Separate post-compulsory education sectors within a liberal market economy: interesting models generated by the Australian anomaly Leesa Wheelahan and Gavin Moodie Introduction OECD member countries follow two broad patterns in structuring their post compulsory education. One pattern, which is most associated with continental Europe, is to separate vocational education from higher education in organisation, curriculum and student groups. The other pattern which is most associated with Anglophone countries is to have a gradual merging and much greater overlap of vocational education and higher education (Furth, 1973; Clark, 1983). These patterns in post-compulsory education provision coincide with two patterns for structuring economies and their relationship with post-compulsory education. Continental Europe tends to have market economies which are coordinated by their social partners: government, business and labour. Vocational and higher education students might be placed on quite separate post-compulsory education tracks, but the coordinated market economy matches graduates and job vacancies for most. The market economies of the Anglophone countries are rather freer, relying more on the market to sort and match graduates and employment. In the unpredictable liberal market economy students need more general post-compulsory education and greater mobility between vocational and higher education to match their education with employment opportunities (Hall & Soskice, 2001). Australia is distinctive in formally distinguishing its post-compulsory education and training sectors as deeply as many continental European countries, but it does so within a liberal market economy which in other Anglophone countries is associated with merged vocational and higher education sectors. This inconsistency in Australia’s organisation of its economy and post-compulsory education is illustrated in figure 1. Table : Patterns of organisation of the economy and post-compulsory education Market economy Post-compulsory education sectors Merged Separate Liberal Anglo Australia Coordinated Euro Australia’s inconsistent or at least different pattern of economic and educational organisation causes tensions which generates informal practices that do not comply with formal policy, and it has also generated a number of experiments or anomalies (depending on one’s perspective) which are of interest both to countries with liberal and those with coordinated market economies. This chapter opens by outlining the structure and institutions of Australian post compulsory education. The most consistent and pervasive organising element of Australian post-compulsory education is qualification level, and the Australian qualifications framework is described, with particular attention to the ‘cross-over’ qualifications of diplomas and advanced diplomas. Patterns of student access to and transfer between institutions and sectors is described, and the transfer of credit following transfer between sectors is considered. Following this description of standard arrangements we consider various measures to improve student access and mobility. These include dual-sector and co-located institutions, the latter often involving multiple partners. Australia has also experimented interestingly with course links of various types: pathways, credit transfer, and dual-sector awards and nested awards. The chapter concludes by anticipating future relations between the sectors and other developments. Structure and composition of Australian post compulsory education Australia is a federation of approximately 20 million people, with power shared between the national Commonwealth government and eight state and territory governments. There are four sectors of post-compulsory education and training: senior secondary school, adult and community education (ACE), vocational education and training (VET) and higher education (HE). While education is a State responsibility under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has varying levels of responsibility largely related to its share of government funding. HE is directly funded by and accountable to the Commonwealth government, whereas the States have primary but not exclusive responsibility for the VET, school and ACE sectors. While there is some national co-ordination through joint Commonwealth-state ministerial councils, considerable diversity remains between the state and territories’ VET, ACE and senior schooling systems. Governments’ continuous reform from the late 1980s has sought to make the VET and HE sectors more ‘responsive’ to industry, to the ‘needs’ of the economy, and to align the activity of the sectors more closely with government economic policy objectives. Reforms introduced market relations within each sector, although these have been more far-reaching in VET than in HE (Marginson, 1997). A unified national system of HE was created in 1988, with the amalgamation of colleges of advanced education (the sector equivalent to polytechnics) into 37 publicly funded universities in Australia, all of which are self-accrediting. The introduction of income-contingent loans, This refers to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). Students in publicly funded HE courses are charged fees which are a ‘contribution’ of about a third of the cost of their tuition, with the Commonwealth government paying the rest. Students can defer the payment of HECS until their income reaches a threshold ($25,348 in 2004, which is substantially below average weekly earnings which are around $33,000), and they repay their debt through the taxation system on a sliding scale aligned with their income. HECS debts are increased by the consumer price index to maintain their real value but no real rate of interest is charged. pressure on universities to run full fee graduate programs and other income generating and fee for service activities means that the Commonwealth government directly contributes only 45% of the recurrent income of universities (derived from DEST, 2002: table 1). VET consists of publicly funded institutes of Technical and Further Education (TAFE), private providers, and community based, not-for-profit providers. However, TAFE is the largest component, constituting just over 78% of all enrolments and almost 88% of delivery (National Centre for Vocational Education Research [NCVER], 2003: 5). The Commonwealth government uses its 36% share of government funding towards VET provision (with the remainder coming from the states) as a policy lever to drive its reforms (DEST, 2002: Table 1). However, there are significant differences between the states’ VET systems, in location of portfolio, funding, governance and institutional autonomy (Keating, 2000; Wheelahan, 2000). A national VET system was constituted in 1994, when the Commonwealth and state governments agreed to jointly establish the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA). All VET systems are required, as a result of national agreements, to implement nationally endorsed training packages based on competency-based training. These are similar to the National Vocational Qualifications in England. There are no equivalents to the English General National Vocational Qualifications. The ACE sector is the least funded and most diffuse of the four sectors of post-compulsory education and training, with varying levels of government support (Golding et al., 2001). ACE offers a range of programs, which include accredited VET qualifications. It consists of small and dispersed community-based not-for-profit providers. In spite of this, it is of central importance in re-introducing adults to study and in providing pathways to further study, although it has not yet been mapped into pathways frameworks in any meaningful way. It is the Cinderella of post-compulsory education and training (Senate, 1991; Golding et al., 2001). Learning environments in TAFE and HE and pass-rates The learning environment in TAFE is quite different to that in HE: classes are generally smaller, contact hours higher, teaching is more supportive and curriculum and assessment is competency-based. Also, TAFE teachers are more likely than HE teachers to be formally qualified as teachers, as well as in their industry or discipline. Smith (2001), and Fuller and Chalmers (1999) found in their respective studies