What are the implications of changes in tertiary
education for Monash for VET pathways?
Leesa Wheelahan
Monash University, 17 August 2011
Argument
•
•
•
•
Two sectoral divides being blurred:
– Between VET & higher
g
education
– Between public & private institutions
Three factors driving this:
– Economic & social changes
– Government marketisation policies & equity strategies
– Institutional aspiration & way institutions position themselves
Outcomes:
1. development of a single tertiary education sector, but one that is more
hierarchical & stratified
2. TAFE will have to offer degrees or become residual
How will Monash relate to TAFE in this new environment?
2
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Two ways of organising tertiary education
Australian anomaly – coming to an end?
3rd wave of HE expansion since WWII
Theorising this – Martin Trow’s framework – elite, mass & universal HE
Broad drivers for change – challenging 2 divides
A new type of institution emerging – mixed-sectors
Institutional aspiration
One sector emerging – stratified & hierarchical
Institutional partnerships: social capital & trust
Pedagogic principles for pathways
Institutional principles for pathways
p
p
Institutional framework for partnerships
3
Two ways of organising tertiary education
•
•
Differentiated systems
– Tracked VET & HE – relatively stable labour market destinations
destinations,
allocate graduates to job vacancies & careers draw from differentiated
knowledge base in each
– Northern European
p
systems,
y
, social partnerships
p
p to match g
graduates to
jobs
Unified systems
– More fluid labour markets,, changing
g g knowledge
g & skills,, employers
p y
need
industry-specific but also broader knowledge & skills, less differentiated
knowledge base
– Anglophone liberal market economies – use market as mechanism
match graduates & jobs
4
The Australian anomaly
•
•
•
Australia unusual: has a liberal market economy, but a differentiated system
in a relatively undifferentiated labour market
S
Structure
off tertiary
i
education
d
i – two sectors
Differentiated curriculum aligned with the sectors
– Curriculum based – or input based in HE
– Competency-based training in VET
5
3rd wave of HE expansion in Anglophone countries
•
•
•
•
•
1st period – 1950s & 1960s – new universities & new HE sector in UK &
Australia, growth of system in US
2nd period – 1980s – creation of a unified university system
3rd period – 2000s - through 2nd, vocational tier of tertiary education
Rationale - vocational ‘applied’ focus – better meet industry needs, more
supportive pedagogy etc
Public policy role for TAFE in HE – but no funding yet
6
Theorising this:
Trow’s framework – elite, mass & universal HE systems
•
•
•
•
•
•
Elite – up to 15%; mass – 16-50%; universal – 50% & above
Elite – prepare social elite, curriculum ‘shapes mind & character’, highly
structured academic & professional knowledge, strong boundaries between
institution & society
Mass – prepare segment of population for broader range technical &
economic leadership roles, curriculum modular, semi-structured, fuzzy
boundaries between institution & society
Universal – prepare whole population for rapid social & technological
change in advanced industrial society, boundaries between knowledge &
everyday, & institution & society break down.
