historical patterns of delivery and management than differences in education and training practice. Increasingly market and semi-market approaches to the management of education and training, together with rapid moves to globalisation result in the need to reconceptualise what systems are delivering. The uses of the theoretical education and training planning model developed for my research could include:

• facilitating international benchmarking
• assisting governments to evaluate the appropriateness of planning and governance structures
• strategically focussing the skill and knowledge development role of governments
• assisting the development of planning across levels of government
• strengthening approaches to accountability
• providing a framework to allow system efficiency to be evaluated.

In summary, dynamic education and training systems require visionary solutions which open opportunities for skill formation for individuals. The balance between social, political and economic outcomes sought from education and training needs to be managed to ensure that systems operate efficiently and effectively.

If you would like clarification of any of the above or any further detail please contact me on Ph: 07 3246 2462 (w) or Ph: 07 3846 4393 (h).

Yours sincerely

Ian Cosier

[Return to Top] [Return to Index] [Attachment 1]