that there were some differences between TAFE and HE students in approaches to study (deep, surface, achieving etc) and in their learning preferences, but that overall the two groups of students were similar in many respects, and that these similarities were more important than the differences. The pass rates for TAFE articulators in HE are comparable to other groups of students, particularly school-leavers, demonstrating that they are able to cope with study at this level. National comparative data showed mixed results with TAFE students in some states experiencing lower pass rates, but overall the rates were comparable (Dobson et al., 1998). Institutionally based research also demonstrates that TAFE articulators achieve results comparable to other groups of students (Ramsay et al., 1998; Wheelahan, 2001). There is no data comparing the labour market outcomes of TAFE articulators who graduate from HE with other HE graduates. Broad conclusions can be drawn however, and these are that the labour market outcomes depend on the university that the student attended and the course they completed. TAFE students find it more difficult to enter the elite universities and HE courses with highly competitive entry. It is access to these courses that results in higher graduate employment and starting salaries (DETYA, 1998). Australian Qualifications Framework The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) was created in 1995. The AQF is the only systemic framework that spans post-compulsory education and training in Australia. Even the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training is internally divided with separate departments for VET and HE. The AQF Advisory Board is therefore a crucial source of advice to government spanning all of post-compulsory education and training. Unlike the qualifications frameworks in England and Scotland, the AQF has no accreditation or recognition functions, and nor does it have quality assurance functions (Keating, 2000). The AQF designates which qualifications are offered in each sector and the descriptors that accompany each (Australian Qualifications Framework Advisory Board [AQFAB], 2002). In some states ACE accredits its own programs – where there is an independent statutory board – however this does not happen in all states. ACE qualifications are subsumed under VET qualifications, are counted as VET qualifications, and are not a separate component of the AQF. It does not prohibit one sector from offering a qualification that is generally offered by the other, provided the sector is able to adhere to the accreditation and other requirements that accompany the issuing of the qualification. Generally, however, institutions do not receive public funding for any qualification they may offer outside their sector. The AQF has – based on agreement between the peak bodies in both sectors – promulgated credit transfer guidelines, and has developed recognition of prior learning principles and operational guidelines which are currently progressing through the ministerial endorsement process. However, while these guidelines are valuable, at most they can be regarded as recommendations (particularly for self-accrediting universities) and it remains to be seen whether these initiatives, while important, will contribute to seamlessness. Table : Australian Qualifications Framework Schools sector Vocational Education and Training sector Higher Education sector Doctoral degrees Masters degrees Graduate diploma Graduate certificate Bachelor degree Advanced diploma Advanced diploma Diploma Diploma Certificate IV Certificate III Senior Secondary Certificates of education Certificate II Certificate I Source: (AQFAB, 2002) The AQF was established, in part, to facilitate learning pathways between and within sectors. However, the AQF Handbook (2002: 1) states that: “…there are no standardised rankings or equivalences between different qualifications issued in different sectors, as these qualifications recognise different types of learning reflecting the distinctive educational responsibilities of each sector. Where the same qualifications are issued in more than one sector but authorised differently by each sector (i.e. Diploma, Advanced Diploma) they are equivalent qualifications, although sector-differentiated.” This insistence on sectoral differentiation of qualifications contributes to the deep divide between the sectors, and the problems that students experience in moving between them – it fuels arguments that the learning and certification of learning in each sector is incommensurable. So rather than promoting seamlessness, it can be argued that until now the AQF has contributed to entrenching the differences between the sectors. Moreover, seamlessness has been difficult to achieve “as articulation arrangements all remain state and institutionally based. As well, the multitude of credit transfer and advanced standing agreements may well be observed more frequently in their breach than in their implementation” (Keating, 2000). The AQF has been most effective in underpinning the national scaffolding of qualification levels within the VET sector, and this is an important national achievement, as previous state-based arrangements meant qualifications awarded in one state were not always recognised in another (Keating, 2003; Wheelahan, 2003b). At a system-wide level the AQF has also (until recently) been relatively effective in helping to maintain the boundaries between the sectors and thereby sectoral peace, although arguably this has been at the cost of facilitating the seamless movement of students and credit between sectors. The basis of the precarious sectoral peace is contested: on the one hand there are arguments that the sectors have different missions and serve the nation’s interests in different ways; on the other, there are arguments that there is no fundamental difference in what each sector does and that the peak bodies insist on sectoral difference out of a self interested justification of their continuing existence. Regardless of which view seems more credible, the sectoral peace came unstuck in 2002 and 2003: unseemly brawling broke out between the sectors over the addition to the AQF of a new qualification, the two-year ‘associate degree’ which is similar in conception to Britain’s foundation degree. The Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC) argued that associate degrees should be solely HE awards, while the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) argued the awards should be duplicated in each sector, as are the existing diplomas and advanced diplomas (Wheelahan, 2003a). The AVCC has won this battle – for now. The Commonwealth, State and Territory education and training ministerial council agreed to designate associate degrees as HE awards, despite the opposition of ANTA and the deep unhappiness of many of the state VET jurisdictions. As a consequence the ministers endorsed associate degrees as HE awards subject to an inquiry on the impact of this on diplomas and advanced diplomas and the VET sector more generally. This could be interpreted as a way of placating the VET sector. One should never under-estimate the power of vice-chancellors combined! The AVCC is now arguing for diplomas and advanced diplomas to become VET only awards (AVCC, 2002), thus making the AQF entirely segregated by sector, with no cross-over qualifications. ANTA on the other hand, wants to retain both advanced diplomas and diplomas as duplicated qualifications (ANTA, 2002). Diplomas & advanced diplomas: ambiguously situated Australian universities offered undergraduate diplomas as a considerable part of their student load from their foundation in the middle of the 19th century until the creation of colleges of advanced education in the 1960s, which then assumed this role. Since the creation of the unified national system of higher education in 1988 higher education has all but relinquished this role (focussing instead on graduate certificates and diplomas) and over the last 15 years diplomas and advanced diplomas came to be predominately offered in the VET sector (Moodie, 2003b). VET diplomas and advanced diplomas are based on training packages, and consequently on competency-based training models of curriculum. However, diplomas and advanced diplomas are dual-sector awards under the