1

‘College for all’ in Anglophone countries – meritocracy or social inequality? An Australian example

2

‘College for all’ in Anglophone countries – meritocracy or social inequality? An Australian example

Leesa Wheelahan1

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

1 Leesa Wheelahan, Department of Leadership Higher and Adult Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, ON M5S 1V6, CanadaEmail: leesa.wheelahan@utoronto.ca

3

AbstractThis article analyses the expansion of higher education offered by technical and

further education institutes in Australia and it compares this provision with the expansion

of higher education in further education colleges in England, and baccalaureate degrees

in community colleges in the United States. It argues that this provision can open new

opportunities for students, while at the same time contributing to social inequality

because not all types of higher education are equal. It uses Trow’s typology of elite, mass

and universal higher education to analyse this expansion, and it uses social realism to

discuss whether ‘applied’ higher education provides students with similar opportunities to

students in more elite institutions. It draws from two related research projects in Australia

that researched the growth of higher education in institutions outside universities to

explore these issues.

Keywords: College for all; vocational and higher education; social inclusion;

meritocracy; social realism

4

Introduction Anglophone countries such as England, the United States and Australia have

policies to increase access to, and/or attainment from, higher education. ‘College for all’

brings with it promises of meritocracy, social mobility and social inclusion. Government

policies are underpinned by human capital policy discourses that argue that expansion

will lead to better access to higher education for students from disadvantaged

backgrounds, and a more highly skilled workforce through more ‘vocationally oriented’

or applied higher education provision. Much of this growth is expected to take place in

the second, more vocationally oriented tier of tertiary education – further education

colleges in England, community colleges in the US and technical and further education

(TAFE) institutes in Australia. The paper argues that while the expansion of higher

education into the second vocational tier of tertiary education offers new opportunities to

students hitherto excluded from higher education, college for all can be, and often is, a

mechanism for reproducing social inequality because not all types of higher education are

equal. It argues that such provision can offer opportunities for students from

disadvantaged backgrounds to participate more fully in debates and controversies in

society and in their occupational field of practice, but that emphasising the applied nature

of curriculum will not necessarily achieve this goal. The article focuses on the growth of

higher education in TAFE in Australia, and it compares this provision with the growth of

higher education in further education colleges in England and baccalaureate degrees in

community colleges in the US. It reports on two related research projects in Australia that

researched the growth of higher education in institutions outside universities to explore

these issues.

5

The first section of this article recalls Martin Trow’s framework of elite, mass and

universal higher education. This is used in the second section to explore the growth of

higher education in the second, vocationally oriented tier of tertiary education in England,

Australia and the United States, to examine the rationale for this provision and to

compare the three countries. The third section outlines the methods used in the research

that explored the growth of higher education outside universities in Australia while the

fourth section reports on findings from this research. It finds that the current divide

between the vocational education and higher education sectors in Australia is blurring

and is resulting in the emergence of one tertiary education sector that is more

differentiated and encompasses a broader range of institutions. However, in contrast to

the separate higher education and vocational education sectors, the emerging new tertiary

education sector is more hierarchical and stratified than that which preceded it. This

section explores the perspectives of students, teachers and institutional leaders and the

way they understand the emergence of higher education outside universities, its purposes

and outcomes. The final section problematises these findings by considering whether the

expansion of higher education in the second, vocationally oriented tier of tertiary

education is contributing to social mobility, or whether it is a new mechanism for

reproducing social inequality. In particular, it examines the way in which theoretical

knowledge in curriculum mediates students’ access to debates and controversies in

society and their occupational field of practice. It uses ‘social realism’ as the theoretical

framework to consider these issues (Wheelahan, 2012b; Young 2008).

6

Elite, mass and universal higher education systemsMartin Trow (1974) famously distinguished between elite, mass and universal

higher education systems. Trow described a higher education system in which half the

population or more of the relevant age group participates as a universal system, while a

mass system has between 16-50% participation, and an elite system has up to 15%

participation. Most industrialised countries have been progressively moving from elite to

universal systems over the last 30-40 years in response to changes in society, the

economy and technology (Trow 2005).

Trow (1974, 2005) argues that the nature of higher education institutions,

curriculum and pedagogy changes as the system moves from being elite to mass and then

universal. The purpose of elite systems is to prepare the social elite, and this is reflected

in a curriculum that is based on ‘shaping the mind and character’ of students through

highly structured concepts of academic and professional knowledge. Institutions are

relatively small and homogeneous with clear boundaries that mark the academic

community off from the rest of society. In contrast, the purpose of mass systems is to

transmit knowledge and prepare a broader segment of the population for a broader range

of technical and economic leadership roles. The curriculum is modular, more flexible,

and consists of semi-structured sequences within institutions that are comprehensive with

standards that are more diverse and boundaries that are more fuzzy and permeable. Mass

systems started to develop after the Second World War, and this is the beginning of the

ascendency of the vocational over more liberal purposes of education (Marginson 1997).

