I'm currently completing my Advanced Diploma in Marketing at RMIT in Melbourne. This past semester gone my fees were $979 for the semester,  after a $170 carry-over from the previous year, as I had been overcharged. Therefore, my fees totalled $1,149 - $200 more expensive than last year.

In addition to the increased cost of a TAFE education the discount provided to those students with a healthcare card was abolished. This meant that the students, like myself, that were recognised by the government as needing financial support were no longer able to receive a discount on their TAFE fees.

I have enrolled in this course as an ulterior path to get into university, which is a common path students take. University students have the option of having a commonwealth funded place in order to undertake their studies. However, there is no such system for TAFE students. I believe my education is just as important and valid as those going straight into a university course, and I find it unfair that we should not gain equivalent support that university students have access to.

Although I understand that there is a significant difference in the cost of a university education as opposed to TAFE, I still feel that expecting full-time TAFE students - in my situation studying 22 hours a week - to fund their education as well as their basic lifestyle to be unreasonable.

If you're on the TAFE4All website it's because you care about equal and fair access to public education – for ALL.

The Australian Education Union is holding three public forums to highlight public education as a crucial issue in the federal election.

Each forum will be addressed by AEU Federal President Angelo Gavrielatos and candidates from the Labor, Liberal and Green parties. There will also be time for Q&A.

The forums are open to all members of the community and children are welcome. Forums run from 4.30–6.00pm.

• August 3: Ringwood Secondary College, Bedford Road, Ringwood. For more information or to RSVP contact Julie Lynch at julie.lynch@aeuvic.asn.au  or on (03) 9417 2822.

• August 4: Grovedale Primary School Multi-Purpose Room, 143 Bailey St, Grovedale. RSVP by July 30 to Denise Civelli at denise.civelli@aeuvic.asn.au or on (03) 5222 6633.

• August 5: The Lakes South Morang P-9 School, Administration Building, 80 Jardier Terrace, South Morang. RSVP by July 30 to Ann Dettenberg at ann.dettenberg@aeuvic.asn.au or on (03) 9417 2822.

The AEU's Public Education Campaign is based on one fact: public schools have a vital role in ensuring every child gets a high quality education.

But they are under-resourced. Teachers and parents are joining together to convince the Federal Government to invest more in our public schools.

I am a secondary teacher at public school in outer eastern Melbourne. Many of the students at my school are not from wealthy backgrounds, and our school offers a number of VET-based courses as part of its senior school subjects.

I worry that our students are undertaking a subject such as VET Music or VET IT as a sixth subject at VCE without understanding how this might affect them in the future. If after they are 20 years old they decide they need to undertake vocationally orientated education, they will face a massively increased level of fees due to the fact they already have a Certificate 1 or 2 level qualification after doing the VET subjects back in high school.

The government has made virtually no effort to educate staff or students about the impacts of these changes and instead has sought to cover up or play down the impact this will have on the future options of students, particularly those from poorer backgrounds.

On a secondary note, I am personally affected by these changes. If I wanted to get my Certificate 4 in Training and Assessment to allow me to teach outside of schools, I would now face fees of thousands of dollars. This is a path many teachers have taken before me which I am now unlikely to pursue. This is a Certificate that I am meant to obtain if I teach VET subjects at school.

I believe that the impact of the TAFE changes has been ill thought through in relation to effects on both the teaching and the undertaking of VET subjects in secondary schools.

I also believe that the changes are very ill-advised in that they undermine our proud record of publicly funded TAFEs in Victoria.

I enrolled for a Diploma of Community Welfare and was told that the course would cost me around $200.

After finally getting the invoice, I was informed that I would have to pay around $13,000 per year.

I was lucky enough to receive the government discount with having no previous education; however, I was still left with $2,148 to pay within days when I was of the knowledge that I would only have to pay $200.

I am a single mother looking to be educated so that I can return to work with qualifications and improve my current status for the benefit of me, my children and the government - ie by getting off welfare! I am now in debt and not eligible for VET FEE help either.

I am doing all I can to reskill and gain employment, however I do not have a disposable income and I am going to struggle to find the money for my second year. Please reverse this hike in fees and make TAFE accessible! – to all and especially us single mothers who are raising our children on fresh air.

