Higher Education Review Process

Varieties of Learning: the Interface between Higher Education and Vocational Education and Training

executive summary

Although the higher education and vocational education and training sectors have distinct missions, structures and funding arrangements, the interface between the two has been growing. Their futures are inextricably linked and dependent on their capacity to adapt and respond to changing demand for the educational products they offer.

The growing interface is due to a number of factors including the changing nature of work (which is resulting in many students looking for an education that provides a combination of traditional higher education and vocational education), a growing diversity in the population seeking entry to tertiary education, and efficiencies associated with cooperation between the sectors. Most importantly, it reflects the fact that Australia is a world leader in lifelong learning, with very high levels of mature age Australians gaining entry both to vocational education and training and higher education. Five times more Australians over the age of 40 participate in education than the OECD average and Australia ranks first in the world for this age group.

There is increasing movement of students between vocational education and training and higher education. In 2001, 15 300 undergraduates commencing university out of a total of 220 000 (7 per cent) were admitted on the basis of their TAFE studies, complete or incomplete. This proportion has grown from 3.9 per cent in 1993. Over the same period, growth in the number of students receiving exemptions on the basis of TAFE studies was 98 per cent. In 2001, 5 181 students commencing bachelor degrees (or below) received some exemptions as a result of their TAFE studies. 

In 2001, 83 900 VET students (4.8 per cent of the total) had a degree or postgraduate diploma as their highest prior qualification. This compares with 43 700 (3.4 per cent) in 1995.

While there is still no national system of credit transfer between VET and higher education, progress is being made. The Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee and the Australian National Training Authority have developed, with 35 participating universities, credit transfer arrangements for holders of TAFE qualifications in thirteen broad fields of study.

Yet, while there has been an improvement in credit transfer arrangements in recent years, significant barriers remain. These include fundamental differences in learning and assessment in the two sectors: higher education is curriculum-based and VET programmes are based on outcomes defined as competencies. The use of a non graded, competent/not-yet-competent framework for reporting modules or units in the VET sector, compared with marks/rankings used in the secondary and higher education sectors, can also create difficulties. Students may not be aware that credit transfer may apply for their TAFE qualifications, or may be uncertain about their own ability to navigate the bureaucratic processes involved. Is there a need to improve the amount and quality of information to VET graduates about opportunities for higher education study? 

Collaboration between the sectors is occurring in a range of areas including articulation and joint courses, shared campuses and in research. However, this has developed in the absence of a coordinated policy framework. Young Australians in particular may benefit from the development of such a framework for education transitions, based on a better understanding of unmet demand by school leavers for VET and higher education, including whether this demand could be met in overall terms by improved coordination and reprioritisation.

Confusion is increased by the fact that in some jurisdictions TAFEs (or equivalents) are now offering their own ‘technical degrees’. For example, the Victorian Government recently announced that it will allow Victorian TAFE institutes to offer degrees in niche areas such as viticulture, aquaculture, information technology and biotechnology, on a fee-for-service basis. At the same time, universities have increased the range of professional courses offered, including fields of study that might traditionally have been offered in vocational education and training. 

There are benefits in encouraging joint VET/higher education programmes since they can guarantee articulation and credit transfer, provide opportunities for students to develop a broader range of skills and also provide students with a broader range of options as a result of multiple exit points. However, there are a number of challenges in developing joint courses. These include the different funding and reporting regimes of the two sectors and the limited financial incentives for collaborative activity.

Anomalies exist in relation to the level and nature of student contributions to their study. A student who undertakes a TAFE diploma-level qualification and pays TAFE course fees and then articulates into a degree course would pay significantly less for their qualification than a student who studies solely at university and pays HECS for the duration of their course. However, the student, whilst at TAFE, has no access to an income-contingent loan to pay fees. These anomalies reflect in part the different cost structures applying in the VET and higher education sectors. 

Of more concern from a policy perspective is whether access to education is being affected by these arrangements. The Commonwealth Minister has announced that the Government does not have a plan to extend HECS fees to TAFE courses (see Media Release of 4 June 2002). The question remains as to whether higher education courses delivered through TAFE or private providers should be subject to differing arrangements. Issues for consideration and debate include: should students be offered loans to undertake accredited higher education courses in VET institutions? Should this be extended to VET accredited diploma courses that articulate fully or partially to a degree? Would this be a more equitable approach for students? Would this provide a more coherent framework for the development of joint and articulated courses? 

In looking at possible ways forward, should consideration be given to establishing a national pilot programme to encourage the development of joint higher education programmes? This could be based on provision of the first year of the course by a VET provider, and provision of the subsequent two years by a university (1+2 arrangement). Alternatively, a 2+1 arrangement could be developed. Exit with a diploma after two years could be an element of the pilot programme, with students able to graduate after three years with a degree. Income contingent loans could be made available to students participating in the programme, so long as it is formally recognised by the university that awards the degree.

Such a programme may encourage an expansion of existing 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 could also 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 closer 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. Furthermore, credit transfer could be assured.

Another option for enhancing credit transfer could be an expanded trial of graded assessments in VET. A trial is already underway in Western Australia but other States and Territories could consider such an approach.

Other possibilities for enhancing credit transfer might include:

• an exploration of 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;

• the provision of incentives to institutions that demonstrate good practice in admission and credit transfer; and

• the promotion of pathways (including vendor specific training) so potential students can access up-to-date information on options available to them.

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? It may also encompass a broader focus on sharing of infrastructure, including community access.

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.

Return to the Top of the Page

Any comments or queries should be sent to: highered@dest.gov.au
This page was last updated on Monday, 04 August 2008

Department of Education, Science and Training
Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia
DEST Web Site Privacy Statement
Disclaimer