The purpose of universal systems is to prepare the whole population for rapid

social and technological change (Trow 2005). The boundaries between formally

7

structured knowledge and the everyday in the curriculum begin to break down, as do the

distinctions between the educational institution and other aspects of life, including the

workplace. Access to higher education takes on renewed importance in countries with

near-universal systems because it mediates access to a much wider range of jobs than in

elite systems, and to the lifestyle and culture associated with high levels of education

(Scott 2003). The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (1998, 37)

explains that ‘Access, therefore, is not merely to an institution but to a way of life, not for

the few but for all.’ Consequently, universal systems must meet two challenges: the first

is to ensure that higher education provision meets the knowledge and skills requirements

of society and the economy; and second, to ensure that there is equitable access.

Trow (1974) initially presented a linear model of development from elite, to mass

and then universal higher education and this has been criticised because there were many

aspects that he did not get right. In particular, as Trow (2005, 36) himself acknowledged,

rather than each phase supplanting the one that preceded it, each phase was absorbed as

the system moved from elite, to mass and then universal, so that universal higher

education systems have elite, mass and universal institutions and components. Parry

(2008, 9) argues that the value of Trow’s model is that it ‘generates comparative and

analytical questions about the division of labour accomplished between and within

institutions in national and regional systems.’ This provides a useful framework for

analysing the growth of higher education in different types of institutions in Anglophone

countries.

8

Growth of higher education in Anglophone countriesHigher education is expanding outside universities in the more vocationally

oriented sectors of tertiary education in Anglophone countries that have near universal

levels of participation such as Britain, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, and

now, Australia. Trow’s analysis is very helpful for understanding the growth of higher

education in further education colleges in England and in TAFE institutes in Australia

and in explaining the growth of community colleges in the United States, in particular,

the emergence of the community college baccalaureate. In all three countries, the growth

of higher education in these institutions is part of the universal component of the higher

education system.

In the United State, 17 states (out of 50) have authorised their community colleges

to offer baccalaureate or bachelor degrees and so go beyond their traditional provision of

two-year associate degrees even though this provision remains small.1 Five out of

Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories have approved their colleges and institutes to

offer bachelor degrees.2 In England, about 8% of all higher education is delivered in

further education colleges (Parry et al. 2012, 12). The New Zealand Government is also

encouraging growth in degrees offered by institutes of technology and polytechnics

where it is claimed that ‘the impact on productive capability is the greatest’ (Ministry of

Education 2006, 15).3 In Australia, about 23 of the 58 TAFEs deliver higher education,

even though most of this provision is small scale.4 This is increasingly occurring through

partnerships with universities.

Changes to the economy and government policies are driving the expansion of

higher education outside universities and contributing to the blurring of two divides. The

9

first divide that is blurring is between the publicly funded sectors of tertiary education as

institutions in each sector increasingly offer qualifications mostly associated with the

other (Wheelahan, Arkoudis, Moodie, Fredman & Bexley 2012). The second is between

public and private higher education institutions through government subsidies of student

fees through income contingent loans to students in both public and private institutions

(Wheelahan et al., 2012). Conversely, governments’ funding cuts are forcing public

institutions to rely increasingly on tuition fees and other private sources of revenue.

Three factors are helping to drive these changes. The first is that degrees are

increasingly becoming the labour market entry qualification as occupations increase the

credentials that are required for entry (Floyd and Walker 2009; Karmel 2010; Skolnik

2013). In Australia, TAFE will need to offer higher level qualifications if it is to continue

to train people for similar occupations. The second factor is that governments in

Anglophone countries are pursuing markets in tertiary education and opening access to

public funding to private providers. In Australia this means that TAFE must compete

with universities that are now offering vocational education and training (VET) diplomas,

schools that are offering lower level VET certificates and private providers that offer both

VET and higher education qualifications, often with indirect and even direct government

subsidies (Wheelahan et al. 2012). As a result of changes to the labour market and

government marketisation policies, TAFE must compete to maintain what it currently

has.

The third factor driving the blurring of the sectoral divide is institutional

aspiration. Levin (2004, 16) says that ‘Baccalaureate degree-granting status for

community colleges signifies an end to an identity as a two-year institution’. He argues

10

that ‘new regulations, norms and cognitive systems … are a consequence of

baccalaureate programming and of the degree’s legal status’ (Levin 2004, 15). Staff

recruitment practices emphasise those with higher-level qualifications, requirements for

scholarship become important, and institutions may engage in ‘imitation based on the

need for legitimacy’ (Levin 2004, 17). Arguably, institutional nomenclature is indicative

of institutional aspirations. In Australia, TAFE is changing its brand in many states,

particularly those that offer higher education (Wheelahan et al. 2012).5 Carey (2011)

points to a number of community colleges in the United States that have dropped the

word ‘community’ from their name and argues that this reflects mission creep. Private

providers in Australian higher education also covet the title university to position

themselves more effectively in domestic and international markets (Heaney, Ryan, and

Heaney 2010). The literature has not revealed instances where universities that offer

vocational programs seek to change their sectoral designation or remove university from

their title.

Comparison between England, Australia and the United StatesWhile further education colleges in England and community colleges in the

United States are comprehensive institutions that offer academic, vocational and general

education (Dougherty 2009, 345), Australian TAFE institutes are more restricted in the

type of programs they offer. Since the late 1980s their purpose has been restricted to

providing vocational education which is interpreted as ‘skills for work’ and the mandated

model of all publicly funded qualifications is competency based training, which is based

on units of competence that describe workplace requirements (Guthrie 2009).

Notwithstanding these differences, and while TAFE in Australia shares many common

11

features with both community colleges in the US and further education colleges in

England, the Australian system is most similar to England’s system.