AQF, and the characteristics of learning outcomes and distinguishing features of both HE and VET diplomas and advanced diplomas are identical; where they differ is in the accreditation and jurisdiction descriptors. Moodie (2003b: 46) explains that diplomas and advanced diplomas: “…are located ambiguously within Australian tertiary education to buy a peace, however uneasy and temporary, in the sectoral contest over the qualifications.” Approximately 12% of VET students were undertaking diplomas or advanced diplomas in 2002 (NCVER, 2003: 10), whereas only approximately 2% of HE students were enrolled in HE AQF diplomas or advanced diplomas in 2000 (DETYA, 2001: 6). It is possible consequently, to argue that diplomas and advanced diplomas are substantively VET qualifications, despite the fact that they are dual-sector awards in the AQF. However, Moodie (2003a) and Karmel and Nguyen (2003) argue that these are ‘cross-over awards’. Moodie (2003b: 52) has calculated that if diplomas and advanced diplomas are regarded as short-cycle HE awards, then they are approximately 15% of HE provision, almost all of which is offered in VET/TAFE. Karmel and Nguyen (2003: 11) explain that: “…the diploma qualification is a sort of ‘cross-over’ qualification with around 10 per cent of persons with a VET qualification (non-diploma) having a diploma and over 20 per cent, for some age groups, of persons with a degree also having a diploma.” Diplomas and advanced diplomas are therefore potentially an important access mechanism for disadvantaged students to short-cycle HE and a pathway to degree and higher level awards in universities. However, the evidence does not show this. The demographic characteristics of the VET and HE sectors are quite different: VET students are more broadly representative of the whole community, whereas HE students are more likely to come from relatively privileged backgrounds (Karmel & Nguyen, 2003). However, demographic characteristics of VET diploma and advanced diploma students are more similar to HE students than to the rest of the VET student population. They are younger, more urban, are more likely to have completed secondary school and to study full-time, are less likely to come from low socio-economic status backgrounds or to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background. They are also more than twice as likely to proceed to HE: 52.8% and 74.2% of diploma and advanced diploma graduates proceeding to further study respectively enrolled in university, compared to 22.5% of all VET graduates proceeding to further study. With the exception of students with a disability and students who come from a non-English speaking background. These patterns are accentuated for advanced diploma students compared to diploma students (NCVER, 2002: 13). Consequently, the majority of students who articulate to degree or higher level studies in universities are most likely to come from relatively privileged backgrounds. Short-cycle HE expressed as diplomas and advanced diplomas have not solved the access problem for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to HE. There is no reason to think that the introduction of associate degrees will do any better, particularly as these courses are likely to be full-fee paying. Access to and mobility between sectors/institutions As with other OECD countries, the Australian HE sector has grown from an elite to a mass and near universal system. However, the expansion in Australia has not been sufficient to keep pace with demand, with most Australians aspiring to a university education. Karmel and Nguyen (2003: 8) explain that while the HE system has expanded overall, access to HE has declined from a high point in 1996, where it was expected that 44% of individuals would enter HE at some point in their lives, to 40% in 2000. They have estimated (based on 2001 data) the lifetime probability of individuals receiving a qualification in . Table : Lifetime probability of getting a qualification Qualification (%) Degree 28 Diploma 14 VET (excluding diplomas) 42 Diploma or VET 55 Source: Karmel and Nguyen, 2003: 10 The AVCC estimated that 27.5% (or approximately 63,000) of eligible applicants missed out on a HE place in a university in 2003, an increase of 17 per cent from the previous year. Mature-age applicants fared worst, constituting approximately 10 per cent of all applicants, yet accounting for 32 per cent of those who missed out on a place (AVCC, 2003: 1). Students from low socio-economic status backgrounds and other disadvantaged groups are most likely to have lower tertiary entrance ranks (Teese, 2000), and so it can be extrapolated that they would be disproportionately represented among those who miss out on a place. The issue of pathways to HE is thus becoming more important for policy, particularly policy concerned with equity, social justice, and building social capital. VET students are more likely to be part-time, older, and from disadvantaged backgrounds in proportion to their numbers in the general community. Students from low socio-economic status backgrounds are under-represented in HE: 15.3% of students from a low socio-economic background participate in HE, while they are 25% of the population (Karmel and Nguyen, 2003: 6), and this under-representation is accentuated in the elite universities (James, 2002: 8). Access to elite universities While increasing numbers of students are moving from VET to HE and obtaining qualifications in both, as with other nations (Osborne et al., 2000; Osborne et al., 2002; Gallacher, 2003), transferring students are much less likely to gain access to elite universities (Moodie, 2003a). Paradoxically, it seems that university sectors that are ‘unified’ (as in Scotland and Australia) are less likely to facilitate access to elite universities for transfer students (from further education in Scotland and VET in Australia) than are systems that are formally differentiated into elite universities and the rest, as in many United States jurisdictions. Unified systems are informally, but powerfully, differentiated by status (Marginson, 1997), and this appears to be a bigger obstacle in accessing elite universities than those systems which have mandated access and credit transfer policies, as in the United States. Moodie (2003a: 5) demonstrates (in ) the ratio of access by transferring students from further education in Scotland, VET in Australia, and community colleges in the US states to elite and moderately selective institutions. Whereas elite universities in the US admit one student for every two the moderately selective universities admit, in Scotland this ratio is 1 to 5, and in Australia it is 1 to 4. Table : ratio of students transferring from VET/FE/CC to university in Scotland, Australia, California, Colorado & Texas Jurisdiction Highly selective institutions Moderately selective institutions Ratio of highly selective to moderately selective Scotland 5% 24% 1:5 Australia 2% 8% 1:4 California 6.5% 13% 1:2 Colorado 3% 6% 1:2 Texas 15% 26% 1:1.7 Source: Moodie, 2003a: 5 Moodie (2003a: 5) draws two conclusions from his analysis: “First, the formal segmentation of institutions into sectors does not always structure opportunities for students as much as the informal differences between institutions. Secondly…many U.S. states have much higher transfer rates than Australia and Scotland because of their strong transfer practices and policies required by legislation.” He concludes that “Informal distinctions are just as important as formal segmentation” and that universities have to be either “bribed or coerced” to accept transferring students (Moodie, 2003a: 5). The evidence seems to support this argument. Student movement between the sectors While the VET sector has many more students than HE (approximately 1.7 million and 726,000 in each respectively) This is based on student enrolment data in the two sectors., it takes approximately 4.5 students to make an effective full-time student unit in VET and 1.25 students in HE (Karmel and Nguyen, 2003: 2) This is based on what Karmel and Nguyen (2003). call a ‘courageous’ estimate – Australia does not have consistent data collections in the two sectors, and this makes it very difficult understand the extent of traffic between the two sectors, and also to gauge accurately the size of the sectors, as