Credit, where? – Comment by CEO Craig Robertson

Proposed changes to credit arrangements in higher education are likely to go through with not so much as a whimper but they speak volumes of the state of tertiary education in Australia, let alone the attitude toward lifelong learning.

The Higher Education Standards Panel was asked in 2018 for advice on the adequacy of credit transfer arrangements by the then Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham[1]. Adequacy in terms of meeting the needs of students and institutions, noting the Review of the Australian Qualifications Framework was forthcoming.

The credit policy in the current Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) acknowledges automatic credit for all Certificates, due to their national accreditation, I guess – so it is automatic in some way. The major credit action is between VET Diploma and Advanced Diploma to higher education and then between higher education institutions for transferring higher education students.

For certificates, given they are established nationally, the policy dictates (somewhere) that all statements of attainment carry equal weight and should be recognised across registered training organisations. Credit shouldn’t be confused with Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) – that is the process of bringing informal learning (and skills) to be assessed for certification against formal requirements. Some providers, nevertheless, limit the make-up of RPL in a final qualification and limit credit imported from other providers, given their own reputation is embodied in the graduates with the qualification.

For the higher education sector, in contrast, credit is granted (only) through recognition of prior learning and if students are not disadvantaged in achieving the expected learning outcomes for the course of study and the integrity of the course of study and the qualification are maintained. In both these instances the higher education provider is empowered to make a judgement about the suitability of the candidate to succeed in the course, so course integrity is maintained. Academic integrity and autonomy of the institution is central in exercising credit judgements.

Within VET, however, credit is nationalised (apart from the limits mentioned above). Isn’t it curious that VET, with its long record of poor performance and quality concerns, dictates that good quality providers must accept statements of attainment from any provider? Concern about a provider’s credibility seems second or third order in national policy terms.

This aside, the panel has come up with a sensible suggestion – that credit into higher education will be subject to AQF policies (current or future), leaving the door open for broader dialogue about credit when the AQF Review goes to its next steps. It does leave one minor dilemma though – why is RPL the specified instrument? RPL requires the student to make their case for credit and they are fully in the hands of the provider. Shouldn’t there be credit and articulation systems available from Government to these students, especially to overcome the power imbalance?

The next stage of the AQF review needs to start now. At a time of dislocation and uncertainty, every effort should be made in policy instruments to recognise and facilitate progression for individuals.  As a country which prides itself on its egalitarian roots, are we satisfied that there appears to be such differences in how learning is recognised, especially for progression to higher education?

National credit, as in VET, versus academic autonomy in higher education. These need careful consideration, so I suspect the standards panel’s work is not over yet on this topic.

A new operational framework for apprenticeships

An operational framework to keep apprenticeship training up to date and relevant for the aspirations of apprentices has been developed by consulting house, Actuose.

The authors, Jane Phipps and Caroline Roach, bring extensive experience in working with TAFEs and other providers in modernising their approach to trade training, in particular.

The report Operational Framework for Industry Skills Development is available for download.