Unis Already Together with TAFE

In "Unis should get together with TAFEs as a way of being more efficient says minister" (Robert Bolton, AFR, 25 February 2018), federal education minister, Simon Birmingham, is reported to have suggested universities share teachers and buildings with TAFEs. This is not as radical, or new, idea as it first sounds.

A search of the national register shows that nineteen universities, out of forty three, are also Registered Training Organizations (RTOs). These universities are able to deliver the same vocational training programs as TAFEs. Other universities are either dual registered as TAFEs, or have an arrangement with a TAFE, or a commercial RTO.

Universities also run short courses for industry. In Canberra I have helped teach such courses for government agencies. These courses are not vocationally registered (although I use vocational techniques teaching them).

The Minister is addressing the wrong area, by pointing out capital tied up in university buildings. There is little scope for more efficient use of university buildings. Most of the existing lecture theaters and small tutorial rooms at universities are rapidly becoming stranded assets, as teaching becomes blended and on-line. Conventional lecture theaters are not flexible enough for modern learning techniques and tutorial rooms are too small for large scale interactive workshops.

TAFEs will have not use for the obsolete teaching buildings at universities. ANU demolished its central lecture theater complex last year and is replacing this with flexible facilities. These facilities will be in demand for university teaching year-round.

Higher Education in Australia, both at universities and the vocational sector, is now conducted on-line more than in the classroom. The significant cost is in course design and trained staff, especially on-line course design and staff trained to teach on-line. It is here that savings could be made, particularly with the vocational sector lending their expertise in carefully scaffolded teaching to the universities, which have emphasized research skills for their staff.

Why Students Choose Expensive Commercial Courses

in "Understanding For-Profit College and Community College Choice" Iloh and Tierney (2014) have investigated why US students choose courses at for-profit private colleges, over lower cost government run community colleges. This is relevant to the current Australian situation, with students choosing commercial RTOs, over lower cost government TAFE courses.

Iloh and Tierney (2014) surveyed 75 for-profit college students and 62 at community college (state run). They found that students would like to attend community college, but found obtaining enrollment information difficult and the prerequisites required daunting. Also there was a perception that community college would take longer and students felt that a for-profit college would provide better hands-on training and result in better job prospects. Students found for-profit college closer, with more flexible class schedules.

These are factors which Australian TAFEs might want to take into account when designing and promoting programs.

References

Iloh, C., & Tierney, W. G. (2014). Understanding For-Profit College and Community College Choice Through Rational Choice. Teachers College Record, 116, 080304.

Funding of Private Vocational Training Providers Questioned

The Australian Education Union has released the report "The Capture of Public Wealth by the for-profit VET Sector" (Serena Yu and
Damian Oliver, Workplace Research Centre, University of Sydney). As clear from its title, this report questions the practices of for-profit Vocational Education and Training (VET) institutions receiving public finding. But also as made clear, this report was commissioned by union which represents the interests of workers who's jobs are threatened by for-proft VET institutions and is no unbiased in tone or content.

As the report points out, in 2012, federal and state governments agreed on a "market driven" model for VET funding. Private Registered Training Organizations (RTOs) have done well in this new environment, compared to government owned TAFEs. The report's authors point to high profits by some RTOs. Of itself, companies making profits is not a bad thing, but the authors claim the RTOs are cherry-picking the easiest to teach most profitable students and leaving early school leavers, regional students, and students with a disability to TAFEs. The authors question the quality of RTO courses, subcontracting of course delivery, exclusive use of on-line learning and accelerated courses.

The Australian higher education sector needs to take these issues seriously. Reforms underway, and more proposed, could see similar issues arising in Australia's university system. This could tarnish the reputation of Australian higher education and place at risk Australia's fourth largest export industry.

This is not to say there is not a place for for-profit education providers in Australia (or that problems are confined to the for-profit providers). The report makes five of recommendations some of which could be applied to improve all Australian higher education institutions. However, the recommendations start from an assumption that non-profit government run TAFEs are inherently better than private providers, rather than from ensuring all providers meet required standards:

1. Minimum hours of delivery for courses: The authors suggest a set minimum number of hours of delivery, to prevent unrealistically accelerated courses (which have high failure rates). This could be a difficult metric to define, as modern courses are usually bended and what is an hour of "delivery" for the on-line component is hard to estimate. Typically a one hour classroom presentation will be replaced with seven to 20 minutes of video, which with accompanying student exercises provides the same or better learning. There is a risk that providers could simply produce long (cheap) videos (or live classroom death-by-powerpoint sessions) to make up the hours, with a reduction in learning. The issue of quality of courses could be addressed in part by ensuring qualification requirements for teaching staff (and instructional designers) are met. Ironically these requirements could be more difficult for traditional universities to meet than RTOs, as they have few quality control processes. A more useful metric might be the progress rate of students. That is, it does not matter how the course was delivered, provided the students learn to the required standard in a reasonable time.