England and Australia followed a similar trajectory in expanding their higher

education provision. Both did so through the establishment of a new sector of higher

education institutions in the 1950s and 1960s resulting in a binary divide between

universities and ‘other’ higher education institutions. In England this occurred through

the creation of colleges of advanced technology in 1956 and polytechnics in the 1960s

(Scott 2008, 44). In Australia this occurred through the creation of colleges of advanced

education (CAEs) in 1964 (Wheelahan, Moodie, Billett & Kelly 2009). Both countries

created unified higher education systems by redesignating CAEs and polytechnics as

universities, accompanied in Australia by widespread amalgamations of higher education

institutions with each other and with other universities. Australia merged its CAEs and

universities in 1988 (Moodie et al. 2009), and England merged its polytechnics and

universities a little later in 1992 (Pratt 1999) to create one unified university sector in

each country. Growth in higher education occurred first through growth in the binary

higher education system in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and then through growth in the

unified university systems in the late 1980s and 1990s.

The result was that further education in England and TAFE in Australia were not

seen as part of the higher education system, even though further education colleges in

England continued to offer short-cycle higher education qualifications (Parry 2005). The

creation of a unified university sector in England further differentiated further education

and higher education as distinct sectors. In Australia, TAFE was part of a broader

vocational education and training (VET) system, and further education colleges in

12

England were part of what later became the learning and skills sector. This is why Parry

and Thompson (2002) refer to the period up until the mid-1990s in England as the period

of low or no policy. Higher education provision in further education in England was not

consistently part of broader higher education policy, funding, regulatory or quality

assurance arrangements until the 1996 Dearing Review of Higher Education which

recommended that expansion of higher education occur through foundation degrees in

further education colleges (Parry 2005). In Australia, the question of TAFE’s role as a

provider of higher education did not arise until recent years because its purpose has been

to deliver competency-based qualifications designed to meet industry needs as part of a

broader VET sector.

The growth of higher education in further education and TAFE occurred

differently in each country. In England government policy explicitly designated a role for

the delivery of foundation degrees as part of a broader higher education policy.

Foundation degrees are publicly funded two-year vocationally oriented higher education

qualifications. The ‘special mission’ of further education colleges in delivering

foundation degrees was to widen participation in higher education by students from non-

traditional backgrounds, provide access to bachelor degrees, and to contribute to

upgrading the skill levels of the workforce (Parry 2005, 76-77). However, until recently,

further education colleges did not have the authority to accredit their own foundation

degrees and were required to offer them ‘in partnership’ with universities.6 This often

placed further education colleges in an awkward position where they had to rely on

universities to accredit their foundation degrees, while competing with them for students

(Mixed Economy Group 2008).

13

In contrast, in Australia the provision of higher education in TAFE has occurred

as a consequence of government policies to increase competition within a more ‘diverse’

marketised higher education sector. Higher education in TAFE is not (as yet) publicly

funded, and TAFEs are regarded as private higher education providers that compete with

other private providers to deliver full-fee higher education programs. This may change

because the current Australian Conservative government is seeking to get legislation

through the Parliament that would allow TAFEs and private providers to get access to

public higher education funding to support the further marketisation of the sector.

However, as a consequence of the existing funding policy that denies TAFE access to

public higher education funding, TAFEs are entering into increasing numbers of

partnerships to deliver bachelor degrees on behalf of universities.

The expansion of higher education in the United States took place within the

existing formally differentiated systems of higher education which consists of community

or two-year colleges which offer two year associate degrees, four-year colleges and

universities which offer up to masters degrees, and the elite doctoral granting universities

(Douglass 2003). Unlike further education colleges in England and TAFE institutes in

Australia, community colleges are explicitly considered to be higher education

institutions in the US (Dougherty 2009). Grubb (2006, 29) explains that community

colleges were first established in 1918 ‘as efforts to extend high school to Grades 13 and

14, and as efforts to create two-year post-secondary institutions relieving research-

oriented universities of the need to provide the first two years of a four-year program.’

Walker (2005, 12) explains that it is difficult to establish when community colleges first

began offering baccalaureates and that throughout the 20th century ‘it was not uncommon

14

for a junior college to evolve into a four-year college’. However, in the 1980s and more

so in the late 1990s, some community colleges began to offer a small number of

baccalaureates ‘for students who would not otherwise be able to earn a four-year degree’

(Walker, 2005, 12). He says that the momentum has accelerated since then, as a result of

the three factors: changes to the labour market; government marketisation policies in

post-secondary education; and, institutional aspirations.

Rationale for the growth of higher education in colleges & TAFEsWhile there are differences between them, the rationale for the expansion of

higher education in community colleges in the US, further education colleges in England

and TAFEs in Australia is similar. The first rationale is that provision of higher education

in further education colleges, community colleges and TAFEs is seen as a key

mechanism for increasing access to higher education for students from disadvantaged

backgrounds (Skolnik 2009; Parry and Thompson 2002; Wheelahan, Moodie, Billett &

Kelly 2009). In each country, these institutions play a key role in supporting students

from disadvantaged backgrounds to access post-school education (Bathmaker et al. 2008;

Bragg and Durham 2012; Wheelahan 2010). It is argued that higher education in these

settings is more accessible because the learning environment differs from that in

universities. Classes are smaller and there are higher levels of student contact, and there

is more emphasis on helping academically ‘under-prepared’ students develop the skills

they need to study in higher education.

