Claire Field, CEO of the private provider peak organisation, and Martin Riordan, CEO of the public TAFE peak organisation, form a unity ticket to argue the case for less “uni-centric” higher education policies and regulatory practices. They might not have been too thrilled with the recommendations of the review of red tape, which imply that higher education providers with well established records of quality provision might have a lighter touch regulatory regime than other providers. You would read this as meaning “universities” – and not all universities at that. This article was first published in The Australian on 3 August 2013.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There are 130 non-university higher education providers in Australia, including private colleges and 23 TAFE institutes. Recent research by the Grattan Institute found non-university providers deliver qualifications to 59,000 students a year.
Trends for non-university providers delivering specialised degrees have been keenly watched by industry and have been particularly welcomed by the business sector here and in the many Asia Pacific countries involved in international education.
Yet articles such as the one penned by Greg Craven and Glyn Davis (HES, July 3) have made less than complimentary statements about non-university higher education providers, such as: “In more than 160 years no public university has ever failed, but a series of smaller private higher education providers has gone belly-up, damaging the national brand. If there is risk it is found in the competitive private market”.
There are a number of factual errors in this claim that deserve clarification.
While it is true that a number of small private providers have ceased to trade over the past few years – all but one voluntarily – the impact on students has been minimal and there has been no reported damage to the national brand. This is because the majority of private providers subscribe to one of two tuition assurance schemes offered by the major peak bodies
The article also ignores the federal government’s own higher education registration regulatory system, which has created a low risk framework for students at university and non-universities. They ignore the more poignant trend that growth in the non-university sector has been achieved under a demand-driven consumer preference for specialist courses, or in colleges and or TAFEs where prior vocational courses were also offered with full articulation. This was achieved without government funded support that underlies generous subsidies for university students.
Australia lags well behind international and regional educators in this field. There has been significant comparative growth of foundation degrees in the UK, four year degrees in community colleges of Canada and the US, the establishment of technological higher education institutes in Hong Kong, and more recently degrees launched at polytechnics in Indonesia and Singapore.
Surely we should commend these merging education boundaries, rather than focus on a university-centric approach that seeks to further embed the unique heritage of protection of universities. Private colleges and TAFEs operate in an increasingly open tertiary education market, and it would be more productive to see these university-centric arguments seek alternative ways that a future government might unwind current restrictive trade practices, and align higher education with the Bradley review’s market-driven approach.
Competition between higher education providers, both public and private, is real, healthy, and increasing. It is competition and student choice that has driven private college and TAFE market entry into higher education.
Improving Australia’s reputation in tertiary education will be achieved by all higher education providers focusing on quality courses and exceptional student experiences delivered with competitive pricing. If competition is a catalyst for reputational risk, as Craven and Davis claim, then it will not be confined to any one group of providers.
….rather than focus on a university-centric approach that seeks to further embed the unique heritage of protection of universities….it would be more productive to see alternative ways that a future government might unwind current restrictive trade practices, and align higher education with the Bradley review’s market-driven approach.