Go8 submission on redesigning the higher education pathway

Psychology Board of Australia

The Group of Eight (Go8) educates one in five of Australia’s clinical psychology students, making us central to preparing the workforce the country relies on. The reforms proposed by the Psychology Board of Australia would dismantle the current range of pathways to registration and replace them with a single, untested model. This introduces a serious risk to the supply of graduates and would have broader consequences for the psychology workforce.

The Go8 urges the Board to engage in consultations with universities, the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Ageing and Disability to discuss our proposed alternative and the inherent risks and consequences of pursuing the currently proposed reforms.

Our alternative addresses the real issues identified by the Department of Health, Ageing and Disability that prompted these reforms while avoiding the negative impacts caused by the Board’s proposed reforms. We propose a five-year pathway (three-year undergraduate and two-year postgraduate) that will deliver qualified psychology graduates ready for registration (rather than shifting costs and bottlenecks around the system) and retain vital links between clinical practice and research.

By bringing together universities (with their pedagogical expertise and experience providing educational and pastoral support) and the responsible government departments (with their understanding of the funding and mechanics of the higher education and health systems), we can develop a viable, practical and cost effective solution that meets the needs of students and psychologists in training and the wider health system.

The Go8 also directs the Board to the separate submission from the Heads of Psychology Schools across the Go8 universities – it provides further weight to our alternative proposal.

Recommendation

The Go8 recommends that the Board and the Department of Health, Ageing and Disability work directly with universities and the Department of Education to develop and implement our alternative proposal for a five-year program for registration with the aims of:

Providing a shorter pathway to registration that still maintains the flexibility of current pathways
Maintaining diverse and accessible pathways that benefit under-represented student cohorts
Bringing forward opportunities for more practice-based learning and experiences
Providing students with appropriate points of recognition and articulation that enable entry into the workforce, support their choices and enable them to explore alternative pathways
Ensuring these reforms are financially and practically viable and maintain continuity in the supply of graduates.

Further information

Our alternative five-year program (three-year undergraduate AQF Level 8 with an increased focus on practice-based learning and assessment and two-year postgraduate AQF Level 9) program would:

Meet the requirements for a shorter pathway with earlier opportunities for practice-based education
Retain AQF Level 9 for general registration consistent with international standards for psychology
Provide an opportunity for Honours‑equivalent recognition to support entry into PhD pathways
Preserve multiple, flexible entry and articulation points, including postgraduate entry and recognition of prior learning
Maintain accredited psychology pathways within broader degrees
Maintain links and ways to articulate between professional/clinical and research pathways

Key issues with current proposal:

Access and equity for students who have experienced disadvantage is at significant risk (contrary to the aims of the reforms) as these students typically benefit from a diverse range of entry points (including pathways from generalist degrees) rather than single, inflexible pathways
A single pathway would place severe limits on the number of available places and require a high stakes admissions process likely to be dominated by school leavers with an ATAR – this would strongly preference applicants with proven educational attainment and decrease the diversity and lived experiences of the psychology graduates
Key limits on the supply of graduate psychologists – such as availability of clinical placements and suitably qualified external supervisors – are not adequately addressed and are potentially exacerbated by increased demands for these opportunities
Entrenches resource-intensive practice-based education and assessment at a large scale in an undergraduate program without anticipating the cost of restructuring programs and ongoing costs of this kind of delivery
Extensive timeframes to transition university staff and teach out current programs would be required in addition to the expense and time required to design and implement new programs (for both accredited and non-accredited pathways) have not been considered, costed or funded
Lowering the level of registration from AQF Level 9 to Level 8 would be contrary to the trends for other health and medical professions in Australia and trends for psychologists internationally
Viability of separate accredited and non-accredited pathways (which would require maintaining two separate programs/cohorts) is not considered, especially for smaller universities, which may mean some universities opt against offering both pathways
Psychology as a broader field/discipline is disadvantaged – reforms would harm research-practice nexus, researcher pipeline and researcher-clinician models stifling the further development of theory and practice
Prescriptive and singular model potentially stifles pedagogical and practical innovation, diversity, and ability to meet the needs of local communities
Insufficient rationale and evidence to support the development of a pathway to psychology assistant – further work is needed to scope this role and establish a viable demand for this pathway

In addition to supporting our proposal for a five-year program, the Government can address persistent constraints on workforce growth by:

Expanding and funding placements and practice-based learning and assessment
Investing in supervisory workforce capability and capacity
Improving funding arrangements for postgraduate professional training

We are concerned that there are several statements in the consultation paper that indicate further consultation is needed with universities and the Department of Education to understand the how universities operate with in the higher education funding system. In particular (excerpts from the consultation paper in italics):

“Reduced duration of training and the removal of non-psychology (elective) subjects means that psychology training is more affordable and CSP funding is the same for every student.”
With a Commonwealth Supported Place and/or access to a HELP loan, any immediate financial difficulties or disadvantages are alleviated and differences in cost would be marginal (particularly in the context of expected lifetime graduate earnings). This also does not account for total resourcing (Commonwealth plus student contribution) provided to universities. There is no indication that this is a primary concern for students.
“The creation of a single pathway and the removal of multiple selection and assessment points increase accessibility to psychology education and reduce structural barriers to progression through the pathway, which can disproportionality disadvantage minority groups. This means increased retention, certainty and likelihood of students from minority groups attaining general registration, with attrition at key entry points reduced.”
Students benefit for a diverse range of entry points and pathways – indeed, students from under-represented cohorts often choose generalist degrees as their entry point to university as way of building their experience of university studies before going on to more professionally oriented programs. Even with a single pathway, students would still need to maintain academic standards to ensure their progression from year to year. There are more direct ways that students can be supported including through Commonwealth Prac Payments, scholarships and relocation allowances.
“Increased availability of Commonwealth Support Place (CSP) places. An undergraduate degree provides increased access to students who are eligible for a CSP. The number of postgraduate CSP places are capped by the Commonwealth with degree allocations determined by each higher education provider.”Postgraduate CSPs are no longer designated as they were under the previous demand-driven system. There is no guarantee that more CSPs will be offered across the system for the proposed five-year pathway due to higher costs of practice-based delivery and smaller cohorts due to the separation of the non-accredited pathway. If the number of supported postgraduate places is a concern, there are other directs ways of alleviating financial pressures on students and universities.

Conclusion

The Go8 recognises the importance of building a stronger pipeline of capable psychologists and welcomes the initiative to examine and reform the pathways, particularly with the aim of increasing access for students who have experienced disadvantage. Any reforms will need to preserve the strengths of existing pathways, recognise the significant bottlenecks in practice-based education and clinical training, support the broader field of psychology and the clinical-research nexus, and provide viable and accessible opportunities for prospective students.

The Board will need to work closely with universities to understand and address pedagogical and practical concerns with implementation and how the funding structures with higher education work. The Go8 invites the Board to work collaboratively with our universities, the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Ageing and Disability to design, implement and appropriately fund these reforms.

By working together, we can develop a viable, practical and cost-effective solution that meets the needs of students and psychologists in training and the wider health system.

news