submissions.education.gov.au · Web viewVictoria University (VU) was founded in 1916 as Footscray Technical School. After successive mergers with TAFE colleges across Melbourne's

DRIVING INNOVATION,FAIRNESS AND

EXCELLENCE INAUSTRALIAN

HIGHEREDUCATION

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY SUBMISSION

JULY 2016

22 July 2016Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education (v1.0) Page 2 of 12

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY DETAILS

Name of organisation VICTORIA UNIVERSITY

Postal address PO Box 14428MELBOURNE VIC 8001

Legal statusOTHER INCORPORATED ENTITY established under the Victoria University Act 2010 of Ballarat Road Footscray VIC 3011

Australian Business Number (ABN) 83 776 954 731

Key contact person

Professor Kerri-Lee KrauseDeputy Vice-Chancellor and ProvostPhone: (03) 9919 5466Email: kerri- l ee. k r a u s e @ v u.e d u.au

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSVictoria University thanks the following staff who contributed to the preparation of this response:

NAME (listed alphabetically) POSITION DEPARTMENT

Prof Colin Clark Dean College of Business

Prof Andrew Clarke Dean College of Law and Justice

Prof Pat Drake Professor of Education STEM Education Strategic Initiatives

Ms Angela Dressler* Senior Lecturer and Co-ordinator ofCareer Development and Employability College of Sport and Exercise Science

Dr Romana Garma Postgraduate Co-ordinator College of Business

Charles Giacco* Lecturer College of Law and Justice

Prof Terrence Hallahan Director, Teaching and Learning College of Business

Dr Karen Lawrence Director, Teaching and Learning College of Health and Biomedicine

Prof Nicolette Lee Executive Director Learning and Teaching

Raquel Licciardi Undergraduate Co-ordinator College of Business

Warren Payne* Pro Vice-Chancellor Research and Research Training

Ms Catherine Pickett Director, Provost Portfolio Office of the DVC and Provost

Prof Ian Solomonides* Pro Vice-Chancellor Learning Innovation and Quality

Ms Susan Young* Dean of Students Centre for Student Success

* Denotes Member of Academic Board


TABLE OF CONTENTS1. ABOUT VICTORIA UNIVERSITY.................................................................................................................... 4

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................. 5

3. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5

4. MATTERS FOR FINALISATION ..................................................................................................................... 6

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................................................................................... 12


1. ABOUT VICTORIA UNIVERSITYVictoria University (VU) was founded in 1916 as Footscray Technical School. After successive mergers with TAFE colleges across Melbourne's western suburbs, Victoria University of Technology was established in 1990, and renamed Victoria University in 2005.

Today, VU is one of the largest and most culturally diverse education institutions in Australia, and one of only five multi-sector universities offering vocational education (TAFE) and higher education courses.

Victoria University now has about 43,000 enrolled students, which includes almost 14,000 international students studying courses onshore or with our partner institutions offshore. About 2,000 academic, teaching and professional staff join with the University’s students to pursue our vision of making VU a great university for the West of Melbourne and beyond.

As the University of Opportunity and Success, we will be open and excellent, creating exceptional value forany student from any background and uplifting the communities in which we operate.

We will achieve this vision by:

EducationProviding high quality, engaging career-based tertiary education at all levels of vocational and higher education with flexible entry and exit points, appropriate pathways, engaging and rigorous curriculum and contemporary delivery; while maintaining rigorous standards and ensuring that all students are supported to meet those standards.

Research and EngagementUndertaking high quality and innovative applied and translational research which results in healthier, smarter and sustainable communities in the West of Melbourne and beyond and connecting deeply with industry and the community, in turn enhancing the quality of teaching and learning.

In 2016, VU celebrates a ‘Centenary of Opportunity’ marking 100 years of delivering high quality, accessibleeducation in the West of Melbourne.


2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYVictoria University (VU) is pleased to take up this opportunity to contribute to the consultation on DrivingInnovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education.

Our vision as the University of Opportunity and Success, is to be open and excellent, create exceptional value for any student from any background and uplift the communities in which we operate. To this end, our main focus is for us to see an appropriate and equitable funding model which provides continuity in our ability to deliver high quality education and undertake innovative applied and translational research which results in healthier, smarter and sustainable communities in the West of Melbourne and beyond.

