Tentative steps to tertiary – comment by CEO Craig Robertson

This is tertiary education week – or more precisely guerrilla tertiary education week. Universities Australia holds its conference in Canberra later this week and TAFEs are invading the first part. CEOs and chairs are meeting with parliamentarians tonight. In the spirit of true tertiary, several VCs of dual sector universities and other university luminaries will be there.

I’m not a scholar of Brexit or the politics of Ireland in recent decades, however a fabulous podcast got me thinking. Let me explain. The Good Friday Peace Accord to settle the Troubles in Northern Ireland resulted in power sharing – primarily between the Unionists (those wanting to remain tied to the United Kingdom) and the Nationalists (those wanting to unite with the republic of Ireland).

Come the vote to remain or leave the European Union the Northern Irelanders voted to remain. But what to do with the movement of people and goods with the UK which is exiting? Is it a hard border between the Northern and Republic of Ireland splitting the contiguous land mass? Or is the line in the Irish Sea more practical? In the first phase of Brexit negotiations Theresa May relied on the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland to retain power, so a solution wallowed as did her premiership. Boris won the national poll handsomely so with no need for the bloc, settled for the Irish Sea.

The consequences are fascinating contemplation. Ireland may unite on economic and trade grounds. The Irish of the North may not be as committed to the United Kingdom if they need a passport to travel in their own nation and effectively retain the benefits from the EU zone. The sectarian tensions of the past – in stark form the Catholic Republic and the Protestant North – could return.

When it comes to the wicked problem of tertiary education in Australia, I can’t help but reflect on the Ireland situation. Of minor comparison of course, but of equally messy dimensions. Does it suffer from those darned boundary issues – the universities on the cashed-up Commonwealth side, with VET straddling both and all too easily abandoned by either, with many in VET wanting to remain hitched to the federation rather than one state or territory. Is it some bizarre form of sectarianism – the competency VET system not convinced by the knowledge elites of higher education? Or does it tell us that VET can so easily be tossed aside for politic purpose?

Public policy in Australia has tried on several occasions to bridge the divide, often focusing on settling the interplay at AQF level 5 and 6 – a sort of de‑militarised zone. There’s also been calls for funding and regulation that creates a level playing field between sectors and ultimately for providers and students, so choice is not distorted. Simple really, then why have we failed so spectacularly?

For me the solution must start with sound education policy – funding, regulation (and prejudice) follow policy. Policy in VET, and its curriculum, places the work process needs of industry first. This clashes with a knowledge-first philosophy in higher education directed to the advancement and dissipation of knowledge. It’s little wonder we’ve struggled with credit arrangements.

It doesn’t have to be. The AQF review offers a solution. Knowledge and its progression across eight levels in the form of learning outcomes is the key to the AQF. Skills and application are secondary (as they both can be banded across knowledge levels says the report).

VET qualifications can be recast within a knowledge progression. Before sectarianists have a go at me, let’s look at some interesting work from South Africa. Jean Gamble of the University of Cape Hope presents empirical results of labour studies to show the centrality of knowledge in skills application. The diagram shows the knowledge – formal scientific, systems, craft and ‘how-to’ – in boat building, surely a vocation.

These elements are listed spuriously within units of competency, however, assuming they are picked up in some way and are too easily collateral damage in the tick and flick world of VET.

Deloitte reported last year that work of the future will be “of the head and heart”. What good then is VET where underpinning knowledge is a lucky dip? This doesn’t mean we jettison skills, nor industry, or that all VET students will need to be bookworms. It means the sector is serious about vocational education – of equal standing to higher education.

Solving this dilemma is the gift of the federation. Knowledge and capability are a national asset used to progress our place in the world and to sustain vibrant sub-national regions. Skills Ministers this past week released the draft VET Roadmap for consultation. It’s a positive start but has no impact for three or five years! The urgency must be to kick start the AQF reform process, even experimenting with an education first approach in the demilitarisation zone.