I'm very concerned about the increase in students deferring after Year 12 because they need to work to survive to pay for their education and mounting HECS debt. Non completion is a real issue young people are facing under this system.

When did education become a privilege in this country rather than a democratic right under the constitution?

The most impact for schools and TAFEs is that, on the one hand we have a federal government policy under COAG and the National Youth Attainment and Transition programs to keep young people engaged and connected with training. Yet we have a State Government policy that is encouraging exactly the opposite. These are mixed messages – let's get it right.

Who decided that career planning was a linear progression? This is not the case and never has been!

We now have a situation where we counsel youth to stay at school until year 12, then find training in one area only, then pay full fees for further training if your skill sets don't quite match what your employer needs – if you are lucky enough to find full time ongoing employment with your one certifcate. Under this policy choice comes at a high price: the future career development of our youth, their futures and ultimately all our futures.

This policy makes a mockery of the COAG agenda and forces the most vulnerable people into impossible study and training choices, without support.

My name is Oliver Scott and I am studying Marketing at RMIT (City Campus). I am 23 years old and live with two of my four brothers in Chadstone.

After successfully completing an advanced diploma in sound and audio engineering I was not satisfied that audio engineering was the direction I wanted to head in life, so I began looking for another course to study something completely different. I had the choice between university and TAFE but chose TAFE for numerous reasons – the most important was the cost! Being an independent student, living out of home, paying rent and relying on my Youth Allowance of $450 a fortnight, the cheapest option was going to be the most viable one. My first and second semesters' fees were $50 as I had a healthcare card and was therefore eligible for government help.

Everything was looking good until the Government decided to change its laws and I received a $1200 invoice for 2nd year, Semester 1. This came as quite a shock to me so I did not have sufficient time to manage my finances in order to put money aside each fortnight to pay for it. It put me under a lot of stress and worry, so much that I almost dropped out.

I had to get a credit card so that I could pay the outstanding amount because I would not be allowed to start the next semester until all outstanding debts had been paid. I now have the added stress of trying to squeeze money from my budget to pay my credit card off. I felt there was insufficient warning about the changes the Government was going to make and I don't understand why they made them.

At my high school we are considering advising students to lower their sights, and take a Certificate 3 or 4 course so they don't burden themselves with debt later on.

We advise over 750 VCE students per year and we have not had all the TAFE changes fully explained to us. There are negative effects on the students and their pathways as we cannot properly advise them.

It is very hard for young people at that age to make decisions like that; many of them don't really know what they want to do in life and VET courses are a way of trying options out.

The advice we are giving students about their choices – given that for many the decision to pursue VET at Diploma level is now a once-only choice – is critical. If they change their minds they will have to pay full fees for the second bite of the cherry.

Turning TAFE into a money-making venture makes it cut-throat and reduces what we are willing to give to students. Because we now have to think about the bottom line, we actually start thinking about what we can take away from the students and considering what corners can be cut.

The TAFE changes mean that our TAFE has brought in more middle managers and then cut sector coordinator and teaching positions.

Our TAFE program has made money yearly, but because it doesn't make "enough" money, it is borderline unviable and possibly on its way out. The government would like us to cut back on face-to-face student contact hours and the amount of time spent in the field. Better yet, cut out the program for Certificate I and II altogether and only provide auspicing for those already working in the industry.

Is the government funding education or only successful educational businesses?

In a class at TAFE today, we were discussing the concept of Labor and Liberal governments changing their format, leaning to the left or the right. I was asked to give an example of my suggestion that the Victorian State Government is leaning to the right. I gave the TAFE reforms as my example. I argued the same argument I've plastered on the TAFE4All Facebook site and pages to the editors in newspapers.

In a class that started out at the beginning of the year with 20 students, now down to 10, there was no understanding of the TAFE reforms, what they meant for the students, what it meant for the future etc.

Despite my teacher agreeing personally with my argument, she informed me that the private reviews already done on the City of Greater Geelong have shown that the reforms have not affected enrolments and this was passed on to the State Government's review. I explained that enrolments are not a sign of whether the reforms don't affect student numbers because enrolment is easy. The new system affected the people in charge of enrolments - they were new to the system and many of us got accepted and enrolled, and LATER informed that we did NOT qualify for fee help.