census data, Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys (based on population samples), other surveys based on population samples, and statistical collections based on enrolment data in both sectors yields quite different results. This is compounded by the problem that the sectors have different and largely incommensurable measures for student load, and the sectors report to different levels of government.. Approximately 7% of commencing students were admitted to HE in 2001 on the basis of VET study, and of “commencing undergraduate students, 11.5% had a TAFE award and 8.8% had other awards” (Karmel and Nguyen, 2003: 10). This is likely to be an under-estimate, and internal research in at least two universities shows that approximately 20% of commencing students had prior TAFE study (Wheelahan, 2001; Ramsay et al., 1998). The official data does not, among other things, take account of ‘swirling’ – “students’ multiple enrolments in and transfers between institutions” (de los Santos & Wright, 1990). There are also many students transferring from HE to VET: approximately 88,500 VET students had a degree or higher degree in 2002 (Karmel and Nguyen, 2003: 10). This is approximately 5.23% of VET student enrolments (derived from NCVER, 2003). However, we can indirectly get an idea of the extent of ‘swirling’ by looking at the number of qualifications per person: Karmel and Nguyen outline the average number of qualifications per person and the growth that has occurred from 1993 to 2001 in . Table : Growth in qualifications, 1993 and 2001 Qualified persons ('000) Qualifications per person 1993 2001 1993 2001 Higher Education 993.9 2169.3 1.59 1.74 VET 2903.6 4712.5 1.29 1.45 Source: Karmel and Nguyen, 2003: 4 Moreover, Karmel and Nguyen provide evidence that many people have qualifications from both sectors. They separate diplomas and advanced diplomas from VET qualifications, and look at the percentage of all those with a VET qualification who also have a diploma or a degree, and the percentage of all those who are degree qualified who also have a diploma or a VET qualification. This is shown in . However, they also note that the diploma is declining in importance in HE for some age groups, which is a worrying trend given the importance of diplomas as an access mechanism to HE (Karmel & Nguyen, 2003: 11). In looking at their table, it appears also that the diploma is declining in importance as a stepping stone for those with VET qualifications. If these trends continue, it is likely to result in declining access for VET qualified students to HE. It will also result in less credit transfer for students once they are in HE, as credit transfer – where it is available at all – is most likely to be granted for diplomas and not for VET only qualifications. Table : Persons with cross-sectoral qualifications, 1993 and 2001 (%) VET qualified Degree qualified Age group With a diploma With a degree With a diploma With a VET qualification 1993 2001 1993 2001 1993 2001 1993 2001 15-24 5.5 4.9 1.0 2.6 4.6 5.7 3.0 6.7 25-34 10.4 8.3 2.4 5.3 17.0 11.1 5.1 7.1 35-44 9.7 8.8 2.7 7.0 24.5 16.8 4.7 11.4 45-54 12.6 10.4 4.6 7.3 20.0 23.1 10.8 11.1 55-64 12.5 7.8 3.1 5.8 20.2 23.8 9.9 13.2 Source: Karmel and Nguyen, 2003: 10 – 11 Credit transfer There are two ways of trying to determine the extent of credit students are granted in HE on the basis of their prior VET (or at least TAFE) studies: the first is to examine the level of credit articulating students receive, based on student self-report; the second is to examine the total amount of credit granted based on prior TAFE study reported by universities as part of their annual reporting. First, of those TAFE graduates who enrolled in a degree or higher level course in 2001, almost 53% applied for and received some credit in their degree course but we cannot say with certainty whether this was on the basis of their prior TAFE study – we can presume most of it is., just over 30% said they had no intention of applying, approximately 9% applied for credit but did not receive it, with the remainder indicating that they would apply in the future, or didn’t know if they would (NCVER, 2002: 13-14). However, the extent of credit students receive is small: over three-quarters of students who said they received credit received it for a third of their course or less (DEST, 2002: 11). Second, government figures (based on enrolment data) show that the number of commencing degree students receiving credit for prior TAFE studies grew by 98% from 1993 to 2001, growth which exceeded growth in commencing load overall for the same time (38%) (DEST, 2002: 11). However, if the percentage of students receiving credit for prior TAFE study as a total percentage of commencing students is calculated, using the same numbers the government has provided, it can be seen that the growth has been trivial, as is demonstrated in . It demonstrates that credit transfer has declined for previous TAFE studies from the mid to late 1990s, which approximately coincides with the introduction of training packages. Although, caution must be used here, as other factors could also contribute to this decline, including the level of unmet demand for HE places – the higher the level of unmet demand, the more likely are students to use VET studies as a pathway to HE. The literature is replete with findings that the introduction of training packages adversely affected the articulation and credit transfer arrangements between TAFE and HE. Table : Students commencing bachelor degrees (or below) by exemption status and means of exemption 1993 to 2001 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Students receiving exemptions for TAFE studies 1.65 2.32 2.59 2.50 2.66 2.55 2.80 2.83 2.36 Students receiving exemptions by means other than TAFE studies 10.37 10.21 11.96 11.42 13.99 13.81 13.86 15.16 13.77 Students receiving no exemptions 87.98 87.47 85.45 86.08 83.35 83.64 83.35 82.01 83.88 Total commencing students 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: derived from DEST, 2002: Table 6. Alternative access programs Australia has not had a strong and systematic national program to increase access to HE by students from disadvantaged backgrounds comparable to the Scottish Wider Access Program established in 1987 (Gallacher, 2003). The only national program is the Commonwealth’s higher education equity program grant, which is 0.1% of institutions’ general operating grant. One third of this grant is allocated by performance and 40% of the performance formula is for the number of enrolled students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds and their academic success and retention (DEST, 2003: 74). As a result access by students from disadvantaged backgrounds rests on individual institutions’ initiative and universities’ localised enabling programs, which were only 1.3% of all domestic commencing load in 2001 (DETYA, 2001: derived from Table 1). Individual universities have developed access programs, and these take the form of targeted access courses for specific groups of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the successful completion of which guarantees the student access to a degree program. In addition, there are two types of alternative access mechanisms directly to degree courses: the first is to develop large scale programmes that encompass all students without selecting students on the basis of specific equity related criteria, but which are premised on criteria that include disadvantaged students. Not many universities offer these programs, and those that do are more likely to be universities that need to ‘recruit’ students as opposed to those that ‘select’ students (Maclennan, Musslebrook & Dundas, 2000: 12). The second approach is to develop programs that include students on the basis of their membership of a target equity group. This is the basis of most access programs, and they tend to be smaller in scope (Ramsay et al., 1998: 64). It is likely that specific access programs – whether enabling or bridging courses or alternative access mechanisms to degree level courses – will remain small scale, and localised. Consequently, pathways from VET to higher education assume more importance. Improving student access & mobility: credit transfer, institutional arrangements, course links & pathways Australia