The second rationale for the development of this provision is that it is more

vocationally oriented and putatively often more responsive to workforce requirements

than that of universities. Australian TAFEs argue that their provision is underpinned by

15

‘an evidence-based industry-focused applied learning methodology’ (Holmesglen

Institute of TAFE 2008, 13), and that they can provide ‘a more industry driven and

applied curriculum to meet the needs for a skilled workforce, with industry internships

and projects forming an important part of the applied degree structure’ (Box Hill Institute

of TAFE 2008, 6). Levin (2004, 4) explains that in the United States, ‘the new

community college baccalaureate has a primarily applied and workplace focus, and thus

is viewed as the vehicle by which to satisfy the demands of the political economy as well

as the needs of the local community’. Foundation degrees in England were explicitly

designed as vocationally oriented programs within a broader strategy that designates

further education’s primary purpose as the delivery of skills needed for work (Parry,

Thompson, and Blackie 2006, 21-22). Institutions in all three countries argue that this

allows them to be more responsive to their communities and local industries, and to meet

local workforce requirements. A third rationale is that this provision is often cheaper for

governments to provide, and may result in lower fees for students than that in

universities. This broad framework structured the two research projects reported here

(Wheelahan et al. 2009).

MethodsThe analysis, findings, discussion and conclusion in this paper are drawn from

two interconnected national research projects on higher education outside universities in

Australia. The first project was concluded in 2009, and its focus was on higher education

in TAFE institutes in Australia (Wheelahan et al. 2009). The second project was

concluded in 2012, and its focus was on higher education in private higher education

institutions, and on vocational education that is offered by universities (Wheelahan et al.

16

2012). Both projects used a similar research design and both were based on mixed

methods. The key research questions for the first project were:

What higher education does TAFE offer? Why and how?

What is the nature of VET and higher education identities in ‘mixed-sector’

TAFE institutes and how is the sectoral divide constituted and navigated

within TAFE by staff and students?

The key research questions for the second project were:

What VET do the public single-sector universities offer? Why and how?

What do mixed-sector private providers look like, what is the nature of their

provision and what impact is this having on the VET—higher education

sectoral divide?

What are the general conclusions about the impact of mixed-sector provision

on the sectoral divide in tertiary education, and what are the consequences for

policy, institutions, teachers and students?

Both projects included analyses of the theoretical and empirical literature;

government data on student enrolments and types of institutions; government policy

documents; and, policies and regulations of the post-secondary education regulatory

bodies. In total, 159 interviews were conducted in 20 institutions in six states with

students, staff, institutional leaders and with peak bodies and government regulatory

bodies. Similar questions were asked of interviewees in both projects to ensure the

outcomes could be compared and general conclusions developed. The first project on

higher education in TAFE included interviews with students, staff and institutional

17

leaders in six TAFE institutes that offered higher education, three TAFEs that did not

offer higher education at that time, and two ‘dual-sector’ universities. Australia has 40

universities which includes 37 public universities and three small private universities. At

the time the research was undertaken, the 37 public universities included five ‘dual-

sector’ universities that have both a TAFE and higher education division (there are now

six).7 Two of these universities were included in the research, and in one of the dual-

sector universities the TAFE division offered its own ‘applied’ degrees, whereas the

TAFE division in the other dual-sector university did not offer higher education. This

project also included interviews with officials in six state government offices of higher

education, which at that time had responsibility for registering higher education

institutions and accrediting their programs (this responsibility now lies with a national

body, the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency).

The second project included interviews with students, teachers and institutional

leaders at five private tertiary education institutions that offered both vocational

education and higher education programs, and four universities that offered a small

amount of vocational education either in its own right as a registered VET institution, or

through a company it established for that purpose. This project also included interviews

with senior officials in vocational education in three states (VET is mainly a state

government responsibility in Australia, although the Federal government also plays a role

in funding and policy), and with four senior representatives from the private sector.

Purposeful sampling was used to select institutional sites, and to select

interviewees within sites (Creswell, 2008, 214). While a representative sample of TAFEs

that offered higher education was possible as it included six of the 10 that were registered

18

to offer higher education at that time, it was not possible to include a representative

sample of TAFEs that did not offer higher education and so ‘maximal variation sampling

techniques’ (Creswell 2008, 214) were used to identify TAFEs that used different means

to provide students with access to higher education (usually through pathways with

universities). The aim was to produce as much variation as possible in the types of

institutions that were included in the project to gain contrasting perspectives. Similar

considerations were used to select private providers that offered vocational education and

higher education, and universities that offered a small amount of vocational education.

Interviewees were identified within institutions by the type of role that they play, and

similar questions were asked of people holding similar positions in different institutions.

Semi-structured interviews were used to ensure consistency in the interviews and thus

allow comparison across sites and categories of interviewees, while at the same time

allowing the interviewee the ability to develop their ideas and address issues they

considered important (Hillier and Jameson 2003, 103).

The findings reported in this paper focus on the perspectives of students, staff and

institutional leaders within institutions. The data are analysed using participants’ different

orientations to and understandings of the purposes of higher education outside

universities and their involvement in it.