2. Capping funding to private RTOs to ensure TAFEs remain able to provide quality education: The authors provide no compelling justification for this proposal for TAFEs to be protected from competition. If there is a requirement for training in areas of skills shortages or to disadvantaged groups, this could be built into the funding model and available to RTOs and TAFEs. More funding could be provided for students who cost more to educate.

3. Ban on subcontracting delivery of courses to unregistered providers: The authors propose banning subcontracting education delivery. However, this is based on the assertion that the subcontractors do not meet the standards required for RTOs. If the RTO meets the required standard, there is no reason to ban subcontracting. This requirement would also be difficult for universities to meet, where much of the teaching is contracted out to non-registered entities.

4. Better regulation of RTOs’ recruiting practices and business models: The authors propose to scrutinize the business
models of for-profit providers, including how they market to and recruit students. However, it is not clear what role a regulator could have beyond enforcing required standards.The model the business uses should be up to it, provided they deliver the required educational outcomes.

5. An end to governments manipulating subsidies for private RTOs: The report's authors propose to require RTOs to "meet quality requirements that are stricter than the AQTF". However, it would be a waste of public money to subsidize courses at above the standard required.

UQ Campus Sale the Start of Australian Education Rationalisation

The University of Queensland is reported to be selling its Ipswich campus to the University of Southern Queensland (I visited the very well equipped Ipswich Campus for a ARC Funded joint project with UQ in 2002). Rather than an isolated incident, I suggest this is the start of a rationalisation of Australian Higher Education, with the top tier research universities consolidating to their capital city campuses, leaving the rest of the country to teaching universities and on-line education. Many of the satellite campuses of the regional universities will also close.

At the next level down, assuming deregulation of federal funding takes place, we may see an expansion of the TAFE and on-government Registered Training Organisation (RTO) sector. These organisations use micro-campuses, to support their primarily on-line education techniques. An example is the  Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) centre co-located with the public library and a secondary school college in Gungahlin, Canberra.

The typical higher education student will need to attend a campus for about 20% of their tuition. This would be one day a week for a full time student, although the typical student will be part time and might attend an intensive campus session for a few days each semester.

Future of Higher Education Funding in Australia

In "Excellence through diversity: Funding flexibility the key", Professor Ian Young (Vice-Chancellor) and Professor Gareth Evans, Chancellor of the Australian National University, discuss possible changes to university funding, in response to the Norton/Kemp report on higher education funding.

Professors Young and Evans point out that Australia has almost achieved 40% university education for young people and ask if the current system serves the students and national objectives. I suggest the current system places too much emphasis on university education for school leavers and not enough on other forms of vocational higher education, better suited to life long learning.

Australia should aim for a widespread participation in Higher Education for its citizens, however most of this should be provided by vocational training institutions, not universities. The normal path for a school leaver should be to gain sufficient vocational qualifications for employment and then consider what further study they need, with the option of university to supplement vocational training.

Professors Young and Evans argue that the fixed funding model for undergraduate courses in Australia constrains innovation in education and results in overcrowded lecture theatres. However they do not mention the main challenge for Australian universities today: transitioning to on-line education. I suggest that within the next five to ten years 80% to 90% of university research and education will be conducted on-line. In my view, any review of education funding and regulation has to remove the disincentives to on-line education for Australia institutions, to allow them to make this transition, or face being put out of business by international competition within ten years.

Professors Young and Evans envision undergraduates working in laboratories and offices with researchers. However, most researchers should not be sitting in offices and labs at a university: they should be out in the field, in hospitals and commercial workplaces, working with the community, government and industry. Our university academics need to be re-skilled for this new work environment, so they can make a contribution to the economy and so they will be equipped to teach students in how to work this way.

Australian students will increasingly have a choice of world class higher education, which does not require them to move countries, or to give up their day job. We need to change the current Australian policy mind-set which sees full time students fresh out of school, with no other commitments, as the typical higher education student. The typical student now has a job and/or family commitments. Students want to study part time and want most of their education and research to be conducted on-line. We need to flip the university, so it is primarily an online resource supporting students and researchers out in the community. If Australia does not do this, our students will simply enrol online elsewhere.

