In higher education the argument is overwhelming that we need to continue to argue for the removal of the inequities that apply to our students. The 25% additional loading alone is outrageous, and coupled with full fees with no government assistance defies common sense.
I will be contacting key figures in the industry over the coming weeks to help shape a way forward.
In VET we have heard more news about the ACCC investigation and potential charges.
I support the move and it is imperative that all students are properly informed about their provider, the course and any debt levels incurred before they sign on. The fact that these basic consumer protections have been able to be overlooked and exploited must not be allowed to continue.
A strong training market, or any market for that matter can only function if a strong regulator supports it. Yes ASQA has a role but with such strong calls from ACPET, the media and government about concerning behaviour I must say it has taken far too long for the consumer protection agency to kick into gear.
In terms of the key features of a market, I noted with interest the TDA submission to the Victorian Funding Review.
I have been in the sector for a long time but this still left me dumbfounded.
It reminds me of the arguments about tariff protection all over again. Surely, surely in a modern economy a contemporary argument to construct public policy could not be to build a tariff barrier and protect inefficiency.
Well apparently it is.
Tafe Directors Australia has argued for a minimum of 60% of government funding to be contestable. No science to the argument but a nice round figure. Public schools have reformed enormously since exposed to competition. No such protections there. A student gets to make a choice on an issue very important to them and that drives innovation.
But wait there is more. We all know that student choice is critical to a quality system. Tafe Directors Australia asserts that this principle should be supported by a two tier-pricing model where private colleges receive 70% of the price.
Again, no science. It’s the Vibe! Victoria’s own Essential Services Commission argued against this approach. Naturally, it protects inefficiency, reduces innovation but protects an antiquated IR system that government apparently must continue to pay for. I get it now.
The final element is that workplace training and on-line learning should only receive 20% of the price. Yes in an industry led system, industry supported models should be discouraged and the way our younger generations learn should be blocked. Again no science, it is the Vibe.
I know many of the high quality Tafe leaders who understand the need to reform and compete and yet lament that there are barriers to prevent this reform. I respect this approach and look forward to our on-going discussion to build a better sector… Read more
Do I really understand the ACSF and CSfW frameworks? How do I apply them in my role? How do I help others in my RTO to apply them? RTO staff come from a wide range of industry backgrounds with varying levels of foundation skills knowledge. The Foundation Skills Frameworks provide common tools… Read more
This week in professional development, we have a range of webinars from credit Transfer – a step-by-step good practice guide through to using social media ethically and effectively in your training institution Check out what’s in store for the week: Using social media ethically and effecti… Read more