By Claire Field

If there was a qualification for herding cats the Australian Qualification Framework reviewers and education peak body CEOs could apply for recognition of prior learning

Having just read 75 of the submissions to the AQF Review (those from providers, education peak bodies, peak business groups, and governments/government agencies) I am truly thankful I am not the one who has to find a consensus position.

For example, Universities Australia does not support the inclusion of short courses into the AQF, despite half the university submissions supporting the proposal (to a greater or lesser extent) and Swinburne University having their own credentialing framework, which includes short courses.

Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia and Independent Higher Education Australia argue for clarity at AQF Level Eight. Meanwhile, Navitas questions the rationale for registered training organisations being able to deliver Level Eight qualifications, while private registered training organisation, Institute of Quality Asset Management, argues the AQF is anti-competitive because it prevents RTOs from delivering at Levels Seven, Nine and Ten.

If those examples seem tricky, how about the issue of whether or not the AQF’s hierarchy implies a status hierarchy between VET and higher education? This was an issue raised in a number of VET sector submissions. Meanwhile Sydney College of Divinity (a HEP) describes such claims as “politically correct ideology at work.”

If you want more there’s a fuller analysis on my website.

Claire Field analyses VET and international education.