has been experimenting with different ways of constructing pathways, through credit transfer, course links, and institutional links. A plethora of pathways and credit transfer arrangements have developed in Australia over the last 10 years. A common language is gradually emerging to describe these arrangements, as a consequence of their increasingly diverse and widespread character, but also because there are now AQF credit transfer guidelines which have been endorsed by the peak bodies in both sectors (Carnegie, 2000; AQFAB, 2002). National and state-based initiatives to increase credit transfer Notwithstanding the AQF credit transfer guidelines, there is currently no systemic arrangement to support student transfer between the sectors – from VET to HE or HE to VET. There is no regulatory arrangement for credit transfer, advanced standing or access from one sector to another. Such arrangements that do exist are local, but they are unfunded, unco-ordinated, unregulated, not monitored and are excluded from performance indicators in both sectors. The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) at its July 2003 meeting resolved that the States and Territories: “agree to work with the Commonwealth to develop national arrangements for articulation and credit transfer between the higher education sector and the vocational and training sectors” However, apart from making proclamations, there has been little political will shown at the national level to implement any real arrangements. The Commonwealth government conducted a review of HE in 2002, and promised to address the issue of sectoral relations through a discussion paper (one of six published as part of the review process) devoted to the VET/HE interface. However, the resulting policy mentions VET twice, and then only in passing. Much was promised through the review of HE, but nothing was delivered, and so the Commonwealth has lost its opportunity for the foreseeable future to plan and support relations between the sectors at the national level. However, progress is occurring at the individual state level. The Victorian State Government is planning to introduce a ‘credit-matrix’ to facilitate credit transfer, articulation and student pathways. This is the first serious attempt in many years by a government or statutory body in Australia to establish a policy that facilitates credit transfer and articulation between the sectors. The Victorian credit matrix proposal was influenced the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, but also by the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand and South African qualifications frameworks. The Victorian credit matrix will look quite different to all of these however; it is state based and not national, it must reflect local circumstances and it must in some way relate to the AQF. The credit matrix is a mechanism for evaluating the level of complexity and volume of learning, and then comparing this to the volume and complexity of learning in other qualifications. The Victorian Qualifications Authority has consulted widely, and anticipates that many of the eight Victorian universities will participate. Other states will watch the outcomes with interest. In addition, other state governments have tried to establish arrangements to facilitate state-wide agreements between TAFE institutions and higher education institutions – either individually or collectively, largely through memoranda of understanding (NCVER, 2002). It is possible that these initiatives combined will result in national policy to support credit transfer and student pathways. Credit transfer Despite the lack of national frameworks, two approaches have emerged, ‘from the ground up’ to negotiate credit transfer in Australian tertiary education. The first is based on block credit, where a completed TAFE qualification is deemed to be equivalent to a block of study in the degree. Usually a TAFE diploma which is often two years study, but this has become variable since the introduction of training packages, and is often less equals one year or one third of an ordinary three-year HE degree, often the first year. but sometimes credit is spread across different years of a degree, creating sequencing problems for students. Credit is based on the presumed commonalities derived from shared disciplines, rather than a detailed mapping of the content of both courses. The second model is based on curriculum mapping, which focuses on mapping the content, learning outcomes, standards required in assessment, and sometimes approach to teaching and learning, with varying degrees of rigour. This is more likely to occur in dual-sector institutions (which are described in the next section) and other institutional arrangements that generate close relationships between the parties, for example, in the co-located institutions (Schoemaker et al., 2000; Wheelahan, 2000). This approach can also occur between stand-alone institutions, but is less likely to occur at an institutional level. In this instance it is most likely at a course level where pockets at one institution develop relationships with pockets at another. The advantage of the curriculum mapping approach is that it can result in more credit being granted to articulating students. These arrangements are, however, expensive to maintain, as every time courses change in one or the other sector the pathway has to be renegotiated. As self-accrediting bodies, universities are under no compulsion to develop pathways or grant credit. The extent to which universities do develop pathways and grant credit varies, with the newer, less prestigious ‘recruiting’ universities more likely to make such arrangements. The CBT model in VET and the curriculum-input model in HE are not easily reconcilable. The move to CBT based training packages in VET is widely regarded as an obstacle to articulation, credit transfer and other forms of course links between TAFE and HE (Carnegie, 2000; Wheelahan, 2000; AVCC, 2001; NCVER, 2002; Senate, 2003). This is for two reasons: first, HE is unable to understand the extent to which TAFE students with credit share the same underpinning knowledge as do other students. Second, assessment outcomes are usually ungraded, However, TAFE institutions (both stand-alone and dual-sector) are increasingly providing graded assessment to help students access HE, but also, in response to demands by employers and students for results that discriminate between VET graduates. and this disadvantages VET students in seeking entry to HE through competitive entry processes (Wheelahan and Carter, 2001). Institutional dual-sector arrangements: dual-sectors and co-locations There are three types or models of institutional arrangements in Australian tertiary education: single-sector stand-alone HE and VET institutions with various links and relations between the sectors, dual-sector universities (containing a HE and TAFE division) and co-located campuses. Each model has policies that govern credit transfer and other arrangements that support the movement of students across the sectors. Single sector institutions are the most numerous, but institutions vary considerably in the importance they give to inter-sectoral collaboration. There are five universities regarded as dual-sector universities in Australia, four of which are in Victoria, with the fifth in the Northern Territory. The TAFE and HE sectors within the dual-sector universities are integrated to varying degrees, with teaching and courses remaining sectorally based in all institutions This is a little different at the Northern Territory University: courses are institutionally based, but an enterprise agreement involving unions from all sectors has resulted in an agreement that permits cross-sectoral teaching., whereas most corporate, administrative and services for students are fully integrated. Outside of Victoria, co-located campuses, mostly comprising senior secondary school, a TAFE and a HE campus, are emerging as an important model for providing access to comprehensive post-compulsory education in regions beyond commuting distance from the major cities that can support separate institutions. They are integrated to varying degrees, but the partners are mostly administratively and financially independent, with many administrative, corporate and student services