The responses in this report were formulated as part of an internal consultation process whereby members of the University’s Academic Board1 (consisting of 35 members) and some of our senior leaders (consisting of 29 staff) were invited to confer with colleagues at a roundtable held on Thursday 30 June 2016, and to submit their commentary, within the scope of their role, to the Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost.

3. INTRODUCTIONIn early May 2016, the Government released the paper ‘Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education’. This paper sets out potential reforms that support the Government’s vision of a stronger, more innovative and responsive system of higher education that preserves equity of access while meeting the financial sustainability savings outlined in the budget. These reforms would complement the National Innovation and Science Agenda and the National Strategy for International Education.

The Government will work closely with all stakeholders to inform a revised higher education reform package to be finalised in 2016 and legislated no later than mid-2017 for commencement from 2018.

To assist in this process, the Minister has appointed an expert advisory panel to provide advice on the content and implementation of the final package.2

1 ht t ps://ww w .vu.e d u. a u/ a b o u t - us / a dm inist r atio n - g o ve r n a nce/ac a d e m i c- b o a r d/ a cade m ic - b o a rd-m e m b er ship 2 Refer ‘Introduction’ section of the ‘Driving I n n o vatio n , F ai r n e ss a n d E xcelle n ce in A ust r a l ian Higher E d u catio n ’ paper.


4. MATTERS FOR FINALISATION

Matters for finalisation regarding the expansion of the demand-driven system beyond bachelor courses at public universities:

whether to provide subsidies for all undergraduate courses at all registered higher education providers, noting that growth in enrolments has continued to increase at non-university providers despite the absence of Commonwealth funding.

how to expand access to sub-bachelor courses at public universities, whether this should be entirely demand driven or whether it should be limited in enrolment numbers or scope.

Taking an evidence-based approach, recognising the distinct vision and mission of different institutions and the funding constraints across the system, providing subsidies across all providers would direct scarce resources away from existing registered higher education providers. Considerations around increasing governance and compliance requirements provide further impetus for not extending subsidies to non-university providers. The experience of the vocational sector in Victoria has been salutary in this matter and would suggest a very clear distinction between university and non-university programs is important.

Sub-degree provision provides an avenue for students who are not yet ready to commit to a full degree to enter higher education. This is an important opportunity for many under prepared students, and means that additional support needs to be provided. Current sub-degree funding is capped by area of study, meaning that innovation is dampened and institutions are forced to offer places in traditional discipline areas or fields rather than inemerging areas, not supporting students who are in most need of a stepping stone approach. In essence, asolution is to provide demand driven funding for sub-degrees but limited in total numbers per university – this could be arranged along the lines of the enabling funding load which is capped overall per institution but not by area of study.

Reforms to the allocation of and support for subsidised postgraduate places have not been considered as part of legislative changes to date but could be considered in revised proposals, subject to the financial sustainability savings outlined in the budget. Measures that could be considered include:

reallocate all subsidised postgraduate places on a more transparent and consistent basis, to be determined by an independent process, driven by identified principles around economic, societal and academic need, and reassessed at regular intervals

better target Commonwealth support to those postgraduate courses identified as delivering significant community benefit where private benefits may be more limited – for example, teaching and nursing courses, where graduate salaries may be comparatively lower while demand for skills is high

allocate additional places for skills-deepening qualifications consistent with the National Innovation andScience Agenda, for example in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields

introduce a time-limited learning entitlement for Commonwealth subsidies (for example, seven years) that students can access at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level

introduce demand driven funding for some or all postgraduate coursework courses. This would make Commonwealth funding more consistent across different levels of course, but would risk a significant budgetary impact unless managed carefully, such as including a lower level of Commonwealth subsidy to increase affordability.


While the current system is working reasonably well, a review of the determinants of postgraduate funding clusters would be welcome. Some broadening of the funding approach to courses that meet community needs would also be welcomed. Care should be taken not to attach funding to any particular national innovation agenda – these broad areas of study do not necessarily offer innovation opportunities. If innovation is sought, then it would be better to apply such funding boosts to postgraduate research opportunities, particularly where the research focuses on translation. We would not encourage demand driven postgraduate coursework funding where it would result in reductions in funding elsewhere. This comment is made in the context of an environment that is already struggling to maintain appropriate educational provision for students.

