Universities, TAFEs and polytechnics

Is there a role for enhanced TAFEs to help achieve the government’s social inclusion targets, asks Meeuwis Boelen. Professor Stephen Parker, vice-chancellor of the University of Canberra, has recently speculated in the media on the capacity, or otherwise, of Australian higher education to meet the government’s target of 40 per cent bachelor attainment by 2025 (The Australian, 12.08.09). He argues that the current institutional structure - mainly universities – would be unable to support such expansion and that alternatives need to be explored. I agree that it makes sense to deploy the enormous capacity embedded in the TAFE system towards bridging the 8 percentage point gap. This not only could quickly increase the number of places available, it would also cater better for second-chance students. That is, TAFE may provide pathways that better suit the middle band of school leavers and those already in the workforce who wish to attain a formal qualification. Moreover, degrees with strong connections to industry and a close reference to specific skills will assist in turning vocations into professions. Such expansion is exactly what Australia needs to regain a leadership position in a global knowledge-based economy. One flaw in the Parker argument is the assertion that TAFEs becoming polytechnics would represent a cost-saving by loading academics with VET-style teaching hours. It won’t because the government is talking about degrees, not VET qualifications. The National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes state that undergraduate degrees need to be delivered by research-active academic staff. Scholarship and maintaining credibility with the professions is just as time-intensive as the generation of new knowledge. Quality programs will still require the institution to finance staff to conduct research or scholarship and professional engagement. The applied focus of these degrees demands hands-on learning in small groups in laboratories and in the field and industry settings. Running such degrees is not a cheap solution, nor should it be. Parker also suggests that the quality of these programs may be assured by putting the polytechnics under the auspices of universities. This is an interesting proposition. Currently, universities are self-accrediting and monitored by AUQA. However, this has been recognised by the Bradley review as a historical relic, and the government has adopted the recommendation that all programs will be subject to quality audits through regular reaccreditation. In addition, the new national regulatory body TEQSA will monitor whether institutional activities indeed meet the requirements to justify the title university. Our higher education programs at NMIT are accredited and reaccredited by the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority – few self-accrediting institutions seek a comparably rigorous external assessment of their undergraduate programs. One cannot assume quality and standards on basis of a historically acquired title of university. Rather than developing subservient feeders to the current 37 research-oriented tertiary providers, let’s expand the system to cater for an expanded cohort and aim for improved completion, and fund TAFE institutions to deliver bachelor programs. Of course, a strong collaboration between tertiary institutions, be they university, college, polytechnic or otherwise labelled, based on standards defined in the national protocols and the Australian Qualifications Framework, would remove barriers and increase capacity and efficacy of the system. Dr Meeuwis Boelen is academic head, higher education at the Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE (NMIT) and Associate Professor at La Trobe University. Email MeeuwisBoelen@nmit.vic.edu.au Meeuwis Boelen, A/Prof Neuroscience & Pharmacology, printed 20/8/09 1 of 1 G:Publicationscampus2_SUBBDP COPY HOLD7-170809 Meeuwis Boelen.doc