After a generation of being undervalued and underfunded, it is time for TAFE to shine – comment by Stephen Matchett

TAFE, not training in general. The interim report from the Universities Accord team is specific about the importance of the public systems to the nation-building tertiary education model they propose.

For the Albanese Government “TAFE” and “training” are political synonyms.

There are reasons for this. TAFE has always been an engine of social mobility, a reality obscured by the expansion of universities. And the VET FEE HELP disgrace has unfairly ruined the reputation of the private training industry for years to come.

To create a new national tertiary education system, the government does not only want TAFE to participate – it wants public training to be a foundation.

The Accord team agrees,

“Australia’s skills needs will only be met if the higher education system, and an expanded VET system, with TAFE at its core, work together within a more integrated system to deliver the flexible, transferable skills people want and need,” Professor O’Kane and colleagues write.

Granted their ambitions appear quixotic.

They dream a seemingly impossible dream (a universal post school learning entitlement), which requires fighting once unbeatable foes (the entrenched influence of old and rich universities) and running where the brave dare not go (into Treasury with a huge funding proposal).

Most of the 70 proposals in their discussion paper, released last week, are admirable in ambition and originality – even the banal are bold. Many of them will upset powerful people. Research lobbies, all but ignored in the paper, were complaining within hours of the its release.

And then there is paying for it. The Accord proposes a “universal learning entitlement” and although the report specifies university places for all eligible students is “a priority element” it is hard to see how a lesser or no, entitlement for studying at TAFE fits the Accord ambition for “an aligned tertiary education system, including encouraging parity of esteem” between VET and HE.

Whatever students and industry (floated in the Accord) pay for the entitlement, in terms of TAFE it would surely involve a cost to the states, in terms of how federal funding for their systems is allocated.

And yet the Accord has a better chance of succeeding than pragmatic politics should allow. There are three reasons why.

One is Education Minister Jason Clare and his Jobs and Skills colleague Brendan O’Connor, are manifestly game to have a go at national reform more ambitious than John Dawkins’ creation of the unified HE system, bolder than Julia Gillard, who backed Denise Bradley’s demand driven model for undergraduate education.

The second is tertiary education will transform over the next 20 years – and if systems do not do it for themselves then digital providers will – in ways which are way disruptive and unfair. Ministers and mandarins, university deans and college directors may not like it – but they can’t ignore change already underway as giant corporations (think Apple, Cisco, Microsoft) create their own courses.

Plus the times are right for governments to lead national reform in ways not seen since the creation of welfare states – the pandemic has made that possible. Australians willingly accepted state enforced lockdowns and now the national government is?getting involved in industry planning and funding in the national interest.?As Ben Chifley worked to ensure Australian independence from manufactured imports, so Anthony Albanese wants us to have our own vaccine and green energy capacity.

And this sense of securing sovereignty extends to skills – it resonates with the electorate, and makes it possible for the Commonwealth to propose big-picture reform for economy growing, job-generating skills. That Mr Clare did not announce last week an end to the discriminatory cost borne by humanities, law and business students makes the point. People worry about not finding a plumber or a TAFE graduate cyber security tech.

Which is the context for the Accord team’s breathtaking in ambition proposal – access to lifelong learning via a single post-compulsory system.

“The tertiary sector must adapt to facilitate growth in lifelong learning. Higher education will need to provide multiple entry and exit points that allow people to develop skills and build to recognised credentials or qualifications in a modular, more ‘stackable’ way. This could encompass a wide range of qualification types across the tertiary sector.”

Note “higher education” and “the tertiary sector” appear as elements of the one whole. And lest anyone miss it, the paper, states in passing, Commonwealth Supported Places would be extended to TAFE, “in areas of crucial skill need.”

The Accord report proposes a tertiary education commission (TEC) to help it happen. This would be a much bigger deal for universities than TAFEs, what with it determining their individual funding. But a TEC could still bring a national policy focus to training.

“The Tertiary Education Commission could establish buy-in to the Accord’s reforms among the many different types of institutions and diverse stakeholders, leveraging the collective resources of the sector to drive better outcomes. The Tertiary Education Commission would also need to work closely with, among others, state education and training departments, JSA, TEQSA, ASQA, professional accreditation and industry bodies, and various funding bodies and government departments,” the Accord assumes.

That is if states agree. WA and Victoria don’t accept in-state regulation by the Australian Skills Quality Authority – which raises the question whether they, or any other state government, for their own parochial purposes would accept the authority of a far wider-ranging national agency.

‘Twas ever thus in our federal system –?a similarly bold training reform scheme in the ‘90s faced university recalcitrance, state-rights hostility and industry ambivalence.

And yet this time could be different. For public education and training providers to stay competitive they will need to know how to change and change again.

A national tertiary system that encourages cooperation, accepts competition and embraces parity of esteem between the old sectors is the best way it will work.

The question is how to pay for it.

stephen matchett is a writer for hire on tertiary education. Read him at the?Future Campus?site.