Time limited funding brings Australia potentially closer into alignment with some European countries where this period of funding provides opportunities for capable students to engage in a wide range of educational opportunities – often leading to innovation and entrepreneurship. This needs to be carefully calibrated to ensure no disadvantage to particular groups in society, such as women who experience study and career breaks to provide maternal and other family support.

In order to ensure that we are achieving the best outcomes for disadvantaged students, the Government will, in the context of finalising legislative reforms, be evaluating the HEPP. The evaluation will seek to determine:

the outcomes achieved by the programme

who has benefited from its activities, with particular reference to all disadvantaged groups, including people from regional and remote Australia

whether the programme provides good value for money

what changes may be required or more effective alternatives (such as scholarship type models provided for in the original 2014-15 Budget reforms) to increase higher education participation and success by people from disadvantaged backgrounds into the future.

As the University of Opportunity and Success, Victoria University’s transformational agenda—to be an outstanding and open university providing high quality tertiary education to any student from any background seeking a tertiary education—are critical to our students’ chances of achieving their career and life goals. The HEPP funding is an important enabling aspect of the work we do with students who would otherwise not be able to access tertiary education.

If universities allocate the HEPP fund to strategically address the needs of non-traditional university students and demonstrate alignment with the overall university’s priorities and targets, then the HEPP program does provide the necessary supplementation to enable those students to achieve successful outcomes. Rationalisation of theHEPP funds in ways which focus on institutions enrolling large numbers of students covered by HEPP would be a possible refinement. Scholarships have a role to play but can be very targeted and transparency and access is a challenge. A broader funding strategy at the institutional level enables greater equity, transparency andevaluation of outcomes. Reporting processes aligned with universities’ annual planning processes would be animprovement.

Victoria University welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Department’s evaluation of HEPP and looks forward to further advice about this process.


Subject to the financial sustainability savings outlined in the budget, the Government could:

introduce a new infrastructure fund or loan facility to enable regional and outer metropolitan universities to undertake transformative infrastructure investments to assist them in adapting to local market conditions, improve their long-term viability and enhance the student experience

consider whether any transformative infrastructure should prioritise new physical facilities, establishment of networks and virtual teaching spaces and better use or rationalisation of the existing estate

assess alternative opportunities from collaboration or use of new technologies to cost effectively enhance access to higher education for students not living near established campuses.

Regional students are a significantly disadvantaged and often overlooked group and have not benefitted adequately from successive program (including HEPP) designed to increase participation. Relocation and metropolitan cost-of-living is a clear barrier and so a policy mix including infrastructure renewal and realistic student accommodation needs to be considered. Infrastructure renewal would need to be considered within a larger regional development context. Not diverting funding from metropolitan institutions providing opportunities to under-represented groups is an important consideration. Innovative learning technologies are an important, and growing, strategy for increasing participation.

Matters for finalisation regarding the potential offering of Flagship Courses:

would a model of Flagship Courses provide worthwhile incentives for universities to promote areas of excellence, innovate in their approach to teaching and learning, improve the experience and outcomes for their students and enhance their global standing?

how should a model of Flagship Courses—operating on an opt-in basis—be regulated to ensure FlagshipCourses are founded on the basis of excellence and innovation?

what limits, if any, should be placed on the number of Flagship Courses that may be offered by an institution and/or should the total number of students enrolled in Flagship Courses be limited to a maximum proportion (for example, 20 per cent) of the university’s equivalent full-time student load?

To ensure any fees set for Flagship Courses are reasonable and fair for students, the Government could:

ask the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to monitor fees and report to the Government on a regular basis, or an independent body could review proposed fee increases before approval

consistent with recommendations from a number of experts, the Government could reduce the Government subsidy as fees increase above the maximum student fee under current arrangements—or some other threshold as appropriate.

A clear and agreed definition about what is a ‘Flagship Course’ is yet to emerge and this must be addressed before any move to implement, particularly in relation to funding arrangements. The suggestions above are techno-rationalist and suggest it is possible to identify and even predict with certainty, the impact of disciplines on a variety of economic benefits. There is little mention of students and any benefit Flagship Courses may have for students is not clear. An immediately obvious danger is the emergence of a two-tier system where the burden of fees will exclude students with ability but without the financial means to access these programs. There is adanger that this approach will limit innovation along with access and widen the existing equality gap.


