The real issues behind HECS in TAFE

by Pat Forward

The debate over HECS in TAFE represents a significant shift in the 
discourse, which underpins the vocational educational and training system. 
The debate — which also surrounded the introduction of HECS at university 
— reveals further intrusion of the disclosure of the marketplace into 
education generally and particularly into vocational education.

If we are to believe the government, the issue is one of equity. The 
report, Varieties of Learning — The Interface between Higher Education 
and Vocational Education Training says, in its foreword: "Students who 
start their course in TAFE and complete it at university can pay 
substantially less for their degree".

It questions the "fairness" or equity of this situation. In analysing the 
document, Michael Long and Gerald Burke(1) suggest the paper's 
message is clear: students "should not be able to sneak through the back 
door of a university without paying the admission charge".

The ALP also uses the equity argument, but from a slightly different 
perspective. It argues that rising, up-front fees have grown so much in 
TAFE over the last few years, that they are acting as a disincentive for 
students to study at TAFE.

Students simply cannot afford to attend. Thus it follows that by not 
"allowing" TAFE to have a HECS equivalent, we are disadvantaging TAFE 
students.

These arguments are both fundamentally flawed. Initially, however, I think 
it is important to make the point that both have similar origins, and this 
begs further questions.

How is it that the only options emerging from major political parties hinge 
effectively on passing the costs of education on to the student?

The notion that education, and particularly vocational education, is for 
the individual good — rather than having any connection at all with 
broader societal goals such as democratic citizenship — has emerged as the 
dominant theme in recent debates about the costs of education.

How is it that a whole generation which itself flowered in the halcyon days 
of free university and Commonwealth scholarships is now seeking to visit on 
future generations sometimes impossible debt, and an impoverished life as a 
student?

And how, most interestingly, is all this sold under the rhetoric of 
lifelong learning, or the incentive to individuals "providing Australia 
with the highly skilled, highly flexible workforce it needs to be 
internationally competitive"(2)?

There's been a shift in the meaning of lifelong learning over the last few 
years, which has led to an apparent convergence between the two major 
political parties over the funding of education in the post compulsory 
years.

Whereas in the '70s there developed an enthusiasm for the notion of 
lifelong learning as a solution to world problems this has shifted "to a 
more pragmatic, some would say cynical approach to attending global 
issues".(3)

This has been accompanied by what has been described as the "marketisation 
of learning".

Convergence of major parties

The real difficulty for the TAFE community is that both sides of the so-
called political divide have accepted the logic of globalisation — there 
is little between them.

Their argument, which might differ in small ways over the amount of funding 
that should go to public education, is really this: because it is the 
individual who ultimately benefits from education, it is the individual who 
should pay.

This is necessary, goes the argument, if Australia is to be globally 
competitive, it the 'highly skilled, highly flexible workforce it needs 
(is) to be internationally competitive'.

But there are other "what if" question's we may not ask; we must not ask 
about the real impact of the mad rush to be globally competitive. We can't 
ask, What if there is no longer enough work to go around?

If there isn't (enough work) whose responsibility is it? In ignoring these 
"what ifs", accept the rhetoric, and join the mad scramble to the new 
society, then issues like HECS — anywhere in education — have a beautiful 
logic. It is in fact only fair.

There's little doubt that costs to individual students have grown in the 
past few years. There is little data or evidence on how much they have 
risen: these costs vary from state to state and sometimes from TAFE to 
TAFE. In some cases they do appear to act as a disincentive to potential 
TAFE students.

This has been caused by the failure of the Federal Government and by the 
approach of a number of state governments to meet its obligation to fund 
growth in the system over the past few years, and by the approach of a 
number of state governments to funding of their systems.

The crisis of underfunding has been passed on to students, and the 
arguments about increasing the individual's contribution to the cost is 
wheeled in after the event to solve the much vexed problem of governments' 
responsibilities in funding the public VET (vocational education and 
training) system.

Either way, whether it's arguments about the unfairness of those TAFE 
students sneaking in the back door, or arguments about the unfairness of 
rising costs, the real debate underpinning the arguments about HECS in TAFE 
goes to the issue of the respective roles of the individual and of 
government on behalf of society in the education system.

We would be well advised to tackle the debate at this level, and to look at 
what is occurring in other countries in relation to these issues.

Few of us deny the reality of globalisation. Even fewer accept that as 
international citizens, we all want what is best for our children and our 
citizens in the global economy.

If we want to support the concept of lifelong learning rather than lifelong 
training, if "support for lifelong learning, is not to lead to a more 
democratic and egalitarian world, but rather to situate individuals, groups 
and even nation states to gain a competitive advantage" then now is the 
time to draw the line on the extension of HECS.

We have a generation in Australia, some of whom will not have work, and we 
have real issues about economic and social divides. Imposing further costs, 
in the form of deferred debt, on individuals will do nothing to address 
issues of social inequality.

In New Zealand, a decade of high levels of student loans led to the 
situation where a generation was leaving the country to avoid having to pay 
back their student loans.

The real debate which all levels of government, and all sides of politics 
should be engaged in is the role of public education in society, and its 
capacity to genuinely address these issues. And from this, the preparedness 
of society, through government, to properly fund education.

* * *

*HECS is a form of loan forwarded by the government to cover fees, which 
the student repays when in the workforce. It is used in the university 
sector, and the government is considering its introduction to TAFE.

1. Long, M and Burke, G HECS and VECS: Reflections on a Student Loans 
Scheme for VET, a paper presented at sixth National Conference of DEET .

2. Jenny Macklin in a speech to the BCA : Investing in Lifelong 
Learning

3. Gouthro, Patricia A Education for Sale: at What Cost? Lifelong 
Learning and the Marketplace, p.336 in Int Journal of Lifelong 
Education, Vol 21, No 4 (July August 2002).

[From The AEU News]