|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
Higher Education Review ProcessVarieties of Learning: the Interface between Higher Education and Vocational Education and Training5. some possible ways forwarda. promotion of joint courses
146 There are a number of models of joint courses that are meeting particular student needs, and consideration could be given to ways in which they could be expanded. This may be via a national pilot programme, as suggested by QUT. 147 One model might see VET courses designed to provide credit towards a degree while also establishing an exit point for those students who decide that they do not wish to proceed to higher education. 148 Several submissions to this Review note the benefits of a segmented approach to undergraduate study by dividing it into two stages, with each stage lasting for two years (2 + 2 model). The first stage, leading to a diploma, would be offered by a VET provider and the second stage, leading to a degree, would be offered by a university. 149 Such an approach would have some parallels with arrangements in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, with community colleges/colleges of further education offering two years of generalist or vocational studies. Features common to the model in each country are: two-year post-secondary programmes which offer a qualification (known as “Foundation degrees” in the United Kingdom, “Associates of Arts” degrees in the United States and diplomas in Canada). All programmes allow direct workforce entry or articulation with substantial advanced standing into a full bachelor degree at a university. Other common features include a range of course offerings, including broad-based academic programmes, generic skills and industry specific skills; a focus on students outside the traditional bachelor degree clientele; greater emphasis on student support; and greater involvement by industry and/or the local community. 150 While such an approach would provide a range of exit-points for students, it would result in students undertaking four years of study to obtain a degree. Alternative approaches may be to develop a national pilot programme around a 1+2 structure or a 2+1 structure. The first stage would be an approved higher education programme delivered by a VET provider. Full credit would be awarded to students moving into university. Under either option a diploma could be offered after two years. As discussed earlier in this paper, this type of arrangement is already developing between VET providers and universities (although, in some cases, the ‘feeder’ VET programme may be accredited through VET arrangements, rather than higher education ones). 151 The benefit of a national programme could be that it would encourage an expansion of arrangements, allow some strategic targeting in regional areas and provide a framework to promote consistency in approach. Such a programme may be a cost effective means of provision, because the first stage could be funded as a teaching programme without a loading for research. It also could significantly increase student choice. Students who have to travel to a university but have local access to a VET provider (such as in a regional centre) may find such a programme particularly appealing, allowing them to undertake the first year (or second) of higher education close to home. Such arrangements would also appeal to those students who are not confident about their suitability for university or who are uncertain about their career directions. Under either approach, VET providers and universities could be invited to participate in the programme by tender. 152 With such a programme, provision may need to be made to ensure that higher education accredited ‘feeder’ courses of this kind do not proliferate at the expense of the more industry-relevant VET courses at diploma level or beyond the capacity of the universities to take students into the subsequent years of diploma-level study. 153 Responsibility for funding and administration of the first stage of the programme would be an important issue. The Queensland Government submission, in commenting on a broader approach to funding, makes the following point of relevance to such a programme:
154 Funding responsibility would need to be agreed between the Commonwealth and States/Territories. The South Australian Government submission argues that the Commonwealth should have responsibility for funding:
155 For reasons of equity and access there are strong arguments for income-contingent loans to be made available to students participating in any programme that might be established. The extent of student contribution could reflect the cost of course provision, which, as noted above, would be somewhat less for the first stage of the programme than the second. 156 For the same reasons, consideration could also be given to extending income contingent loan arrangements to students participating in all other accredited higher education courses offered by VET providers. 157 Another form of joint course is where a university and a VET provider develop related courses in which students enrol concurrently, achieve some cross-credit and graduate with both a degree and VET qualification in a shorter period. Such programmes can combine the more practical orientation of the VET programme with the theoretical base provided through a degree. Should incentives be provided for the development of such joint courses? b. enhancements to credit transfer and articulation158 In addition to the introduction of a programme along the lines described above, there are several other areas of focus to enhance credit transfer and articulation arrangements. grading assessments by VET providers159 The WA Department of Training notes that it is working to bridge the gap between the two sectors with a trial of a graded assessment programme (Submission 232). The AVCC reported that universities “were strongly of the view that if VET moved to a grading approach to student results this would increase the flow of students into higher education” (AVCC, 2001, p.3). There would, however, be a need to retain the integrity of the VET sector’s competency-based standards approach that is highly valued by industry. 160 Should such an approach be broadened, with other States and Territories encouraged to commence trials? tertiary entrance rank161 Another possibility is to explore ways in which VET students’ achievements can be recognised by a State or national level tertiary entrance rank so they can compete on an equal basis with school leavers. Work currently underway on recognition of VET in schools courses for purposes of entry to higher education may be relevant. A national working group, with representatives from industry, universities, the Commonwealth and the States and Territories, is working to explore ways in which students who undertake VET in schools courses can have the option of having their achievement recognised in the tertiary entrance rank in a consistent way, while also maintaining the integrity of competency-based assessment. This may have wider applicability as a means of creating a tertiary entrance rank for other VET entrants to higher education. promotion of learning pathways162 Several submissions call for the Commonwealth to work with State and Territory governments to map and promote learning pathways so potential students can access up-to-date information on options available to them (TAFE Directors Australia, Submission 322; RMIT University, Submission 273). 163 Another submission suggests that vendor specific training and other courses from RTOs should be examined and mapped so they can be “considered as part of a ‘virtual’ qualification from a mix of institutions that can pool offerings to best meet the emerging needs of industry” (IT Skills Hub, Submission 199, p.6). 164 Kinsman suggests a range of additional options including establishment of clear performance indicators for universities and TAFE to report on admission and credit granted; provision of incentive funding to institutions in both sectors that demonstrate good practice in admission and credit transfer; establishment of a national system to monitor and facilitate cross-sectoral articulation particularly at the subject level; and promotion of a more flexible and collaborative approach to curriculum design, student course choices and assessment across similar fields of study (Kinsman, 1998, p.11). 165 As part of the consultations for this Review, the issue of possible assistance for students making the transition from VET to higher education was raised. Should there be a national approach to the issue of transition assistance? c. multi-sector campuses and sharing of infrastructure166 Multi-sector campuses or ‘education precincts’ are a relatively recent initiative in Australia. They appear to be well suited to Australian circumstances, where for many towns there is insufficient population to justify more than one tertiary education facility. Given their recency of development an evaluation of their effectiveness has yet to be undertaken. Should the Commonwealth and State/Territory governments collaborate in initiating such an evaluation as the basis for a strategic approach to the development of future multi-sector campuses? This might also encompass a broader focus on sharing of infrastructure. 167 In a society which is so committed to lifelong learning, and an economy which requires a flexible and adaptable labour force, it is crucial that there be clear and easy pathways between vocational education and training and higher education. School students should not feel pressured to go directly to university. On-the-job learning, training as a New Apprentice and/or enrolling for vocational education at a TAFE or private provider are equally valid choices. But, for such students, as for those who gain entry to university, there must remain opportunities in later life to complement their decisions. The challenge is to develop in Australia a national system that underpins educational choice. some possible responses168 A number of possible options have been raised in relation to the issues in this paper. While not an exhaustive list, these questions have been included for consideration and discussion:
|
|||
|
Any comments or
queries should be sent to:
highered@dest.gov.au
Department of Education, Science and Training
|
