Abstract:
The idea of moving towards a more joined-up tertiary education system is gaining traction in England and Australia, both of which share similar educational traditions. Recently, the Australian Universities Accord Final Report, argues for a more cohesive joining system between vocational education and training (VET) and higher education (HE). Five years earlier, The Augur Review of Education and Funding in England reached some similar conclusions. Toward a more joined-up system, both countries have considered promoting mid-level qualifications that can be delivered by VET institutions and HE institutions. This paper investigates to what extent the current operation of mid-level qualifications succeeds in fostering a more cohesive tertiary education system in both countries to draw out lessons that Australia can learn from England.
To examine the extent of success of these qualifications, we use data on student enrolments, student mobility across two sectors obtained from national statistics (from ABS, NCVER, HESA and national departments of education). To understand enablers and barriers for students and providers to participate in these qualifications, we analyse their characteristics, the provider systems, and the funding systems, drawing on critical reviews of policy papers and government reports.
Our data show that Australia’s mid-level qualifications are doing better than England's. Australia has greatly higher enrolments in these qualifications, and higher percentage of students crossing the two sectors both ways (transitioning either to or from bachelor’s degrees). One factor accounting for this that the Australia diplomas and advanced diploma can be delivered as either VET or HE qualifications, which reduce barriers for VET providers while this was not the case in England. The second factor is that the current English funding system biasedly promotes the expansion of bachelor’s degree at the expense of qualifications targeting at mid-level skills. However, England has recently issued a new funding policy, the lifelong learning entitlement, which unifies the previously two separate funding mechanisms, and allows flexibility for students to enter and return to education later life stages and move cross qualification levels.
Compared to England, Australian mid-level qualifications receive higher government subsidies. However, the main barriers include a lack of clarity between qualifications at the same level, and the complex funding system that involves both state and federal governments. To move forward, Australia could consider establishing one funding body and one regulation body to manage mid-level qualifications and simplify the qualification framework to eliminate qualification confusion.
To examine the extent of success of these qualifications, we use data on student enrolments, student mobility across two sectors obtained from national statistics (from ABS, NCVER, HESA and national departments of education). To understand enablers and barriers for students and providers to participate in these qualifications, we analyse their characteristics, the provider systems, and the funding systems, drawing on critical reviews of policy papers and government reports.
Our data show that Australia’s mid-level qualifications are doing better than England's. Australia has greatly higher enrolments in these qualifications, and higher percentage of students crossing the two sectors both ways (transitioning either to or from bachelor’s degrees). One factor accounting for this that the Australia diplomas and advanced diploma can be delivered as either VET or HE qualifications, which reduce barriers for VET providers while this was not the case in England. The second factor is that the current English funding system biasedly promotes the expansion of bachelor’s degree at the expense of qualifications targeting at mid-level skills. However, England has recently issued a new funding policy, the lifelong learning entitlement, which unifies the previously two separate funding mechanisms, and allows flexibility for students to enter and return to education later life stages and move cross qualification levels.
Compared to England, Australian mid-level qualifications receive higher government subsidies. However, the main barriers include a lack of clarity between qualifications at the same level, and the complex funding system that involves both state and federal governments. To move forward, Australia could consider establishing one funding body and one regulation body to manage mid-level qualifications and simplify the qualification framework to eliminate qualification confusion.