The Government has announced additional funding but welcomes views on proposed further enhancements to the QILT surveys and website to provide greater transparency on the performance of institutions to support student decision making and enhance their decision making. Options include:

undertake a longitudinal survey of graduate outcomes

further develop the employer satisfaction survey

collect and publish additional information on prospective earnings data, course information, and fees

integrate with Australian Tax Office or other actual earnings data to publish real graduate employment and income data

publish university profile information, course information and new survey data on the website

capture student involvement through the development of an online application

enhance the website to support frequent and meaningful student engagement, both domestically and internationally, through social media.

The development and enhancement of QILT data and the information provided through the website is welcome, particularly if it includes efforts to overcome the notion of reputation as a primary choice driver. There is confusion between reputation and quality, where reputation is an invalid indicator of educational quality and institutions with already high reputations have a vested interest in resisting the introduction of more valid indicators. Indicators which count and which would improve data could include social mobility, service, collaboration and publicinterest. QILT would benefit from being an extension of the MySchool web site3.

The implications of any changes need critical analysis, particularly for unintended outcomes. It is inevitable that the more emphasis placed on indicators in QILT, the more institutions will do to score highly in them. This presupposes that the indicators are the right ones and that increasing improvement in those areas will have positive effects on quality. Once a measure becomes a target it ceases to be a good measure. Indicators, and the data that feeds them, would benefit by taking into account longer-term measures of university experience and graduate outcomes and other crucial indicators such as who teaches and student contact with them, learning resources, collaborative learning, belonging and engagement.

3 w w w.myscho o l.edu. a u


In finalising the legislative reforms the Government will need to adjust subsidy and student contribution rates to meet the financial sustainability savings outlined in the Budget. Dependent on other structural savings or expense measures adopted as part of these reforms, options include:

reduce the Government’s contribution by 20 per cent on average, as first proposed in the 2014-15 Budget

a small reduction in the Government grant per student, and a small increase in the maximum capped student contribution that institutions may charge, such that students and taxpayers contribute equally to the cost of higher education courses (on average)

The Government also seeks the views of the sector on the relativities between disciplines of funding clusters in the context of its overarching objectives. It is proposing to work with Universities Australia and the higher education sector to investigate the relative cost of delivery of higher education. Based on this work, Commonwealth and student contributions could be adjusted to reflect a more streamlined framework that better reflects these costs, teaching method, infrastructure required and the potential value to students.

Issues of cross subsidisation, both across courses as well as between the teaching of courses, and conduct of research would also require examination, to ensure they are as equitable as possible while also preserving or enhancing the research capabilities of our universities. In addition, the revised funding framework would be considered in the context of the Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda to ensure that it appropriately supports areas of priority.

The Government could also consider whether to grandfather current arrangements for existing students, or otherwise phase-in new arrangements over time.

Universities are required by the Commonwealth to undertake research. The current model enables this by cross- subsidisation from Commonwealth Supported Places (CSP) funding and this has been recognised in a number of key reports (Lomax-Smith and Deloittes). Referring to the funding of research from CSP funding as ‘cross- subsidisation’ is dangerous in that it implies that CSP funding is for purposes other than research and that universities ‘misuse it’ to fund research.

The alternative view is that CSP has always included a component to cover some research activity and that using it for such is not a ‘cross-subsidy’ but rather using it in the intended way. With the prospect of private providers being allowed into the market it is much safer to argue that a component of CSP has always been intended for research and as such should not be made available to non-research providers. Any changes to CSP funding will need to ensure that this funding stream for universities is maintained. Allied to this, and other parts of this discussion, is the viability and productivity of universities across the full range of providers.

A critical reconsideration would be needed if there was an intention to reduce student subsidies or funding for educational components of university activities on the basis of expanding elite or postgraduate programs. We would argue that the priority is to enhance graduate outcomes for the majority of students rather than providing funding for a small group, for private providers or others.