Institutional, teacher and student perspectives on higher education in TAFE and private providers in Australia

In both research projects on the growth of higher education outside universities in

Australia, more applied, vocationally oriented higher education provision was seen to be

a defining feature by institutional leaders in TAFEs and private providers and by teachers

19

and students. So too was the role of TAFEs and private providers in supporting

disadvantaged students who were underprepared for studying at university. Many of the

students we interviewed (47 over both projects) had uncertain identities as higher

education students and were studying at their institution as a result of advice from

teachers or friends. The issue for many of our interviewees was ‘higher education or not’,

rather than the type of higher education they would undertake. This was particularly the

case for younger students studying higher education in TAFE, and less so for older

students studying in TAFEs and specialist private institutions. Students we interviewed

were enthusiastic about their program of study, the smaller classes and the support they

received from their teachers. Many students explained that one of the things they valued

about their institution was that the teacher knew them by name. They also valued the

smaller classes and more supportive pedagogy they received, exemplified by Kim, an

international student who compared her experiences studying a degree at a university

with those at a TAFE saying: ‘At uni lecturers keep going, keep going and won’t stop

because you are an overseas student and you don’t understand.’

Participants’ views about the status of higher education in TAFE and private

providers showed that the process of expanding higher education has resulted in new

types of institutions and in so doing contributed to institutional diversity, but that it has

brought with it new forms of stratification and hierarchies. The issue of status was raised

in almost every interview. In both projects, most students we interviewed at both TAFE

and private providers said that they glossed over the fact that they were not at a ‘real’

university when they were asked about their studies by acquaintances. Of those studying

higher education, some said they went to college (not TAFE), others that they went to uni

20

(university), while others provided information about the qualification they were studying

(engineering or dance, etc) or their intended occupation (a musician, engineer,

accountant, etc) rather than the type of institution they were attending. For example,

James, a higher education student at a TAFE, said he tells people he is studying a degree

at ‘uni’. He explained that this is because most people think TAFE is about a certificate,

and that people would think that he couldn’t make it to university so he went to TAFE

instead. Joe, a student at a private institution, said ‘I refer to the content rather than where

I am studying’. Kate explained that she considered her institution to be a private

university (it didn’t have official status as a university). In contrast, those vocational

education students we interviewed who were undertaking their program at a university

said they told friends and acquaintances that they were studying ‘at university’. This was

a strong and unambiguous finding.

The issue of status was raised by teachers who argued that their work wasn’t

recognised as equivalent to those teaching in universities, even though it was in some

ways more complex as a consequence of the higher levels of student support that were

required and workloads that were much more onerous. For example, Millie, a TAFE

teacher, explained:

One limitation is that higher education teachers in TAFE don’t have the same recognition as teachers in universities. There are no additional benefits or duties as a TAFE teacher. They get paid at the same rate, they have to be here 30 hours, and teach 22 hours face-to-face.

Max, a teacher in a private institution, expressed the ambivalence that many

teachers experience in explaining what they do:

But we are never quite sure what to call ourselves. To call ourselves an academic means we work in a university and we don’t do that. Maybe I call myself a tutor

21

or teacher … I feel a bit schizophrenic because of the different responsibilities as teacher, administrator, sound engineer and curriculum developer.

Concerns about status resulted in a paradox. Institutional leaders and teachers in

TAFEs and private providers positioned their provision as ‘equal to’ and often ‘better

than’ that offered at universities (as did many but not all students). On the one hand,

interviewees compared their provision with that in universities to demonstrate the

academic rigour of their qualifications, but their more applied focus on the other. They

often claimed their provision was better because they had to undergo external

accreditation by an external agency for all their qualifications, whereas universities

accredit their own qualifications and (it was claimed) do not have to meet the same

standards. Mostly though, it was argued that while their provision was just as

‘theoretically rigorous’, that it resulted in graduates who were more work-ready because

of their institution’s closer ties with the workplace and employers and more applied focus

in the curriculum.

In all cases, institutional leaders from TAFEs and private providers compared

their provision with universities, and not with each other. This was also evident at the

four universities that offered a small amount of VET. Institutional leaders and some

academics at these universities we spoke to argued that their VET provision was more

intellectually rigorous than that offered in TAFEs, and that it prepared students more

effectively for transition to higher education, should they choose to take that path.

University provision was the reference point for all participants.

In the higher education in TAFE project we also found that the sectoral divide

was emerging within TAFEs that offered both higher education and VET. This was

22

reflected in many of the teachers’ comments about how they defined their roles (as higher

education teachers who were different to vocational education teachers), and in students’

comments that showed their identities as higher education students, the way they

differentiated themselves from vocational education students, and the fact they glossed

over the nature of their institution. For example, Peter, who is a higher education teacher

in TAFE, said that ‘I don’t subscribe to the fact that I am a TAFE teacher. I am a higher

education lecturer.’ Frank, another higher education teacher in TAFE, explained that:

Inside TAFE it is a little different, people sometimes jokingly refer to you as a professor, and it is sometimes like you have deserted the VET side. People just joke a bit occasionally. Most don’t see too much difference because they think of it as just another department that teaches.

