The devil is in the detail

Is there another agenda in the Jobs-ready Graduates package?

Terri MacDonald, Policy & Research Officer

When the exposure draft of the Morrison Government’s Jobsready Graduates package was released a few weeks ago, there was much to digest in a very short timeframe. While the headline issues included the Government cutting overall funding per student (by around 15%) and the unbalanced and unfair revisions to the HECS-HELP bands would result in a far larger proportion of students (over 40% compared to about 25% currently) paying the highest student fees, closer examination of the package's fine print reveals a number of hidden details that are both puzzling and concerning.

PUZZLE OVER VET PROTECTIONS

One of these seemingly incongruous additions is around a number of ‘student protection provisions’, which appear at first glance to be an extension of the VET FEE-HELP protections that were put in place following the disastrous rorting that occurred when the VET sector was deregulated and opened up to private for profit providers.

Their inclusion in the Jobs-ready Graduates bill, however, has left many baffled, as these may either not be relevant to universities, or are requiring universities to act where they already have established policy and processes.

Were these measures required or appropriate, their inclusion could be justified. But many are not, and some are even unenforceable.

CUTTING STUDENT SUPPORT

The provision that has garnered most attention is around prohibiting universities from enrolling a student in a Commonwealth supported place and accessing a Commonwealth supported student loan (HECS-HELP) if:

• In a bachelor degree or higher qualification, the student has undertaken eight or more units and not successfully completed at least 50% of them.

• In any other case, the student has undertaken four or more units and not successfully completed at least 50% of them.

The reason given is to prevent students from remaining enrolled if they have more than a 50% failure rate resulting in students needlessly incurring HELP debts and failures on their academic record. The policy reason given is that it is about ‘managing risk’; and on the face of it this sounds reasonable– students that are not engaged in their studies may be doing themselves a disservice and incurring significant debt by remaining enrolled.

However, the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 already requires universities to have processes that identify students at risk of unsatisfactory progress and provide support to these students. As a result, all universities have policies concerning academic progression aimed at ensuring students who are unable to complete a course do not continue to enrol (usually through a ‘show cause’ process).

Yet, unlike the Jobs-ready Graduates legislation which has a very limited list of exemptions, the university processes take into account the circumstances of the student and refer students who want to continue to programs and support mechanisms that will assist in their progression through their course, irrespective of their educational background, entry pathway or place of study.

The university experience is not always straight forward or smooth running; life events can easily derail the most dedicated of students. As a given, students who continue to meet a university’s academic progression requirements should remain eligible for Commonwealth support and HELP loans.

But the Jobs-ready Graduates legislation would effectively deny many of these students from completing their studies, especially where there is no full fee paying option available.

HIGHER COSTS TO UNIVERSITIES

This is not the only concern with the student ‘protections’ in the proposed legislation though. The universities have expressed concern that the additional measures will require further administrative costs at a time where the sector is already under severe financial stress. Were these measures required or appropriate, their inclusion could be justified. But many are not, and some are even unenforceable.

One notable example is a requirement that universities assess the academic suitability of a student to undertake a unit of study before enrolling them. While universities currently assess a student’s capacity for admission to a course, this is not done at unit level outside of set pre-requisites where these apply (usually when specific knowledge is required).

Instead, the current approach of academic progression and support where needed is a preferable way of ensuring students continue to be academically suited to their studies. However, the Jobs-ready Graduates package ignores this, and instead opts for an impractical framework that cannot be effectively monitored or enforced by regulators.

PREPARATION FOR PRIVATISATION

It is interesting that these ‘student protections’ are being applied now, particularly when previously the Government indicated that the integrity provisions developed for the VET sector would not apply to universities. Clearly, this position has changed – and the question as to why must be asked. These measures appear to be addressing issues that either do not exist in higher education, or are minimal at best. Furthermore, universities were not advised that these provisions would be included as part of the Jobs-ready Graduates legislation, and there was no consultation undertaken with the sector.

Which leads to the question, who are these provisions really intended for? While there are a wide range of civil penalties included in these provisions and universities would certainly be required to adhere to them, it may be that the real purpose of setting up these regulatory requirements (which considerably extend the Minister’s power) is to establish the framework needed to ensure integrity in the system should it be opened up completely to private, for profit higher education providers.

Indeed, given that these provisions were put in place for the deregulated VET sector, it would make perfect sense to apply them in a deregulated higher education sector, where private providers are given free reign – and public funding – to operate as ‘universities’.

... to establish the framework needed to ensure integrity in the system should it be opened up completely to private, for profit higher education providers.