To increase the student contribution would risk increasing inequity in the system, with those students with the lowest financial stability and support impacted at a far greater rate than others. This would see not only further barriers to educational opportunity put in the place of those students who would benefit most, but a medium and long term return to university education only for those from high income backgrounds whose parents can afford to pay.


With considerations of equity held firmly, it is reasonable to fund university education in a transparent manner, and to consider the distribution of funds within universities. That is, to what degree student funding is used to cross-subsidise other activities, and how student funding can be applied more consistently to the purposes for which it was intended.

If research is of national importance, and we believe that it is, then it should be funded as a distinct set of activities. This could be interpreted as suggesting that the research component of CSP be removed and replaced by specific funding for research. Under CSP funding research is funded roughly in proportion to the size of a university, allowing for some variation due to the funding cluster mix. Under an approach that specifically funds research activity there is a risk that funding would then be based on measures such as those currently used to fund research infrastructure. Under such a model, any university with below average research output would receive less than under the current model. This would include VU. The impact of funding research based upon‘research activity’ can already be seen in the distribution of ARC and NHMRC research grants where VU receives a much lower proportion than it does of CSP funding.

Currently, government contribution to tertiary education as a fraction of GDP is already one of the lowest in the OECD. The ‘value’ of higher education has been shown repeatedly to outpace other budgetary measures. Any further rebalancing should contemplate this longer term impact.

Any changes would need to include ‘grandfathering’ current arrangements for existing students, and phase-in new arrangements over time, to ensure existing students are not disadvantaged.

In finalising legislative reforms and meeting the financial sustainability savings outlined in the Budget theGovernment will consider a range of levels of potential HELP loan fees:

removing loan fees altogether would remove the current anomalies and reduce the cost pressures on fee paying students but would involve a significant cost compared to current arrangements

a modest loan fee—5 per cent, for example—would remove the anomalies for students and providers, while leading to a slight increase in costs for students in Commonwealth supported places. This approach would enable the Government to recover a small proportion of the costs of running the HELP scheme—but still only a fraction of the expenses relating to debt not expected to be repaid

by contrast, a loan fee of 20 per cent as currently applies to VET FEE-HELP would enable the Government to recover most of the costs associated with debt not expected to be repaid. It would similarly provide for greater equity and reduce the cost pressures for undergraduate FEE-HELP students but with a greater increase in costs for students in Commonwealth supported places.

Given the barriers to participation associated with additional fees, we would support a reduction in HELP loan fees. It is reasonable to assume that costs currently associated with VET would be substantially reduced with appropriate regulation and removal of opportunities for private business to profit from government support.

A third option might be not to remove the voluntary repayment. In this situation, as from January 2017, voluntary repayments would be in addition to the compulsory repayments made through tax returns. If a student makes a voluntary repayment of $500 or more, they receive a bonus of 5 per cent of the payment. Students may prefer to take up this option if the bonus was significant (e.g. a 25 per cent reduction). This way the Government would have their payment upfront and not get ‘lost’ into unpaid fees.


In finalising legislative reforms and meeting the financial sustainability savings outlined in the Budget the Government will consider options to enhance the long term sustainability, viability and affordability of HELP student loans, including:

changes to repayment thresholds and rates, for example by commencing repayment of HELP debts at a lower threshold income than the current minimum ($54,126), and/or introducing an additional higher contribution rate for high income earners (the maximum rate is currently 8 per cent for $100,520 and above)

change the indexation of HELP repayment thresholds from average weekly earnings to CPI

a renewable lifetime limit on HELP loans

restrictions on the availability of HELP loans or Commonwealth subsidies to those who have left the workforce permanently

discontinue the HECS-HELP benefit

introduce a household income test for HELP repayments

recovery of debts from deceased estates.

It would not be appropriate to reduce the threshold given the impact on low-income families. However, higher income earners potentially could be charged at a higher rate for repayment. Similarly, average weekly earnings is a more equitable approach than CPI, which does not meet the fairness test and is likely to negatively impactthose graduates with the lowest incomes. It is not sufficiently clear how ‘left the workforce permanently’ would be assessed. Recovery of debts from deceased estates is less controversial, but nonetheless we anticipate difficult to administer, as is recovery from those who have left the country (as they have found in the United Kingdom). Nonetheless, these are more equitable approaches than to reduce the benefit overall.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKSVictoria University thanks the Department of Education and Training for the opportunity to provide feedback and responses on the Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education submission and looks forward to receiving advice on the outcome of this consultation process.