The emergence of the sectoral divide within TAFEs that offer both higher

education and vocational education is similar to, although not as strongly entrenched as,

that in Australia’s dual-sector universities that have a large TAFE and large higher

education division (Wheelahan 2000). Indeed, one of the claims TAFE leaders made in

the first project was that they would do better than dual-sector universities in overcoming

sectoral divides. However, while TAFE may be able to ameliorate some aspects of the

sectoral divide, it is inconceivable that it could insulate the internal environment when it

is offering programs from two sectors that exist in a hierarchical relationship, with one

higher status than the other, requiring higher level qualifications for its staff, with better

funding and preparing students for (somewhat) higher status occupations. A key

conclusion we came to in both projects was that rather than deny the existence of the

sectoral divide, that it was important to recognise that it existed and put in place

mechanisms to support students and staff to make the transition from one sector to the

other.

23

Discussion: social mobility or social inequality?The expansion of higher education in community colleges, further education

colleges and TAFEs is offering new opportunities for students, many of whom are from

disadvantaged backgrounds. However, as interviews with students, staff and institutional

leaders demonstrated, while it is creating new opportunities, it is reproducing social

hierarchies and inequalities because this provision is being developed within the context

of a hierarchical and stratified system (see also Bathmaker and Thomas [2009] and Levin

[2004] for a discussion of the complex and contradictory changes in further education

colleges in England and community colleges in the US respectively). It is clear that this

provision is in the ‘universal’ component of higher education, and that the occupations

for which students are being prepared are not those occupied by the social elites. It is also

clear that students are attending institutions that are at the bottom of the hierarchy of

higher education institutions in each country. While accepting Trow’s analytical

framework of elite, mass and universal higher education, I wish to problematise his

normative framework that this is desirable because (he argues) it is the only way to fund

universal higher education systems, while maintaining sufficient funding for training the

social elite (Trow 2005). This argument will be explored by analysing the rationales for

providing higher education in these non-traditional institutions.

The first rationale is that community colleges, further education colleges and

TAFEs have a particular role in providing more intensive support for disadvantaged

students who are under-prepared for higher education. There is evidence to support the

claim that these institutions do indeed do this (Bathmaker et al. 2008; Bragg and Durham

2012; Wheelahan et al. 2012). Arguably, this is a key role that they can play and is a

distinctive contribution they can make to expanding access to higher education.

24

The second rationale, that their provision is more applied and that this results in

more work-ready graduates, has not been convincingly demonstrated even though this

was insisted upon as a key defining rationale for this provision by our interviewees.

Moreover, that it should be a normative ideal has not really been demonstrated either, if

that is to be understood as ensuring that employers have what they want. Arguably, while

the purpose of higher education (and vocational education) is in part to prepare graduates

for work, at stake is the type of worker. Is it to be autonomous workers who exercise

judgement, creativity and discretion in the workplace, or ‘directed workers’ who have

little autonomy (Buchanan, Yu, Marginson & Wheelahan 2009)? Moreover, while

TAFEs in Australia that offer higher education may not prepare students for the most

elite professions such as medicine or law, they do train engineers, accountants, nurses,

and early childhood teachers as well as training individuals for new and emerging

occupations such as hospitality management. The question that needs to be examined is:

how far down the applied route can this provision go before it is another kind of

provision? What distinguishes it from vocational education, or to put it another way, what

is higher about higher education?

Trow’s analysis of the different type of curriculum associated with elite, mass and

universal higher education is one of the most incisive aspects of his analysis, but it has

received very little attention (Wheelahan 2012a). He clearly shows how different forms

of knowledge are associated with social elites, and that systematic access to disciplinary

knowledge is strongest for the more elite forms of higher education. This question is

addressed by social realists who use the sociology of Basil Bernstein (2000) and Emile

Durkheim (2001) to analyse the role of theoretical knowledge in curriculum (Muller

25

2000; Young 2008; Wheelahan 2012b). Bernstein argued that students need access to

theoretical knowledge because it is the means that society uses to conduct its

conversation and debates about what it should be like. It is also the way that the

professions construct the knowledge base of practice and debate and change practice.

If students are to have access to these debates, then they require epistemic access

to the knowledge that is used to conduct them. Curricula that focus on applied learning

and experiential learning are often at the expense of providing students with systematic

access to disciplinary knowledge that informs practice in their field. While there can be

no learning for the professions without practical and applied learning, if this curriculum

eschews systematic access to the disciplinary knowledge that underpins practice, then it

could reinforce social hierarchies by not providing students with the tools they need to

contribute to developing knowledge in their field. It could also be at the expense of

providing students with access to the knowledge they need to support educational and

occupational progression.

Bernstein argued that students need to recognise the boundaries between everyday

and theoretical knowledge, and between different forms of theoretical knowledge and its

disciplinary divisions. He shows how students from disadvantaged backgrounds (who are

over-represented in VET in Australia) are less likely to have had access to this form of

knowledge, and that they need to be supported to gain the ‘recognition rules’ they need to

make these distinctions. However, curricula in the universal components of the system

are, as Trow explains, characterised by weak boundaries between formally structured

knowledge and everyday knowledge, and weak boundaries between educational

institutions and the workplace. Arguably, this is one way in which the universal

26

component of the system contributes to maintaining existing social inequalities, because

it provides students with access to a different form of knowledge.