The issue of equity and access to higher education is one I suggest could be best addressed with suitable introductory courses. Students who do not have the necessary academic background need extra help to prepare for university study. This can be provided through vocational higher education institutions, not university courses.

Revolution in Australian Higher Education Proposed

The "Report of the Review of the Demand Driven Funding System" by Dr David Kemp and Andrew Norton was released by the Department of Education today (14 April 2014). The most significant of the recommendation in the report is to allow TAFEs and commercial  Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) to compete with universities for government subsidised students. In my view this would be a very good change, as it would allow students to select more relevant vocational studies which would help them get a job (and help Australian industry). This will also accelerate the shift from classroom to on-line education, which will allow Australian universities to remain internationally competitive. However, this will also have the effect of reducing funding for university research, which may require some additional government funding.

The funding TAFEs alongside universities may see the reintroduction of a two tier system in Australian university education. Currently universities cross-subsidise their research programs from course tuition fees. Universities are required to undertake research in multiple disciplines and this increases the cost of university courses. TAFEs do not have this research requirement and so will be able to charge lower fees for the same courses.

TAFEs and other RTOs generally have more experience with the delivery of online courses, than do Australian universities. It should prove very attractive for students to be able to enrol in lower cost courses which they can study online and meet the same educational standard. The result may be a rapid expansion of such course offerings and the decimation of on-campus university courses. Such a move should be welcomed, as it will better prepare Australian universities to compete worldwide, as most university programs move to being delivered on-line in the next five to ten years. The alternative would see Australia’s universities suffering the same fate as the automotive industry and being put out of business within ten years, unable to compete for domestic or international students.

Those universities which have their own TAFEs, or an arrangement with a TAFE, may be best placed to respond to any demand from students. A common strategy is likely to be to offer the student the first one year to eighteen months of study at TAFE, a TAFE qualification, then transfer to university with award of a university degree. In my view it would be better for students to first acquire vocationally relevant qualifications, then when they have some work experience and some more maturity, return to tertiary education for further education. Most students would be studying part time, online.

However, the report does not address another anomaly in the funding of Australian Higher Education: grants for postgraduate research degrees. While course-work students are required to repay their student loan, postgraduate research students receive a scholarship which they are not required to repay. Presumably it is considered that the research the student undertakes will be of benefit to the community. However, there is no requirement for students to make their research results available free. Also there is an increased emphasis on vocationally relevant skills for all students. There seems no good reason why research students who are acquiring skills which will help them in a higher paying job should receive free tuition.

The report also  recommends the "University Experience Survey" be extended to cover non-university providers and an improved website be provided to replace MyUniversity. However, I do not share the report's confidence that on its own the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency can prevent sub-standard courses. Also while courses may be of academic merit, there may be no market demand for the skills they provide. I suggest that further measures will be need to prevent the sort of problems which have been experienced in the past in Australia with private higher education providers offering poor quality courses and also the US experience with low completion rates for courses of questionable vocational value. 

The Summary of recommendations from the report (numbering added):

1. Caps on the number of undergraduate bachelor-level places should not be re-imposed.
2. All higher education providers should be eligible for Commonwealth supported places when they and relevant courses have been approved by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.
3. Non-university higher education providers accepting Commonwealth supported places should do so on the same basis as public universities.
4. Sub-bachelor higher education courses should be included in the demand driven system.
5. Caps on Commonwealth supported places should be removed from postgraduate courses with a combination of clear community benefit and modest financial rewards. Other postgraduate courses should be offered on an entirely full-fee basis.
6. Decisions as to whether universities can deliver Commonwealth supported places at new locations should be made according to clear guidelines.
7. There should be no higher education attainment targets.
8. The government should not set enrolment share targets for low socio-economic status students.
9. Higher education enrolment data systems should be updated so that they provide detailed and timely information on enrolment trends.
10. The Department of Education should re-introduce an annual report on higher education policies and include summary information on performance trends.
11. The MyUniversity website should be replaced with an improved student information website.
12. General information on attrition and completion rates by ATAR and for different bases of admission to university should be easily available to prospective students.
13. The University Experience Survey should be continued and extended to non-university higher education providers.
14. Maximum per Commonwealth supported place funding rates in engineering and health disciplines should be reviewed in the light of cost pressures.
15. The HECS-HELP benefit for graduates in designated occupations should be discontinued.
16. Students at all higher education providers offering HELP loans should be eligible for OS-HELP.
17. The provider category standards should be reviewed to consider their effects on innovation and competition.