1 | P a g e

22 July 2016

DRIVING INNOVATION,

FAIRNESS AND EXCELLENCE IN

AUSTRALIANHIGHER

EDUCATION VICE-

CHANCELLOR’S SUPPLEMENTARY

SUBMISSION

AUGUST 2016

Professor Peter Dawkins, Vice-Chancellor

2 | P a g e

Parti

cipa

tion

rate

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

22 July 2016

INTRODUCTION

VU submitted a response (Victoria University, 2016) to the Government’s Option Paper: Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence which particularly emphasised the case for expanding the provision of funded sub- degree places and the importance of HEPP funding. It also argued the case for infrastructure funding in the context of economic and social development in areas of need. In addition it offered some comments on: subsidised postgraduate places, on taking care to ensure that any move to increase student contributions, to flagship courses and to changes in the HELP system, does not disadvantage students from more disadvantaged backgrounds. It also made some comments about quality indicators of learning and teaching and performance indicators in general, making the point that quality should not be confused with reputation and that indicators which could improve data include measures connected with social mobility, service, collaboration and public interest.

I strongly commend Victoria University’s submission. Further to the issues discussed in that submission, I was invited to present to the Australian Conference of Economists on key issues in higher education policy. A summary of that presentation was published The Conversation on the 13 July (Dawkins, 2016). As a result of the opportunity to present on the key strategic issues in higher education policy, I have decided to contribute a supplementary submission, in which I would like to make four points. All these points draw on research that has been and is being undertaken at Victoria University, though the Mitchell Institute, the Centre of Policy Studiesand the Centre for International Research on Education Systems.

1. THE UNCAPPED DEMAND-DRIVEN SYSTEM

There has been a continuing discussion about whether an uncapped demand driven system for undergraduate university places should be retained. It is important that any such discussion takes into account demographic trends into the future.

35%34%33%32%31%30%29%28%27%26%

25%

34%33%33%

32%

30%

28%28%

29%

Actual participation rates Fixed 2014 students

Figure 1: Effect of fixing the number of students on tertiary participation (Noonan, 2016)1

1 N o t e : AQF 3-7 students. Population projections are based off a low NOM, medium fertility and medium mortality assumptions. Sourc e : VOCSTATS - NCVER, Higher Education Statistics – Department of Education and Population Projections and Population - Australian Bureau of Statistics

3 | P a g e

Figure 1 is taken from recent analysis undertaken by Peter Noonan (2016), Mitchell Professorial Fellow, Mitchell Institute for Educational Policy, shows that capping the number of 15-24 year old students at current levels would significantly reduce future participation in tertiary education (level III and VII AQF courses)2. The paper argues for a long term approach to building tertiary education participation in Australia.

A recent study by the McKinsey Global Institute (2016), Poorer than their Parents, demonstrates that less- educated workers, and especially younger ones, have been most affected by falling wages between 2002 to2012, putting them at risk of growing up poorer than their parents. Upgrading skills and easing the transition from education to employment is seen as critical to tackling this inequality. The report recommends that ‘Governments and businesses work together with universities and other post-secondary institutions to expand access toquality education and ensure that the education provided is relevant to the workplace of tomorrow’. In a world inwhich effective economic and social participation will be increasingly unlikely without a tertiary participation, taking decisions which would result in a decline in tertiary participation, rather than an increase would be a retrograde step.

The ongoing benefits of the demand driven system in terms of raising higher education participation and attainment levels and allowing universities to flexibly respond to changing labour market needs are clearly outlined in The Grattan Institute’s 2015 Mapping Australian Higher Education (Norton, 2016).

2. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VOCATIONAL AND HIGHER EDUCATION.

An additional challenge is that until recently there was growth in vocational as well higher education participation. However, participation in VET has now begun to decline, especially amongst school leavers, alongside a large increase in the number doing bachelor’s degrees. This is at least in part because the vocational education and training system, for the most part, has not had the capacity to provide a really viable alternative to higher education, for school leavers, especially as the TAFE system has been inadequately resourced, andderegulation to bring in private providers has largely been an unsuccessful experiment, so far, due to poor regulation and the wrong financial incentives. The main implication of this for the current review of higher education policy there is a critical need to look at the interface between vocational education and training and higher education rather than in isolation from each other.