This has implications for curriculum and also for policy. Policy emphasises the

applied nature of higher education provision in further education colleges, community

colleges and TAFEs. If social justice is a key policy objective, then such policies need to

consider the type of knowledge to which students have access. Ensuring that all students

gain epistemic access to the disciplinary knowledge that underpins practice will result in

a curricular difference in the elite and universal components of the system; the universal

components of the system will have to ensure that students have the necessary

scaffolding they need to access disciplinary knowledge as part of supporting

disadvantaged students to access higher education, while the elite components will

continue to assume that students come to them having already had that preparation.

ConclusionOn the one hand, the paper shows that the emergence of higher education outside

universities and four-year colleges provides access to higher education to students who

were previously excluded and that it provides them with new opportunities, but on the

other, that such access can contribute to mediating social inequality. In particular, the

paper shows the emergence of a reconfigured and extended hierarchy of institutions

within higher education through the inclusion of new higher education institutions, but

ones that are at the bottom of the hierarchy. It has implications for policy, but also for

broader debates about the purpose of higher education, and the structure of curriculum.

Trow’s typology of elite, mass and universal higher education shows the way institutions

in different components of the system prepare students for different types of occupations,

27

have different models of curriculum and varying strength in the boundaries between

higher education institutions and society, particularly the workplace. Elite forms of

higher education are more associated with strong boundaries between the educational

institution and society, but also between different types of knowledge. Universal forms of

higher education are more associated with weak and permeable boundaries. Yet the

students who attend these institutions are more likely to come from socially

disadvantaged backgrounds where they are less likely to have the recognition rules they

need to recognise the boundaries between different forms of knowledge, and the

epistemic access that they need as a condition for participating in debates and

controversies in their field of practice. College for all may be providing students with

new opportunities, but also at the same time, helping to sustain existing social hierarchies

and inequalities.

Endnotes

28

Human subjects research protectionThe two research projects informing this paper were respectively granted ethics

approval by the Ethics Committee Griffith University and by the Ethics Committee at the

University of Melbourne.

AcknowledgementFunding for both research projects reported in this article was through the National

Centre for Vocational Education Research in Australia.

ReferencesBathmaker, Ann-Marie, Greg Brooks, Gareth Parry, and David Smith. 2008. "Dual-Sector

Further and Higher Education: Policies, Organisations and Students in Transition." Research Papers in Education 23 (2):125 - 137.

Bathmaker, Ann-Marie, and Will Thomas. 2009. "Positioning themselves: an exploration of the nature and meaning of transitions in the context of dual sector FE/HE institutions in England " Journal of Further and Higher Education 33 (22):119 - 130.

Bernstein, Basil. 2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. 2nd ed. ed. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Box Hill Institute of TAFE. 2008. Submission to the Review of Australian Higher Education. Melbourne.

Bragg, Debra D., and Brian Durham. 2012. "Perspectives on Access and Equity in the Era of (Community) College Completion." Community College Review 40 (2):106-125.

Buchanan, John, Yu, Serena, Marginson, Simon, & Wheelahan, Leesa. (2009). Education, work and economic renewal: An issues paper prepared for the Australian Education Union. Sydney: Workplace Research Centre, University of Sydney.< http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2009/JBuchananreport2009.pdf > viewed 28 March 2014.

Carey, Kevin. 2011. "The Dangerous Lure of the Research-University Model." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 20 February. <http://chronicle.com/article/The-Dangerous-Lure-of-the/126438/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en> viewed 26 March 2011.

Creswell, John W. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 3rd ed ed. New Jersey: Pearson.

Dougherty, Kevin. 2009. "English Further Education through American Eyes." Higher Education Quarterly 63 (4):343–355.

Douglass, John Aubrey. 2003. The Dynamics of Massification: A Comparative Look at Higher Education Systems in the UK and California. Oxford Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, New College, University of Oxford.

Durkheim, Émile. 2001. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated by Carol Cosman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

29

Floyd, Deborah L., and Kenneth P. Walker. 2009. "The Community College Baccalaureate: Putting the Pieces Together " Community College Journal of Research and Practice 33 (2):90 - 124.

Grubb, W. Norton. 2006. "Vocationalism and the differentiation of tertiary education: lessons from US community colleges." Journal of Further and Higher Education 30 (1):27-42.

Guthrie, Hugh. 2009. Competence and competency based training: What the literature says. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Heaney, Joo-Gim, Peter Ryan, and Michael F Heaney. 2010. "Branding private higher educatin institutions in Australia to interntional students." Academy of World Business Marketing and Management Development Conference, Oulu, Finland, 12 -15 July.

Hillier, Yvonne, and Jill Jameson. 2003. Empowering Researchers in Further Education. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

Holmesglen Institute of TAFE. 2008. Higher Education at the Crossroads: Submission to the Australian Review of Higher Education. Melbourne.

Karmel, Tom. 2010. "A changing labour market and the future of VET." Centre for the Economics of Education and Training Conference: Education and training for a more productive Australia, Melbourne.

Levin, John S. 2004. "The Community College as a Baccalaureate-Granting Institution." The Review of Higher Education 24 (1):1-22.