remaining distinct to a greater or lesser extent. Relationship between institutional type and credit transfer Broadly speaking, different institutional types approach credit-transfer differently. However, regardless of approach, the outcomes are most successful when staff from the different sectors have established good, collaborative, and trusting relationships (Sommerlad et al., 1998; Schoemaker, et al., 2000; Wheelahan, 2000; Wheelahan, 2001). This is most likely to happen when designated staff are employed to develop links between the sectors, a role described by Sommerlad et al., (1998) as that of ‘boundary spanner’. The dual-sectors universities have an advantage to the extent that they are part of one institution, and are more likely to collaborate over the content of courses in each sector, rather than only developing pathways on the basis of completed qualifications. This has led to a range of models, some of which include components drawn from both sectors. The dual-sectors also attempt to provide administrative support to their students in navigating the requirements of moving sectors, with varying levels of success. The dual-sectors are large institutions, and as such are sites of contested organisational and political culture, with relationships ranging from close and collaborative, to hostile. This can result in “transfer-inhibiting practices” as Prager (1993: 551) observed for similar institutions in the U.S. However, this isn’t necessarily always negative; it is sometimes a sign of engagement of staff in the dual-sector character of the university. Co-located institutions must cope with the problems the dual-sectors experience, but must also contend with complexities deriving from the fact that the partners are usually satellite campuses of a parent body, and most often do not have a common pool of funding for joint curriculum initiatives. Their administrative separation means that it is difficult to develop seamless arrangements for students. Single-sector institutions vary in the extent to which they see collaboration as important. Those committed to collaboration (Sommerlad et al., 1998), have created many pathways between courses in each sector, but these are mostly on the basis of completed qualifications, rather than detailed curriculum mapping which identifies equivalencies or at least inter-course relationships at levels lower than completed qualifications. Course links: pathways Pathways (or articulation arrangements) link VET and HE courses and establish credit transfer arrangements. A pathway sometimes consists only of a link between two courses, so that successful completion of one may be used as the basis for an application to enter another, with no credit transfer granted. Alternatively, a pathway may link a VET and HE course, and it may also provide credit transfer. Pathways can be standardised or customised. Standardised pathways are formally approved by the institutions involved, and ensure that all students meeting the specified conditions are granted the same benefit, usually credit transfer. Customised pathways are developed where no standardised pathway exists, or to meet the specific needs of individual students or groups of students. Increasingly, enhanced pathways are being developed in Australia. Enhanced pathways offer articulating students more credit or advanced standing in the destination course than would otherwise be the case. An enhanced pathway is developed by both parties (TAFE and HE), but most often delivered in the TAFE institute. At dual-sector universities enhanced pathways are increasingly offered, which in some instances combine modules and subjects from both sectors, but which have been packaged into the TAFE course. This occurs through cross-crediting the TAFE modules and HE subjects against each other. Guaranteed pathways are also becoming more prominent. Most often, TAFE students must win access to the destination HE course through competitive entry processes before they are able to attain the credit transfer specified in the agreement. In contrast, guaranteed pathways reserve a place for the articulating student, provided they meet the standards of performance specified in the pathway agreement. Course links: dual-sector awards and nested awards There are two main types of dual-sector programs: dual-sector awards and nested awards. While they are not numerous, they are increasing (DEST, 2001), mainly in dual-sectors and co-locations, to obtain market positioning. Dual-sector programs combine two awards, one from each sector, so that students complete both in less time through cross-crediting subjects in each. They have been developed by analogy from joint HE courses such as the joint arts/law degree and the joint accounting/information systems degree that have proliferated in Australian HE in the last decade. Dual-sector awards may draw on complementary fields of study, for example, information technology or accounting. Alternatively, they may draw on the same discipline, but in a way that embeds TAFE qualifications in degree programs (for example, a certificate as a lab technician within a science degree), allowing students to obtain an early credential to use for part-time or casual work. Dual-sector programs of this nature do not really offer great potential for increasing access to students from disadvantaged backgrounds because to gain entry to such a program students must first meet the entry requirements of the HE component of the award (Schoemaker et al., 2000; Wheelahan, 2000). Nested awards, on the other hand, do have potential to increase participation. Nested awards commence in TAFE and conclude in HE with various exits along the way. Students are able to work in areas related to their study, or they can leave and re-enter study at a later time. Nested awards particularly lend themselves to supporting students to move from para-professional to professional areas (like nursing) again providing students with an early credential. They may also appear more accessible to students from non-traditional backgrounds, both in gaining admission, and in developing aspirations for HE. This is because they offer school-leavers and mature aged students “progression by internal promotion (not selection by score)” which “would provide the security that is currently the preserve of a minority of students at the top of the curriculum” (Teese, 2000: 229). Teese is here referring to integrated programs spanning senior secondary school and TAFE, but this is within the context of a discussion that includes HE, particularly HE institutions serving the most vulnerable sectors of the population. Nested awards are institutionalised within sectors, for example, from certificate to diploma level in TAFE/VET, or the (now very common) graduate certificate to graduate diploma to coursework or taught masters program route in HE. Cross-sectoral nested awards remain under-developed, but are increasing in their importance. Relations between the sectors and future developments Credit transfer, dual-sector awards and the extent of student movement between the sectors remains under-developed even at dual-sector universities and co-located institutions. This is in part because of the different reporting, funding and accountability requirements to different levels of government in each sector. The dead weight of administrative requirements is an almost irresistible counterforce to policy that seeks to deepen and extend collaboration. Industrial issues are often masked as disputes over philosophy, teaching style and standards, but upon closer examination are just as often as much about preserving jobs and status in each sector. The different accreditation and curriculum models in each sector also militate against collaboration. These are pressures towards divergence, and contribute to maintaining the unusually strong distinctions between the sectors compared to other Anglophone liberal market economies. These tensions are compounded by historical factors: VET policy in Australia has been in part shaped by the need for the sector to define itself in distinction to the HE sector, and more recently, in distinction to the senior school sector as well, as schools increasingly offer VET qualifications as part of their senior secondary school program. VET (or TAFE as it was then) was established by the