Australian Technical Colleges — the danger within

Federation activists can't afford to be complacent about Australian Technical Colleges, writes WENDY CURRIE.

In the lead up to the federal election, amid news of a skill shortage, Prime Minister John Howard announced the establishment of Australian Technical Colleges. This was immediately attacked as a short sighted, "policy on the run" announcement.

Federation activists can't afford to be complacent about them. There is more to them than meets the eye and public education advocates mustn't underestimate the Federal Government.

What is the context surrounding their establishment in the federal arena?

There are the proposed legislative changes to national industrial relations.

There have been federal funding cuts to public education and even greater cuts to TAFE funding. There has been a long term failure to invest in skill development, and to develop appropriate policy that will take Australia into the future.

Some areas that have historically been accepted as government responsibilities, such as welfare provision and job search, have been deregulated or contracted out.

There will be an estimated $10 billion federal surplus this year that will most likely be used to fund tax cuts to the already well off.

And there is a skill shortage that the Federal Government, having made no provision for it during its time in office, now proposes to address via huge increases in skilled migration and the Australian Technical Colleges.

There is a clear attempt to deregulate the national training system. The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) has been abolished and its functions are being taken over by the federal Department of Education Science and Training (DEST).

The influence of the peak industry bodies, such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) and the Business Council of Australia (BCA) over the Howard Government is increasing.

Employability skills (you may remember that they include "a sense of humour"), developed by ACCI and the BCA have gained Federal Government approval and moves are afoot to incorporate them, not only into vocational education and training (VET) courses but into the general school curriculum, including assessing them and reporting on them.

So what we're facing is imminent deregulation of the national training system, coupled with increasing micro-management of both school and post school education and training from the national level. And the biggest influence on events is coming from industry to the extent that their perceived needs overwhelm any other of the purposes of schooling.

The proposed changes weaken the influence of unions in the training system.

There's also a push toward enterprise specific rather than industry wide qualifications and standards.

What do we know about these colleges?

Eight of them are to be located in NSW: in the Hunter, the Illawarra, Queanbeyan, Port Macquarie, Lismore/Ballina, Dubbo, Gosford and western Sydney.

They will enrol a total of 7200 "capable and committed" students. Clearly, they won't take students at risk. In fact, they will be selective.

Students will be enrolled in School-Based Apprenticeships as well as gaining employability, entrepreneurial and business skills, and will undertake academic, information technology and business courses, and will gain the HSC. That this would be a burdensome task for any student will not be lost on teachers, but seems to be lost on politicians.

Local industry and community will have a leadership role in their governance, and they'll teach skills that match those required by local businesses. This is where there is a real danger that courses will become enterprise rather than industry specific, resulting in young people gaining qualifications that cannot be generalised across the industry.

Their training facilities and instruction will be linked to workplace requirements. This is already the case in NSW.

They may be supported by government or non government education authorities. They may be based on existing schools, registered training organisations, TAFE, or university infrastructure. They will, therefore, duplicate existing provision.

They'll use flexible delivery arrangements and timetables. So not only will they duplicate existing provision, they'll also undermine existing working conditions.

They'll be run autonomously by principals who can hire their own staff on performance pay, and offer Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs).

To meet the current skills shortage, they're confined to five industry areas, all traditionally male preserves: metals and engineering, automotive, building and construction, electro technology and commercial cookery.

Each college will have 300 students. This could prove interesting. In each region you might find, in a few years, 300 motor mechanics, or 300 refrigeration mechanics, no doubt a useful addition to the local workforce. In the Pilbarra, for example, where one college is to be established, 300 extra air conditioning mechanics might be a real boon. And no doubt these regions will have no trouble coming up with 300 employers who might suddenly think that taking on a couple of apprentices might be a novel idea.

They'll have to be registered with the relevant state authorities, for example, in NSW, to offer the HSC.

According to the Federal Government, they'll also ensure that students keep their options open for higher education. That means they'll need to offer a curriculum that qualifies students for a UAI. Right now in NSW, only one vocational education and training subject can be counted for a UAI, so it's possible that not one of the college's students might be eligible for a UAI. It's not the NSW Government nor the Board of Studies that determines what criteria are used for the UAI. It's the universities and they're most unlikely to change the current conditions. The Federal Government is being disingenuous here -- they're really not interested in whether these students' options remain open.

What, then, are the real issues?

Funding arrangements may well determine whether these are private schools or, to all intents and purposes, public institutions. $289 million has been earmarked between 2005 and 2008. That amount of money would be better spent on public schools and TAFE colleges, where it would be most welcome, but it won't go far towards establishing 24 colleges unless they can charge fees. After much contradictory rhetoric from ministers and the Prime Minister it transpires that they will not be able to charge fees other than those non compulsory fees public schools currently charge. Since they must be non profit organisations that will attract additional federal funding at the current per capita rate, which would be more if they were private than public; they will need another source of income.

The Federal Government wants the states to contribute and if they do, the level of state funding would be on the basis of whether they are public or private schools.

The NSW Government's initial reaction was not opposition. Indeed, if they were private schools, then the State Government's funding obligation would be less and that's most likely to be the option they would choose.

So, if they happen in NSW, they will most likely be private schools with a vast amount of public funding; indeed all public funding if they can't charge fees; and this would be outrageous.

How would this happen if they will only be attracting the tendering money and some federal funds? Is it the Federal Government's intention for the State Government to fund the rest, which would mean much higher funding from the state than is currently given to private schools? And if this is the case would they not then really be public schools?

In Victoria, the Bracks Government has rejected them outright and has said that Victoria will not have any Australian Technical Colleges. This paves the way for other states to follow suit. Because of the need for state funding and registration, NSW can say no.

One of the biggest issues with the colleges is the duplication of resources. As federal funding for TAFE results in thousands of students being turned away, alternative public provision is to be offered in these colleges -- virtually a privatisation of public education and training.

But the real attack is on public schools. The colleges will draw their students from the local public schools whose numbers will be so diminished that they will not be able to offer a full curriculum to their remaining students. Some of the consortiums that expressed interest by the cut off date of February 18 intend to outsource some of the subjects. Some plan to be virtual colleges. Reports vary depending on the locality but most involve a consortium that includes variations on local industry, and local industry bodies, such as Chambers of Commerce, TAFE institutes, both public and private schools, and in some cases state governments. But whatever their arrangements there is no doubt that they will affect enrolments in the local schools.

One example, albeit not from NSW but a telling one nonetheless, involves the PiIbarra, where there are currently 500 senior students in local public high schools. If 300 of them move to the college proposed for that region, there'll only be 200 students left across all the schools.

The Federal Minister, Gary Hardgrave, has been doing the rounds of the designated regions drumming up business. They haven't had the interest they expected, but still received more than 100 expressions of interest. What will now be crucial is how many consortiums actually tender for the colleges, who their members are, what their intentions are for delivering on the colleges and, most importantly, how the states respond.

Interestingly, the enthusiasm from local business has been anything but overwhelming.

Federation doesn't yet know what the tender documents will look like, or how many consortiums will tender. The union does know that the tender process amounts to contracting out of public education to non-profit organisations. Far fetched that might seem, but reminiscent of what happened not so long ago to the Commonwealth Employment Service. And we know what the results of that have been.

Concerning on a number of fronts

Wendy Currie is a Research Officer.

Carr congratulated and challenged

Unions campaign together for employees' rights

Howard's ideological obsession aims at attacking workers

For further information

March 2005 contents