Dawkins (2013) argued that we need to reconceptualise tertiary education, and have a more integrated approach to policy and curriculum in vocational and higher education. Subsequent work at the Mitchell Institute, led byPeter Noonan and Sarah Pilcher (2015), provides the basis for serious consideration by federal and stategovernment, of funding and regulatory changes that could result in a more integrated tertiary system that has the potential to enable also those seeking a tertiary education, to have clearer and more suitable opportunities to choose between that may involve combinations of vocational and higher education. Noonan and Pilcher (2015) argue for a new and equitable financing framework for tertiary education in Australia with two core elements: a public subsidy paid either by a state government or the Commonwealth government based on eligibility to the entitlement; and student contributions paid by the Commonwealth to the provider with students taking out an

2 The full version of the paper and scenarios can be downloaded at h t t p : / / w w w . mit c h elli n s t i t u t e .o rg .a u / re p o r t s /fin a n c i n g - t e r t i a ry- e duc a t i o n- i n -a u s t r al ia - t h e - r e f orm-i m pe r a t iv e - a nd - re t h i n k i n g -s t u d en t - e nti tl ements/

4 | P a g e

income contingent loan with the Commonwealth. Care would need to be taken with a range of the design features of this model, but it very worthy of serious consideration. Through such an approach learners would be able to directly enter degree qualifications, or transition through certificate, sub degree, undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications.

While the higher education and VET sectors have discrete funding systems with specific issues to be addressed, they need to be considered within a coherent policy framework and national policy objectives, particularly the need to continue to increase tertiary participation and attainment.

As a dual sector university, seeking to provide both vocational and higher education programs to the benefit of all of our students, Victoria University can see enormous potential benefits from such a holistic approach to tertiary policy.

3. THE TAPER MODEL

In Victoria University’s submission (2016), we identify the risks of increasing the student contribution towards the cost of higher education. However, if the government does decide that it needs to have some degree upward fee flexibility for bachelor’s degree courses, for example to help fund more sub-degree paces an improved equity strategy, I commend to the government for its consideration the idea of a proposed ‘taper model’, as developed by Senior Research Fellow Janine Dixon of the Centre of Policy Studies (COPS) and myself (see Dawkins and Dixon (2015)). The proposal involved an approach whereby government tuition subsidies would be reduced according to a progressive taper schedule, when fees are raised above a threshold level. This concept was also proposed by Bruce Chapman (2015) as part of his submission to the Senate Committee on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. At the same time we argued for an enhanced Higher Education Participation Program, incorporating scholarships for low socioeconomic status students across the system, and additional support for interventions to reduce attrition rates and improve success rates of ‘at-risk’ students. Modelling was undertaken to analyse the likely effects on fees, on university revenue and on the government’s budget, suggesting that there was a good chance of achieving the aims of such an integrated policy, while still making some budget savings. Janine Dixon and I have done some further modelling to explore the implicationsof varying some of the key parameters in this proposal, and how such amendments might impact on key policy aims. We would be pleased to share with the government, the results of this analysis.

4. THE CASE FOR DEVELOPING VALUE ADDED MEASURES OF A TERTIARY INSTITUTION’S PERFORMANCE.

Further to comments made in VU’s submission about measuring teaching and learning performance, the case for measuring the value added by a university in its teaching and learning should be emphasised. In a world in which we are aiming to increase tertiary participation and include in students from low socioeconomic backgrounds,and students that may not have yet achieved highly in their studies, the more important it is to measure the value added by universities, taking into account the nature of the cohort of students that they are working with. In the United States, for example, the Washington Monthly National University Rankings (2015) includes an analysis of completion rates of universities, taking into account the background of the students. Established in 2005, the ratings for Universities/Colleges are based on their contribution to the public good in three broad categories:

5 | P a g e

1. Social Mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students),2. Research (producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs), and3. Service (encouraging students to give something back to their country).