Here is the "Summary of findings" from the report (numbers added):

1. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency is a guard against sub-standard courses and institutions in an expanding higher education system.
2. Active efforts over 20 years to improve teaching in Australian universities have contributed to a steady increase in student satisfaction with teaching. This has continued through the early stages of the demand driven system.
3. The demand driven system has encouraged technology-based innovation in higher education.
4. For commencing bachelor-degree students with ATARs below 50 attrition rates are high and have not been improving.
5. Higher education providers are actively working to identify and better support less adequately prepared students.
6. Pathway programs successfully prepare students for university study.
7. The demand driven system has responded effectively to most recent skills shortages.
8. Universities have responded to increases in aggregate demand with more places. In most fields of education, applicants are more likely to receive an offer. However, there has been only a small increase in the proportion of applicants receiving an offer for their first-preference course.
9. In professional entry courses, declining employment opportunities have led to fewer tertiary admission centre applications.
10. The rapid increase in science enrolments is leading to employment problems for graduates.
11. The demand driven system has had little effect to date on low foreign language enrolments.
12. The demand driven system is responsible for increased enrolments in higher education by low socio-economic status students.
13. Low socio-economic status students would benefit from increased access to sub-bachelor courses.
14. The demand driven system and associated reforms have increased higher education opportunities for people from regional and remote areas.
15. The demand driven system and associated reforms have increased higher education opportunities for Indigenous Australians.
16. Women aged 25–34 have already achieved 40 per cent higher education attainment. Given enrolment trends and continued skilled migration, the attainment rate will grow in coming years.
17. The demand driven system has allowed online education to expand.
18. A HELP loan fee could help ensure the fiscal sustainability of the demand driven system.

Certificate IV in Training and Assessment

Today I received my Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (TAE40110) from Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) in the mail. This does not have quite the gravitas of being handed a certificate by the ANU Chancellor a few weeks ago, but is a lot more useful.

Recognition of Prior Learning

Of the ten courses I was required to undertake for the Certificate IV, I was able to obtain eight by Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL). This was made a little easier by having just completed the equivalent university qualification, a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education.

Having prepared open on-line course material also made it much easier to provide the evidence needed for RPL. This still was not an easy process, requiring me to find people to attest to my teaching experience along with evidence.

On-line Courses

Two courses I could not obtain RPL for and I had to complete on-line assessment (Workplace Coaching  and Learning in the Workplace). CIT use the same Moodle Learning Management System I am used to at ACS, ANU and USQ, which simplified the process.

CIT has very standardized, carefully designed and consistent on-line documentation, as is common in the vocational sector. However, this was not without problems. The very modular nature of vocational courses meant there was a lot of repetition and the emphasis on standardization meant for some very long winded materials.

One glitch with on-line access is that CIT does not permit students to change their password remotely.  I was required to travel to a CIT campus to change the password. As a result I suspect that many student never change their password from the default. This is a serious security law in the CIT system.

Lack of e-Portfolio System

One surprise was that CIT does not use an e-Portfolio system for the student to collect their RPL evidence in.

ACS and USQ both use the Mahara e-portfolio software. This allows the student to collect materials and then submit them for assessment on-line.

CIT uses Moodle's submission system for on-line assessment tests, but not for RPL evidence, which is tracked using a paper form, with photocopies attached. This made the process cumbersome and error prone (added to the fact that I could not read the hand-written notations from the RPL assessor).

Vocational Standardized and Work  Relevant

The CIT certificate arrived about two weeks after I completed the program, whereas the ANU certificate took four months to arrive. The Cert IV T&A is recognized nationally and required for teaching in government TAFEs and private Registered Training Organizations (RTOs). Many universities run graduate certificates in higher education, but these are not mandatory for  university teaching staff and no standard syllabus. Presumably an ANU certificate will be well regarded nationally, but there is no guarantee it covers what is needed at another university.

Need for Mutual Recognition of Vocational and University Teaching Qualifications

While the RPL process allowed me to gain the qualification for teaching in the vocation sector largely from my university qualifications, this should not be necessary. Apart from the terminology used, there is no real difference in teaching between the vocational and university sectors. This is particularly the case with universities catching up with TAFEs in the use of on-line technology and practical work-orientated assesment.

