When Theresa May launched the review of English post-18 education in February, her choice of venue - a further education college in the Midlands - was no accident. The prime minister railed against an “outdated attitude” in the UK, whereby university was the “default” and “only desirable route” in tertiary education.
For the first time, the review would consider “the whole post-18 education sector in the round, breaking down false boundaries between further and higher education, so we can create a system which is truly joined‑up”.
There is plenty of scepticism about how far down that road the review will get - and plenty of warnings from the higher education sector that such a system should not come at the cost of reduced funding for universities. But even if nothing else changes, the recent introduction of degree apprenticeships could significantly blur the UK’s formerly hard boundaries between higher and vocational education. And the forthcoming introduction of T levels as an equal-status alternative to A levels is a further example of technical education’s rise up the political priority list in England.
More coherent
It is a development that is mirrored on the other side of the globe. Australia’s Labor opposition recently announced that it would commission a similar inquiry into tertiary education if it won the next federal election. Education spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek indicated that while her review would encompass the gamut of post-school offerings, it would focus on the further education sector - known in Australia as vocational education and training, or VET - and particularly the beleaguered public technical and further education (TAFE) colleges.
The higher education sector received a thorough reappraisal from the Bradley Review in 2008, but “it’s 44 years since we’ve done a major review into TAFE”, Plibersek said in February. “We want an excellent, strong TAFE system and an excellent, strong university system…and we want TAFE and university to work better together.”
It is far from an original sentiment. The “more coherent approach” envisaged by former University of South Australia vice-chancellor Denise Bradley is one of the main pieces of unfinished work from her seminal review, which - among other things - spawned Australia’s demand-driven higher education funding system.
Bradley said that the ambitious tertiary participation targets she had prescribed would necessitate a “more holistic approach” to tertiary education planning and provision. “What is needed is a continuum of tertiary skills provision - primarily funded by a single level of government, and nationally regulated,” her report insisted.
Direct pathways
The education minister of the time, Julia Gillard, agreed wholeheartedly. She laid plans for a “seamless” tertiary education sector with “more direct pathways” between higher education and VET, overseen by a single regulatory body.
Bradley’s wish list also included a “tertiary entitlement” funding model encompassing both higher education and VET, with income-contingent loans available to anybody studying at diploma level or above. She wanted both sectors to be served by the same ministerial council, research centre and labour market intelligence agency, with pathways between vocational and higher education enhanced by common terminology and assessment practices - at least at the upper levels of vocational study.
A decade later, none of these binding blocks is in place. Gillard’s plan to bring the two regulators together after 2013 never came about. A tertiary entitlement funding model for vocational students exists in name only, with many courses attracting no government support. An income-contingent loans scheme for diploma students was scrapped in 2016 after about A$8 billion (£4.4 billion) was squandered on largely useless courses; a far more restrictive loan programme has been installed in its place (see box below).
As a result, VET has lurched from one crisis to another.
This is an excerpt from an article published by the Times Higher Education on 14 June 2018. Click here for the full story.