Whilst some of the US institutions you typically find in the best-known rankings can be found in the Top 20 of the Washington Monthly (such as Stanford, Berkley, Harvard and MIT), it turns out that ranking colleges by social mobility, research, and service produces strikingly different results which can change from year-to-year. There is significant representation from those institutions that do not rate so highly on the THES and QS, due to the greater emphasis on value add and broader contribution.

In Victoria University’s Strategic Plan, 2016-2020 we are very focussed on achieving high value added, and our Centre for International Research on Education Systems is undertaking some work to help develop measures of this kind using Australian data. We would be pleased to provide access to this work and to present the methodology.

Professor Peter DawkinsVice-Chancellor and President, Victoria University, Melbourne

6 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Chapman, B. (2015). A Submission to the Senate Committee on the Higher Education and Research ReformAmendment Bill 2014.

Dawkins, P (2013). Reconceptualising tertiary education. Inaugural Mitchell Institute Policy Lecture for theMitchell Institute at Victoria University, Melbourne. Retrieved from h t t p :/ / w w w . m i t c h e ll i n s t itu t e. or g . a u / p r e s e n t a t io n s / re c o n c ep t u al i s i ng -t erti a r y - e d u c ati on /

Dawkins, P & Dixon, J (2015). Towards A Third Way in Higher Education Reform in Australia: A Proposed Two- Part Package. Centre for Policy Studies at Victoria University, Melbourne. Retrieved from h t tp://in t r ane t .v u . e d u.au / vco/P D F /T h o u ghtLe a d e r s h i p /15%2 0 0 3 %2 0 1 6_ % 2 0 Summar y %20Pap e r_T o w a r d s%2 0 a %20Third% 20Way%2 0i n% 20 Hi gher%20Education% 2 0 Re form% 20in%20Aus tralia. pdf

Dawkins, P (2016). Can the government realistically cut funding by 20% for each student in higher education? Retrieved from htt p s ://t he c o n v e rsation . co m / ca n - t he - g o v e rnm e n t - r eali s tic a lly- c u t-f u n d i n g- b y-2 0 - f o r-each-st u d e n t- i n - h i g h e r-ed u c a tio n - 6 2 3 58

McKinsey Global Institute (2016). Poorer than their parents? Flat or falling incomes in advanced economies.Retrieved from http://www.mckin s ey.com / g lobal - themes/employment - and - gro w t h / p oore r -than - t heir -p arents-a- n e w-p e rspe c tiv e -o n - i n com e -in e q u ality

Noonan, P & Pilcher, S (2015). Financing tertiary education in Australia the reform imperative and rethinking student entitlements issues paper. Mitchell Institute at Victoria University, Melbourne. Retrieved from h t t p :/ / w w w . m i t c h e ll i n s t itu t e. or g . a u / r ep o r ts /f ina nc i ng -t e rt i a r y -e du c ati on - i n -au s tr a li a -th e -re f or m - i m p e rativ e -a nd - rethinking-student-entitlements/

Noonan, P. (2016). Participation in Tertiary Education in Australia: Policy imperatives and scenarios, MitchellInstitute policy paper No. 02/2016. Mitchell Institute at Victoria University, Melbourne. Retrieved from h t tp:// w w w. m i t c h e lli n s t i tu t e . o rg . a u / pa pe r s /partici p a t i on-i n -t e r ti a ry-ed uc a tio n -i n -a u s t r a lia/

Norton, A (2016). Mapping Australian Higher Education 2016, Grattan Institute Report No. 2016-11. GrattanInstitute, Melbourne. Retrieved from h t tp:// g r a t t a n. e du . a u / w p - c ontent / u p l o ad s /201 6 /0 8 / 8 75 - Ma p p in g -A u s t rali an - Hi gh e r- E du c a t i on - 2 0 1 6 . p df

Victoria University (2016). Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education: VictoriaUniversity Submission.Washington Monthly (2015). College Guide Rankings 2015 – National Universities. Retrieved from h t t p :/ / w a s h i ngt o n m o n t h l y.c o m/ c o l le ge - g u i de /c o l l e ge -g u id e- r an k i ng s - 2 01 5 - n a t io n a l/

Documents

submissions.education.gov.au · Web viewVictoria University (VU) was founded in 1916 as Footscray Technical School. After successive mergers with TAFE colleges across Melbourne's