There is no reason why vocational and university teachers could not undertake the same training. Currently postgraduate university students may receive some ad-hoc training to help them tutor, but in general will graduate and go into university teaching with no formal teaching qualifications.  It would make sense for higher degree students to obtain at least a Certificate IV in Training and Assessment.

Previously when I suggested university postgraduates should have vocational qualifications my university colleagues were shocked and suggested I did not know what I was talking about. But I am now more qualified than most of them to express an opinion. ;-)

Australian Skills Recognition of University Lecturers

The Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship lists "University Lecturer" as an occupation (Number 242111) in the Australian Skills Recognition Information (ASRI) for the purposes of skilled migration. A Lecturer is described as someone who "Lectures students and conducts tutorials in one or more subjects within a prescribed course of study at a university and conducts research in a particular field of knowledge." It will be interesting to see if this description is revised, as teaching practices change. As an example, I mostly teach on-line now and ANU is phasing out tutorials and lectures for some courses.

The Lecturer occupation is allocated a skill level commensurate with a bachelor degree and/or five years of experience, the same as for a University Tutor (ANZSCO Skill Level 1). As with tutors, no particular degree program is specified and skills of applicants are assessed by Vocational Education and Training Assessment Services (VETASSESS). It is not clear if university lecturers are required to have a Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (TAE40110), which is the only Education assessment VETASSESS offers. Australian universities generally request (or in some cases require) a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education, which is a higher level qualification (Level 8) than a Certificate IV (Level 4) in the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). While both qualifications are described in the same framework they are not currently compatible and vocational institutions do not accept a Graduate Certificate in place of TAE40110. As an example, I have obtained an ANU GCHE for university teaching and a CIT CertIVTA for vocational teaching.

Skilled migration programs include the Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS), Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS), Points Based Skilled Migration visa and Temporary Business (Long Stay) (Subclass 457).

For statistical purposes, university tutors are grouped together with lecturers (Unit Group 2421 University Lecturers and Tutors). Tasks of a lecturer or tutor are described as:

• preparing and delivering lectures, and conducting tutorials, seminars and laboratory sessions
• preparing and marking essays, assignments and examinations
• advising students on academic and related matters
• attending departmental and faculty meetings, conferences and seminars
• supervising work programs of postgraduate and honours students and tutorial staff
• participating in setting course and degree requirements, curriculum revision and academic planning
• serving on council, senate, faculty and other committees and professorial boards
• conducting research and undertaking consultancies in a particular field of knowledge
• stimulating and guiding class discussions
• compiling bibliographies of specialised materials for reading assignments

University Lecturers/Tutors and Vocational Education Teachers are part of the one statistical occupation group "Tertiary Education Teachers" (Category242). At this level the tasks are a little more general:

• preparing and delivering lectures to tertiary students in one or more subjects within a prescribed course of study

• conducting tutorials, seminars, and laboratory sessions

• preparing and marking essays, assignments and examinations

• participating in course development and in meetings on departmental, budgetary, curriculum and policy matters

• attending conferences and seminars, and conducting research into a particular field of knowledge

• providing feedback to students on progress and advising students on courses and related matters

• consulting with Education Managers, Librarians, Student Counsellors and other support staff

Australian Skills Recognition of University Tutors

The Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship lists "University Tutor" as an occupation (Number 242112) in the Australian Skills Recognition Information (ASRI) for the purposes of skilled migration. A tutor is described as someone who "Conducts tutorials in one or more subjects within a prescribed course of study at a university."

The tutor occupation is allocated a skill level commensurate with a bachelor degree and/or five years of experience (ANZSCO Skill Level 1). No particular degree program is specified and no specific teaching qualification. Skills of applicants are assessed by  Vocational Education and Training Assessment Services (VETASSESS). As a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) of assessment-only services, VETASSESS evaluates applicant's experience and knowledge. Interestingly, in the case of university tutors, this is the application of a vocational assessment process to university skills.

The only Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) offered by VETASSESS for  Education is the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (TAE40110). While widely recognized in the vocational sector within RTOs and TAFEs, this qualification is not normally required for tutors at Australian universities. Although there is no reason why TAE40110 would not be suitable for tutors, universities tend to run their own non-assesed short courses for tutors, with no formal qualification.

Skilled migration programs include the Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS), Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS), Points Based Skilled Migration visa and Temporary Business (Long Stay) (Subclass 457).

For statistical purposes, university tutors are grouped together with lecturers (Unit Group 2421 University Lecturers and Tutors).