By Rob Miller
While the technical and further education system has always tried to meet the skill needs of industry, it has balanced this role with a commitment to the social and educational needs of the wider community. In the past few years, however, the dual focus of TAFE has come under attack. Governments of both persuasions have introduced policies which are steadily privatising TAFE and changing its focus.
So far privatisation has taken the form of forcing publicly funded TAFE colleges to act as if they were profit-making corporations — a process of corporatisation, rather than selling them off completely.
The corporatisation of TAFE is underpinned by economic rationalist theory. Two of the central tenets of this theory are: private enterprise is always more efficient and provides better service than government-run enterprises; the most efficient way to produce goods or services is to have a number of different suppliers competing to sell them in the market.
It follows that government expenditure on education and training should be reduced to a minimum and that the private sector should provide as much education as possible in a competitive market.
However, this is not enough to ensure that TAFE views the needs of private industry as primary. It is also necessary to eradicate the idea that TAFE should serve the needs of the whole community.
Economic rationalism regards society as merely a collection of individuals who compete economically with each other. Education is seen as a commodity which individuals will buy because it can increase their employability and earning capacity.
As well as making education a potentially profitable line of business, this view also underpins the "user pays" argument. According to the logic of user pays, because education increases the earning capacity of individuals, individuals should pay for it. The designation of individuals, rather than the companies which employ them, as the main beneficiaries relieves employers of paying for the education and training which is necessary for them to make profits.
The theory completely ignores the fact that not everyone undertakes education and training to increase their earning capacity and that not all courses guarantee graduates a higher income or even employment.
There is no point in producing "educational commodities" for people who cant afford to buy them, no matter how socially necessary and valuable those courses may be. Conversely, this approach justifies the development of courses which have little educational value but which give people a credential which will increase their earning capacity.
If the only purpose for undertaking education and training is to increase one's chances of gaining employment, then the educational and training needs of individuals are identical to the skills needed by employers. This reinforces the idea that the main purpose of education and training is to serve private industry.
From students to clients
This shift in focus is reflected in the language used by TAFE management. The management of colleges often talk about meeting the needs of their "clients", but it is clear that students are not who they have in mind. The replacement of "students" by "clients" is not simply a change in terminology. It represents the eradication of student needs as a primary concern.
The main clients of TAFE are now private employers who require skills which a TAFE college can produce. In this view, TAFE colleges are basically factories that produce a range of skills.
This approach treats students as raw materials which the education factory processes into skill packages through a process of "value adding"; the qualifications issued are a label which tells employers what's in the package. The most efficient way of producing the required number of skill packages at the lowest cost is to minimise the cost of training each student.
However, not all enrolling students have the same level of knowledge or access to private resources such as textbooks and computers, and some have special needs. In the context of this system, students with less foundation knowledge and resources, or those with special needs, are defective raw materials. Extra time and money must be spent to bring them up to the standard of other raw material. It is more "cost effective" simply to reject these students outright.
Of course, it is not politically acceptable to run the whole education system on this basis. There will continue to be some consideration given to access and equity issues, but this has become increasingly token and not a central concern.
Training market
State governments have deliberately cut funding to colleges, forcing them to raise more of their funds through fee-for-service courses. This has led to many colleges setting annual income targets for each department, which they must raise by competing in the market.
The budget of departments usually assumes they will reach these targets. If they do not, therefore, they suffer a "self-inflicted" budget cut.
This means that each department must raise the required amount in order to maintain the standard of its state-funded courses, for which students pay a maximum tuition fee of $500, rather than full fees of up to $8000.
There is very little left to cut after years of reduced funding. Further reductions mean cutting back on essentials such as materials, equipment, facilities and support services, and further attacking teachers' wages and conditions by increasing class sizes and giving them less time for curriculum research and development.
Fee-for-service commercial activities also change the nature of the state-funded courses that can be offered. The more compatible a department's fee-for-service courses are with the state funded courses, the more effectively costs can be shared between them.
While state funding for certain courses is guaranteed, it is also inadequate. The starting point for colleges in deciding which courses to maintain or develop therefore becomes which fee-for-service courses it can best sell in the market. This up a process whereby only those state-funded courses which are compatible with fee-for-services courses will be adequately funded and resourced.
In such a commercial atmosphere, state-funded students become second class educational citizens. This is particularly true of departments which fail to make up the shortfall in government funding through fee-for-service courses. State-funded students suffer the worst effects of cutbacks; cutting back resources to fee-for-service courses risks loss of market share to competitors and further damaging of the department's financial position.
This situation has led to an attitude among some teaching staff that because state-funded students are not paying the full cost of their education, they don't deserve the full service.
In some cases, this has manifested itself in discrimination between individual students, with teachers checking to see which students had paid fees and refusing to teach those who hadn't. There have also been cases of teachers singling out "dole bludgers" in their classes because they have been given fee concessions or exemptions.
Access and equity
The worst consequences are often felt most by students from disadvantaged groups. At one large metropolitan TAFE college, the student union received many complaints of racist attitudes amongst teachers in a particular course. At a meeting to discuss the problems, the teaching staff explained that they were not being racist, but that these students had "cultural difficulties" which made it hard for them to complete the course.
These teachers had in effect set a cultural prerequisite for the course and were not willing to modify their teaching style to assist students who were not young Anglo-Celtic males.
While the attitude of these teachers is by no means indicative of the attitude of TAFE teachers in general, this is not just a case of racism on the part of these teachers. This type of attitude is not only tolerated but encouraged by the "education factory" approach, which regards students with special needs as an extra cost to the system.
The view that access and equity are too expensive and inefficient is clearly reflected in documents produced by the management of some TAFE colleges. One example is the RMIT TAFE Educational Profile 1994-1996. Under the heading" Labour Market Programs", the report notes:
"Opportunities may be available to increase the provision of [labour market] programs. However, it is possible that such an approach will bring increasing demands on a range of RMIT support services. Similarly these funds may not be available in the longer term. RMIT TAFE will need to consider its longer term approach to ensuring it meets its access and equity commitments."
The clear inference is that students with special needs place too many demands on support services and, therefore, it is not desirable to offer the type of courses which may attract such students.
Unless the tide of corporatisation and commercialism can be turned, TAFE will lose sight altogether of its educational role and social obligations.
[Rob Miller is research/information officer — TAFE, RMIT student union.]