Elite, mass & universal different aspects
p
of one system,
y
& sometimes in one
institution (eg, medicine is elite everywhere)
Trow thought all this is good & necessary
7
Broad drivers for change – challenging 2 divides
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Responding to changes in economy & society
Increasing
g number of jjobs require
q
degrees
g
as entry
y level q
qualification
Loose ‘fit’ between labour market destinations & qualifications
VET/TAFE will need to offer higher level qualifications to fulfil traditional role
– or become residual
Can’t sustain argument for curricular differentiation – challenging VET & HE
divide
These changes inexorable
Government policy & government funding – challenging public/private divide
Sectors increasingly defined by qualifications accredited in each
8
A new type of institution – mixed-sector
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Blurring sectoral divide resulting in new type of institution
Single-sectors: more than 97% of student load in one sector
Mixed sectors: at least 3% but no more than 20% of student load in minority
Mixed-sectors:
sector
Dual-sectors: at least 20% but less than 80% of their student load in each
sector
90 ‘mixed-sector’ institutions
Mixed sector TAFEs mostly below 3% but trajectory towards it
Franchising set to become a big model – alas
9
Institutional aspirations
•
•
•
•
•
•
TAFE Directors Australia & Australian Council for Private Education &
Training arguing for reconfiguring sectoral structure
Argument – will contribute to institutional diversity, but counter-argument,
will result in mission-creep & institutional behaviours based on research
university
TAFEs g
getting
g rid of brand
Privates want to use ‘university’ in title – help in market & suit institutional
aspiration
Danger – move the sectoral divide further down
down, but TDA says it won’t
won t
Will lead to challenges for equity (TAFE isn’t publicly funded) & quality
(scholarship & academic governance) that need to be addressed
10
One sector emerging – but hierarchical & stratified
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Students not really forthcoming about where they studied – uncertain identities
TAFEs & p
private p
providers wishing
g to change
g sectoral designation
g
Didn’t come across any university that wished to do so
All compared their provision to ‘gold standard’ of universities
Structure of sectoral divide very important – includes or excludes
Can’t ignore the sectoral divide – it will exist
Government policy shape form of sectors (& divide) – enable or inhibit
Change relationship between universities & TAFEs – competitors or partners
or both?
– Myy own view – better to be p
partners,, but it will vary
y
– Monash will have different relationships with different TAFEs – idea that
can have ‘universal’ partnership probably won’t work
11
Institutional partnerships:
Building social capital & trust
•
•
•
•
•
Zones of mutual trust – dependent on consensus, trust & voluntary
participation
Trust at 2 levels – systemic & institutional
Systemic trust built by country’s qualifications & quality assurance process &
t t that
trust
th t pathways
th
& credit
dit transfer
t
f fair
f i & defensible
d f
ibl
Institutional trust - confidence in an institution’s admission standards,
syllabus, teaching-learning & assessment
Trust an outcome of high levels of social capital
12
Pedagogic principles
•
Where possible
Wh
ibl pathways
th
& new programs should:
h ld
– Be developed with involvement from industry & professional bodies (&
not one or the other)
– Have multiple exits with work outcomes & higher study options
– Provide students with early certification – get work in field in which they
are studying
y g
– Be constructed to embed transition support, based on principles of
curricular coherence & continuity
– Provide maximum credit for prior study
study, but not jeopardise success in
higher programs
– Provide guaranteed access to study at the next level
– Require students to complete first qualification first
•
Nested awards with multiple exits more effective for equity
13
Institutional principles
•
•
•
Prioritise & plan no. of pathways & new programs
Range from least to most expensive
– Alternative entry mechanisms – can be cheap but important – ATAR
bonus, dual offers
– Standardised pathways – bolted on – moderately expensive – need to
be renegotiated every time a program changes
– Enhanced pathways most expensive – developed together, labour
intensive
Given expense – develop pathways to achieve strategic goals
– Eg, establish relationship with professional & industry bodies
– Fill an emerging occupational need
– Meet needs of particular disadvantaged group
– Undertake where there are champions
– Strongly supportive institutional cultures reduce ‘cost’
cost , build trust
14
Most important institutional principle
•
Don’t develop pathway for every program, only where traffic is greatest!
– “If the bulk of the students transferring
g choose to do so through
g a small
subset of conduits, then the allocation of resources and attention should
be informed by this compelling fact. To spend time on the potential
needs of virtual students in empty conduits is to neglect the manifest
needs of real students striving to navigate the mainstream of transfer.
Priorities need to be set and observed if transfer is to function well.”
• Laurente and Pailthorpe (2002: 4), California Postsecondary Education
Commission
•
Develop individualised or customised pathways for rest, but increasing traffic
is a signal that a pathway is needed
15
Conclusion: an institutional framework
•
•
•
•
•
•
Governance, organisational & administrative arrangements for partnerships
need to be at all levels of the university
Policies needed to support development of pathways & student transition, &
ensure development of institutional cultures that support pathways
Funding & resources for partnerships should be line element in budgets
‘Boundary spanners’ – culturally literate in both sectors & politically savvy
Institutionalised arrangements needed to bring staff together both sectors
Need to be some pathways from TAFE to high demand areas
16