Kangan Committee in 1974 as a national system of teaching and learning that didn’t happen in universities or colleges of advanced education; that is, TAFE was defined residually (Kangan, 1974). The creation of a national VET market in 1992 helped to define and distinguish VET from the other sectors. Qualifications were restructured on competencies and re-oriented towards specific occupations. A purchaser-provider model was established in which public TAFE institutions were only one type of provider, albeit the overwhelmingly dominant type. However, this distinction was never complete. HE claims to prepare graduates for work, so the distinctions based on vocational orientation have begun to break down, as has the notion that vocational preparation is limited to narrow skill development. There are also pressures towards convergence, similar to those experienced in the other Anglophone liberal market economies. The distinctions between the sectors continues to blur as a consequence of the blurring of the distinctions between vocational and general (or academic) education (Karmel, 1998; Raffe and Howieson, 1998; Gallagher, 2001). The sectors are distinguished by their different levels of awards, accreditation frameworks, curriculum (competency-based training in VET and a curriculum input model in HE), and reporting requirements, rather than intrinsic differences in mission. These differences between the sectors disguises the considerable although as yet largely unacknowledged common aims of their students; commonality of content in courses offered in both sectors, with both offering vocational and general courses; commonality of learning-teaching process, with both sectors promoting the virtues of flexible and workplace-based learning; and both sectors even adopting common aims, the promotion of economic benefit through the development of human capital, and increasingly (through government policy statements), building resilient and sustainable communities and regions through developing social capital. The sectors are also being driven closer through pressure from the market: 22 (of 37) public universities Australia has two small private universities, with the remainder all public. are registered to provide VET level courses, mostly on a fee for service basis, while TAFE and other VET providers have been approved to provide some degrees and graduate certificates and diplomas. The Victorian State government has recently passed legislation allowing TAFE to offer degrees in specific niche areas. This leads Karmel and Nguyen (2003: 1) to argue that: “…there is no clear distinction between the sectors in terms of providers….the level of the award defines the sectors rather than the provider.” Now that associate degrees have been approved as HE awards, it is most likely that TAFE and other VET providers will seek to become large-scale providers of these awards. Apart from anything else, TAFE directors and private VET providers will use associate degrees to break free of the perceived restrictive nature of training packages (all publicly funded delivery in VET must be based on training packages). National seminars are being organised to advise TAFE on how to get such awards approved. TAFE will enter the HE market as private providers, in the same way HE has entered the VET market as private providers, and both can do so provided they meet the accreditation requirements of each sector. This will bring VET (particularly TAFE) into alignment with the analogous further education colleges in the UK and 2-year or community colleges in the United States, except that VET is not likely to receive public funding to do so – at least initially. However, like the early development of HE in further education in the UK (Parry and Thompson, 2002), this will take place in an unplanned and ad hoc manner. This expansion of short-cycle HE in VET will also be driven by recent reforms proposed by the Commonwealth government (but not yet passed by the Parliament), in which students who occupy full-paying HE places will be able to get income contingent loans up to $50,000 to pay fees. Fee-HELP will differ from HECS, because students would have to repay full tuition fees, while HECS funded places are subsidised by the Commonwealth government. Moreover, Fee-HELP will charge students a real rate of interest on income contingent loans, while HECS does not – at least for now. Currently, while VET students pay fees that are considerably lower than the contribution paid by HE students, they must pay these fees up front, while HE students have the option of deferring payment of fees. Moreover, the VET sector runs many full-fee paying courses, particularly in new economy areas, and students are not able receive government subsidies or loans for these fees. So while VET was ignored in the proposed HE reforms currently before the Commonwealth Parliament, should these reforms be passed, they will profoundly alter the relationship between the sectors, by increasing the competition between them for the same qualifications market, and providing the impetus for VET to become a large provider of short-cycle HE. Conclusion Australia’s separation of vocational and higher education within a liberal market economy has not resulted in coherent frameworks to support student transition from one sector to another. The sectors are under pressure as a consequence of the blurring of their roles in light of the demands of the ‘new economy’, and from pressure on institutions and sectors to increase market share. Rhetoric of seamlessness is strong, but so is defence of the sectoral distinctions. It is anticipated that students will move taking from each sector what they need to craft their own individualised portfolios. This suggests that students have the ‘market knowledge’ needed to do so, and all research says this is not the case (James et al., 1999). While the Commonwealth government talks about seamlessness, it does little to facilitate it. State governments, on the other hand, are experimenting with a range of mechanisms to promote student articulation, particularly to support social justice and equity objectives as well as supporting economic and skills development within the state. Hopefully these efforts will eventually result in a more coherent national approach. The Commonwealth government’s HE reform package has the potential to reshape the relations between the sectors, through opening access to students enrolling in fee-paying HE courses to income-contingent loans. VET providers will flock to associate degrees to escape the constrictions of training packages, to enable their students to access income-contingent loans, to increase the extent of credit transfer awarded to articulating students, and to increase their share of the tertiary education market. It seems that the tensions caused by establishing very separate post-compulsory education sectors within a liberal market economy will be resolved in favour of the market. Over time the Australian sectors are likely to increasingly merge and overlap like their counterparts in other Anglophone countries. However, like the early development of HE delivery by FE in England, this will occur in an unplanned and ad hoc manner (Parry and Thompson, 2002). This is not the basis for a lifelong learning policy for Australia, and nor is it the basis for increasing access to HE for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. References Australian National Training Authority [ANTA] (2002). Response to the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training Discussion Paper Varieties of Learning – The Interface Between Higher Education And Vocational Education And Training. Canberra: DEST, http://www.dest.gov.au/crossroads/issues_sub/pdf/i274.pdf Australian Qualifications Framework Advisory Board [AQFAB] (2002). Australian Qualifications Framework Implementation Handbook. Melbourne: AQFAB. Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee [AVCC] (2002). Forward from the crossroads: pathways to effective and diverse Australian universities. Canberra: DEST, http://www.dest.gov.au/crossroads/issues_sub/pdf/i354.pdf ———— (2003) Survey of applicants for undergraduate higher education courses 2003, Canberra: AVCC, http://www.avcc.edu.au/policies_activities/resource_analysis/key_stats/Survey_Apps_HigherEd_2003.pdf ———— (2001) Cross-Sector Qualification Linkages Between Higher Education and VET, Canberra: Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, http://www.avcc.edu.au/students/credit_transfer/index.htm, accessed 27/01/02. Carnegie, Jane (2000) Pathways to Partnerships: Qualification linkages between vocational education and training and higher education, May, Report and Draft Policy guidelines of the ANTA/AVCC joint study on credit transfer and articulation between the Vocational Education and Training (VET) and Higher Education (HE) sectors. Clark, Burton C (1983) The higher education system: academic organization in cross-national perspective, University of California Press, Berkeley. de los Santos, Alfredo Good Jr and Wright, Irene (1990) ‘Maricopa’s swirling students: earning one third of Arizona State’s bachelor’s degrees’, AACJC Journal, Jun/Jul, pp 32-4.) Department of Education Science and Training [DEST] (2002) Varieties of learning: the interface between higher education and vocational education and training, Canberra: Department of Education Science and Training. Department of Education, Science and Training (2003) Higher education report for the 2003 to 2005 triennium, http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/he_report/2003_2005/default.htm. Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs [DETYA] (2001) Students 2000: Selected Higher Education Statistics, Canberra: DETYA, Dobson, Ian, Sharma, Raj and Haydon, Anthony (1998) Undergraduates in Australian Universities: Enrolment Trends and Performance of Commencing Students 1993 - 1996, July 1998, Canberra: AVCC. Furth, Dorotea (1973) ‘Short-cycle higher education: some basic considerations’ in Furth, Dorotea (ed) (1973) Sort-cycle higher education: a search for identity, OECD, Paris, pp 13-42. Gallacher, Jim (2003) Higher Education in Further Education Colleges: The Scottish Experience, Report for the Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE), March, Glasgow: Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning Glasgow Caledonian University, Gallagher, Mike (2001). Lifelong Learning: demand and supply issues, some questions for research. The Business/Higher Education Roundtable Conference on The Critical Importance of Lifelong Learning, Sydney Golding, Barry, Davies, Merryn and Volkoff, Veronica (2001) Review of Research: a consolidation of ACE research 1990 -- 2000, Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Hall, Peter A. and Soskice, David (2001). An introduction to Varieties of Capitalism. Varieties of Capitalism The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1-68. James, Richard, McInnes, Craig and Baldwin, Gabrielle (1999) Which University? The factors influencing the choices of prospective undergraduates, Evaluations and Investigations Program, 99/3, Canberra: Higher Education Division. James, Richard (2002) Socioeconomic background and higher education participation: an analysis of school students’ aspirations and expectations, Evaluations and Investigations Programme, Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training, http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/eippubs/eip02_5/eip02_5.pdf. Kangan, Myer (chair) (1974) TAFE in Australia: Report on needs in technical and further education, April 1974, Canberra: Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education, Karmel, Tom (1998). Universal participation--implications for policy makers, institutions and students. OECD Thematic Review of the First Years of Tertiary Education Australia Seminar, Sydney: DETYA Karmel, Tom and Nguyen, Nhi (2003). Australia's Tertiary Education Sector. Centre for the Economics of Education and Training 7th National Conference, Melbourne Keating, Jack (2000) Qualifications Frameworks in Britain and Australia - a Comparative Note, January 2000, Melbourne: RMIT University, Keating, Jack (2003). "Qualifications frameworks in Australia" British Journal of Education & Work Marginson, Simon (1997). Markets in Education. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Maclennan, A, Musslebrook, K & Dundas, M (2000) Credit transfer at the FE/HE interface, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council/Scottish Further Education Funding Council, http://www.sfefc.ac.uk/publications/other/wideopps.pdf Ministerial Council for Employment Education Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA] (2002) Ministerial Declaration on Adult Community Education, August 2002, Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Education and Training on behalf of MCEETYA, Moodie, Gavin (2003a). Comparative national and international transfer rates from TAFE/further education/community college to university. Enhancing university-TAFE partnerships, University of New England ———— (2003b). "The missing link in Australian tertiary education: short-cycle higher education." International Journal of Training Research 1(1): 44-63 National Centre for Vocational Education Research [NCVER] (2002) Submission to the Review of Higher Education, 5 July, Adelaide: NCVER. ———— (2003) Australian Vocational Education and Training Statistics Students and Courses 2002 At a glance, Adelaide: NCVER. Osborne, Mike , Cloonan, Martin , Morgan-Klein, Brenda and Loots, Catriona (2000). "Mix and match? Further and higher education links in post-devolution Scotland." International Journal of Lifelong Education 19(3): 236-253 Osborne, Mike, Gallacher, Jim and Murphy, Mark (2002). A Research Review of FE/HE Links - A Report to the Scottish Executive Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department. Stirling: Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning, University of Stirling and Glasgow Caledonian University. Parry, Gareth and Thompson, Anne (2002) Closer by degrees: the past, present and future of higher education in further education colleges, London: Learning and Skills Development Agency, http://www.LSDA.org.uk Prager, Carolyn (1993) ‘Transfer and articulation within colleges and universities’, The Journal of Higher Education, 64, 5, pp 539-554. Raffe, David and Howieson, Cathy (1998). "The Unification of Post-Compulsory Education: Towards a Conceptual Framework." British Journal of Educational Studies 46(2): 169-187 Ramsay, Eleanor, Tranter, Deborah, Charlton, Simon and Sumner, Robert (1998) Higher Education Access and Equity for Low SES School Leavers: A case study, Evaluations and Investigations Programme, October 1998, 98/18, Canberra: Higher Education Division, DEYTA. Schoemaker, Adam, Allison, Janelle, Gum, Kingsley, Harmoni, Rose, Lindfield, Mike, Nolan, Marguerite and Stedman, Lawrence (2000) Multi-Partner Campuses. The future of Australian higher education?, EIP, October 2000, Canberra: DETYA. Senate Employment Workplace Relations Small Business and Education Committee (2003) Bridging the Skills Divide, November, Canberra. Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training (1991), Come in Cinderella: The emergence of adult and community education, Canberra. Smith, Peter (2001). "Learning preferences of TAFE and university students." Australian & New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research 9(2): 87-109 Sommerlad, E, Duke, C and McDonald, R (1998) Universities and TAFE: Collaboration in the emerging world of “universal higher education, Canberra: Higher Education Council http://www.deetya.gov.au/nbeet/publications/hec/overview.html Teese, Richard (2000). Academic Success & Social Power: Examinations and Inequality. Carlton South: Melbourne University Press. Wheelahan, Leesa (2000) Bridging the divide: developing the institutional structures that most effectively deliver cross-sectoral education and training, Adelaide, South Australia: NCVER. Wheelahan, Leesa (2003a). "Global trends and local bends: Australian VET developments." Journal of Continuing and Adult Education 9(1): 32-50 Wheelahan, Leesa (2003b). Pressure on the Australian Qualifications Framework: Implications for cross-sectoral collaboration. Enriching Learning Cultures. 11th Annual International Conference on Post-Compulsory Education and Training, Parkroyal Surfers Paradise, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia Wheelahan, Leesa and Carter, Richard (2001). "National Training Packages: a new curriculum framework for vocational education and training in Australia." Education and Training 43(6)