Marginson, Simon. 1997. Educating Australia: government, economy and citizen since 1960. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Ministry of Education. 2006. Tertiary education strategy 2007-12. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Mixed Economy Group. 2008. Response of the Mixed Economy Group. London: Author.Moodie, Gavin, Leesa Wheelahan, Stephen Billett, and Ann Kelly. 2009. Higher education in

TAFE: an issues paper. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.Muller, Johan. 2000. Reclaiming Knowledge. Social Theory, Curriculum and Education

Policy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1998. Redefining Tertiary

Education. Paris: OECD.Parry, Gareth. 2005. "Higher education in the learning and skills sector: England." In A

contested landscape: International perspectives on diversity in mass higher education, edited by Jim Gallacher and Mike Osborne. Leicester: NIACE.

Parry, Gareth. 2008. Working Paper 2 Policy Studies Universal Access and Dual Regimes of Further and Higher Education (The FurtherHigher Project). Sheffield: School of Education, University of Sheffield.

Parry, Gareth, Claire Callender, Peter Scott, and Paul Temple. 2012. Understanding Higher Education in Further Education Colleges. In BIS research paper no. 69. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Parry, Gareth, and Anne Thompson. 2002. Closer by degrees: the past, present and future of higher education in further education colleges. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Parry, Gareth, Anne Thompson, and Penny Blackie. 2006. Managing Higher Education in Colleges. London: Continuum.

Pratt, John. 1999. "Policy and policymaking in the unification of higher education." Journal of Educational Policy 14 (3):257-269.

Scott, Peter. 2003. "1992-2002: Where next?" Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 7 (3):71-75.

30

Scott, Peter. 2008. "English higher and further education: a commentary." In Working Paper 1: International and Contextual Studies (The Further/Higher Project) edited by Kevin Dougherty, Jim Gallacher, Glen Jones, Gavin Moodie, Peter Scott and Geoff Stanton. Sheffield: School of Education, University of Sheffield.

Skolnik, Michael K. 2009. "Theorizing About the Emergence of the Community College Baccalaureate " Community College Journal of Research and Practice 33 (2):125 - 150

Skolnik, Michael K. 2013. "Reflections on the nature and status of the applied baccalaureate degree: drawing upon the Canadian experience." In Alternative pathways to the baccalaureate, edited by Nancy Remington and Rodald Remington. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.

Trow, Martin. 1974. "Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education." Policies for Higher Education OECD (Paris):51-101.

Trow, Martin. 2005. Reflections on the Transition from Elite to Mass to Universal Access: Forms and Phases of Higher Education in Modern Societies since WWII. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

Walker, Kenneth P. 2005. "History, Rationale, and the Community College Baccalaureate Association." In The Community College Baccalaureate: Emerging Trends and Policy Issues, edited by Deborah H. Floyd, Michael K. Skolnik and Kenneth P. Walker. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.

Wheelahan, Leesa. (2000). Bridging the divide: developing the institutional structures that most effectively deliver cross-sectoral education and training. Adelaide, South Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Wheelahan, Leesa. (2010). Rethinking equity in tertiary education – why we need to think as one sector and not two. Paper presented at the VET Research: Leading and Responding in Turbulent Times, AVETRA 2010, 13th Annual Conference

Wheelahan, Leesa. (2012a). Accessing knowledge in the university of the future: lessons from Australia. In Ron Barnett (Ed.), The future university: ideas and possibilities. New York: Routledge

Wheelahan, Leesa. (2012b). Why knowledge matters in curriculum: A social realist argument. London: Routledge

Wheelahan, Leesa, Arkoudis, Sophie, Moodie, Gavin, Fredman, Nick, & Bexley, Emmaline. (2012). Shaken not stirred? The development of one tertiary education sector in Australia. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Wheelahan, Leesa, Moodie, Gavin, Billett, Stephen, & Kelly, Ann. (2009). Higher education in TAFE. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Young, Michael. 2008. Bringing Knowledge Back In: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. London: Routledge.

1 See the Community College Baccalaureate Association website: http://www.accbd.org/resources/baccalaureate-conferring-locations/?ct=US, viewed 20 January 2015. The CCBA website lists 16 states that have authorised their colleges to offer degrees, while approval has been given to community colleges in California to offer baccalaureate degrees for a seven year pilot program – see http://www.kcra.com/news/community-college-picks-schools-to-offer-4year-degrees/30821610, viewed 20 January 2015.2 See Polytechnics Canada’s list: http://www.polytechnicscanada.ca/sites/default/files/AllCollege_Degrees_09242014.pdf, viewed 20 January 2015. 3 For the latest list of degrees offered by polytechnics and institutes in New Zealand, see http://www.studyzone.co.nz/polytechnics/ viewed 20 January 2015.4 TAFE Directors Australia explains that 10 of the nations 58 TAFEs are registered to offer higher education qualifications in their own right, while about 23 deliver higher education qualifications either in their own right or in partnership with universities. See: http://www.tda.edu.au/cb_pages/australian_tafe_higher_education_provider_network.php and: http://www.tda.edu.au/cb_pages/files/24092014%20TDA%20response%20to%20the%20HE%20and%20research%20reform%20amendment%20bill%202014.pdf. Viewed 21 January 20155 One exception is the state of New South Wales where the TAFE system has decided to maintain and build on the ‘TAFE brand’.6 Further education colleges can now apply for authority to accredit their own foundation degrees. See the Quality Assurance Agency of England (2014) that outlines how higher education qualifications are accredited.7 They are Central Queensland University in Queensland; Charles Darwin University in the Northern Territory; and, Victoria University, Federation University, Swinburne University and RMIT University in Victoria.