Bridging the divide: Developing the institutional structures that most effectively deliver cross-sectoral education and training

This study was undertaken for the LifeLong Learning Network by researchers at the Victoria University of Technology. The purpose of the study was to examine the advantages and disadvantages of cross-sectoral provision of education and training. The project brief designated the following key research questions.

• What structures and mechanisms of service provision are most effective and for whom?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of different mechanisms?
• What criteria can be used to identify effective cross-sectoral practice?
• What policy changes would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of dual-sector provision?

These questions are explored in a variety of ways in the body of the report. Case studies of a range of institutional delivery arrangements and interviews with staff drawn from a range of positions within the institutions studied are provided.

Developing better cross-sectoral policies

This study addressed the question of how the efficiency and effectiveness of dual-sector provision could be improved. Recommendations arising from the study include the following:

• development of a nationally coherent policy on lifelong learning. This could be structured around elements identified by the Oganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as being fundamental to the development of a tertiary system equipped to support students to make the transition from school to study and work
• funding of tertiary education by one level of government
• comparable reporting requirements across the two sectors
• consistent capital funding formulas across the sectors: this would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of dual-sector universities, and promote collaboration between the sectors within these universities
• a single award for higher education and TAFE teaching staff
• adequate funding for both sectors. This would promote collaboration as partners would not be locked in grim scrambles for market position, and overwhelmed by workloads that exclude attention being directed to matters such as cross-sectoral collaboration

Three issues were raised that merit further investigation and discussion. They arose through interviews undertaken for this study, and represent the views of several interviewees who have institution-wide responsibilities at their university. These respondents suggested that:

• The United States' community colleges should be examined as one possible model for adoption in Australia. This system, based on a two-plus-two model — two years in a community college and two years in a university — would establish the basis for lifelong learning by ensuring that students acquired the generic attributes needed as a foundation for lifelong learning. Students could then move on to university-level studies.
• Students should be assigned a universal student number which they would use in all tertiary education institutions and courses as a way of tracking student flows and outcomes across the sectors.
• A scheme that utilised the notion of a unit of currency of study credit and which enabled students to move freely across both systems should be established.

Indicators of effective cross-sectoral practices

This study asked respondents to suggest criteria they thought would be useful in identifying effective cross-sectoral practice. Responses were grouped as follows:

• student outcomes
• staff practices
• institutional practices
• system practices

Student outcomes

Criteria that could be used to establish indicators to measure student outcomes included:

• numbers of students progressing from one sector to the other
• retention and progression rates. These indicators need to be carefully constructed, as they must account for students moving from particular institutions as well as from sectors
• outcomes achieved upon graduation
• the extent to which students experienced seamlessness in the university in moving through pathways or awards drawing on both sectors. If students experienced differentiation or were required to independently access different points of the system then seamlessness did not exist
• student assessment of their experiences

Staff outcomes

Criteria that could be used to establish indicators to measure staff dimensions of cross-sectoral practice included:

• opportunities for staff to collaborate in developing courses, pathways, consultancies, and relevant research
• opportunities for staff to teach in the other sector
• the extent to which staff were offered, and participated in, cross-sectoral professional development. This was seen to be particularly important for two reasons: first, the practice of teaching was becoming more similar across the sectors; second, this was a key way in which staff could construct a shared culture across the institution

Institutional practices

Criteria that could be used to establish indicators of the scope and depth of cross-sectoral activity within dual-sector and between single-sector institutions included:

• the number and extent of dual-sector and nested awards
• the extent to which programs of study could be constructed for individual students and student cohorts which drew on offerings in both sectors in order to respond to learning needs or vocational or educational interests
• the number of students able to use learning pathways as a mechanism to enter a university, or to move from one area of a university to the other while already a student of that university
• the extent to which students were able to exit and enter courses at various points
• the extent to which collaborative frameworks were established which provided opportunities for staff from the two sectors to work together
• the extent to which services for students and staff were fully integrated
• the extent to which academic boards and boards of technical studies were able to work together

Systems practices

Criteria that could be used to establish indicators to measure the scope and depth of cross-sectoral activity across the system included:

• the extent to which cross-sectoral activity and development of pathways were included as performance indicators by the Commonwealth Government and State Governments
• the extent to which governments at both levels established regulatory and funding frameworks to support cross-sectoral activity
• the extent to which counting and data collection were made comparable across the VET and higher education sectors
• the extent to which there existed 'clearly defined, well organised, open and coherent learning pathways and qualification frameworks designed and developed in a lifelong learning perspective' (OECD 1988, p.12)
• the development of a national policy on lifelong learning
• the development of an infrastructure designed to underpin lifelong learning and the establishment, funding and maintenance of that framework

The need for a lifelong learning policy

The report argues that the development of a national policy on lifelong learning and the establishment of an infrastructure to underpin such a policy are key policy challenges confronting tertiary education in Australia if more effective cross-sectoral provision is to be achieved. We recommend that the following issues be addressed in the development of a national policy on lifelong learning in Australia:

• the construction of a coherent, transparent and easily accessible system, which allows students to meet their requirements from both sectors, and to re-enter education throughout their lives, building on what they have previously undertaken
• the development of mechanisms to support school-leavers in making the transition from secondary school to further study and work, drawing on expert advice and accessing high-level information
• the development of mechanisms to involve the current generation of adults in lifelong learning, with a particular focus on those not holding the foundation skills required to access further education and training
• the development of programs able to meet the needs of young people who do not successfully complete the transition to post-school education
• the development of a comprehensive and universally accessible mechanism for informing lifelong learning choices, particularly by those who have not already participated in tertiary education and therefore are not aware of the full range of choices of sectors, providers, courses and financing options

It will not be possible to address these issues adequately unless collaboration between the sectors is placed at the centre of policy development.

Obstacles to cross-sectoral collaboration

In the course of this research we identified a number of obstacles to cross-sectoral collaboration. Key problems identified included:

• lack of a coherent national lifelong learning policy
• two systems, accountable to, and funded by, different levels of government
• the different cultures of each sector: this was identified by all respondents as a major problem, if not the major problem. Suspicion between the sectors was said to exist within and between institutions, and at the national level between peak bodies
• competition in the vocational education and training (VET) sector: it was claimed by some respondents that this had forced technical and further education (TAFE) to offer degrees as a way of expanding their terrain. Respondents pointed out that if collaboration is to work, each party must be sensitive to the interests of the other. An additional concern expressed was that dual-sector institutions (and single-sector TAFE institutes) were at a disadvantage in competing with private providers in the VET sector who could deliver courses at minimum standards, without the infrastructure costs borne by the universities, and without the community service obligations
• competition for students, particularly in those areas where the demand for tertiary education was relatively modest. This constitutes a significant obstacle to cross-sectoral collaboration, even between partners who want to collaborate
• the tightly regulated profile negotiation process in TAFE: TAFE has very little capacity to move student contact hours around, and this removes the flexibility needed to collaborate with higher education
• incompatible assessment practices in each sector: a subset of this problem was that TAFE courses operating within a competency framework did not grade students. This proved a real disadvantage to TAFE students wishing to gain entry to higher education courses, as higher education was not able to select students with ungraded results in a competitive process
• the lack of an effective student system which could cope with enrolments over both sectors, and usually also in a multi-campus environment, a major obstacle to effective collaboration: the dual-sector universities are spending millions of dollars trying to develop a student system that can cope with the demands of both sectors

In the report we have attempted to illustrate how these obstacles are manifested 'on the ground' in a number of ways, including providing a fictional account of cross-sectoral course development at Twin Peaks University (see the chapter entitled 'Twin Peaks University').