Where to for New Zealand tertiary education?

Where to for New Zealand tertiary education?

JULY 2016 An introduction to the research notes prepared for the Tertiary Education Union as part of its contribution to the “Inquiry into new models of tertiary education”.

1

TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa

The Government has commissioned a Productivity Commission Inquiry into New Models of Tertiary Education. The Government’s focus is on models that will deliver on economic growth and labour market productivity (as outlined in the Tertiary Education Strategy 2014-2016). The inquiry has been asked to consider what barriers might be making it difficult for the sector to respond innovatively to the challenges it faces, particularly focusing on institutional business and delivery models.

the Productivity Commission’s inquiry and in the shift in priorities evident in the two most recent Tertiary Education Strategies.

How then, given the complexity of the sector, do we set down what outcomes are desirable from tertiary education, and then how do we hold to account those charged with meeting those outcomes? We have chosen nine crucial areas of concern which the TEU feels must be integrated into any debates about future delivery and business models in tertiary education.

The Government’s terms of reference have identified five major trends facing the sector: changing market demand; increasing costs; internationalisation; new technology; and demographic change - which the inquiry team has been asked to use when considering future delivery and business models for tertiary education.

Narrowing tertiary education provision to meet narrow outputs is problematic as is shown in Sedgwick’s paper in this collection.

He states that the shift is not just one seen in tertiary education, but more is also seen in the broader public sector. Building on Easton’s work (2016) which shows how the outcome of the health system – a healthy population – has been subsumed by outputs like the number of operations completed, Sedgwick looks at what this means in tertiary education.

Prior to and during the consultation process on the issues paper prepared by the Productivity Commission, TEU members critiqued the Government’s narrow vision for the sector, which side-steps the real issue confronting our society –what is the purpose of tertiary education in the 21st century? In the TEU’s publication Te Kaupapa Whaioranga: the blueprint for tertiary education and in our own submission to the Productivity Commission we have asserted that education must be transformational, life-long, and for the public good of all New Zealanders, and that these attributes must be integral to any models that might be developed for and used by the sector.

The Education Act 1989 also sets out these principles for tertiary education and we affirm that these are as relevant today as when the Act was written.

McGovern’s paper on innovation critiques the narrowing of innovation to commercialisable widgets; while Neillson’s paper notes that innovation in teaching does not come through transferring to online learning but on considering the best mix of face- to-face and online provision in teaching to meet the diverse needs of students and learning outcomes.

As we noted above the sector has responsibilities set out in the Education Act. To achieve the public good requirement and to avoid short term gains from the sector (including gains sought by governments which are not synonymous with public good), it is necessary to have academic freedom for staff and students (Grey and Sedgwick).

This view of tertiary education, clearly specified in the Act and affirmed in TEU publications, is rapidly being undermined by the Government’s focus on creating a system that prioritises sets of specific measurable outputs rather than broad outcomes with collective benefit. We see this in the Cabinet paper which set out terms of reference for

Academic freedom is one part of the puzzle, but institutions must also be autonomous from the state, while being responsible for their expenditure of tax-payers money.

A revised, previously published paper on governance by Grey seeks to unravel the fine

2

balance between the autonomy of institutions and their responsibility to the public at large.

Currently the autonomy of institutions, and all those working and studying within, has been subsumed in government directives to meet outputs mistakenly used as the final measure of success.

Sedgwick’s paper on students and their wellbeing shows the high levels of stress, fear, and guilt generated by a tertiary education system that does not put learning at its heart, but rather is focused on short term outputs and short-term fixes directed at individuals rather than the system.

The governance paper shows that it is those at the smart-board face, or in laboratories or libraries, who are best placed to make decisions about teaching, learning, and research. However, changes in our institutions and in overall funding have impacted on how academics and students define themselves and their roles inside institutions. One of the casualties of this change has been the long standing nexus between teaching and research. In Sedgwick’s work on teaching and research, it is learning that is seen to be the connecting factor in the activities of both staff and students and the activity that must be central in any decision-making. The learning that occurs on campuses in teaching and research spaces, and the ways these interact, is where we find some of the most innovative activities seen in the sector.

When it comes to Māori student success, Potter’s paper demonstrates the difficulties faced by Māori entering TEIs. She provides a wealth of data and other evidence that shows a return to holistic people-centred approaches to teaching, learning, and pastoral care – even though these are economically more expensive that new mass-learning ICT models of provision – is the way forward for Māori learners and all other learners.

Gilling’s paper speaks to the importance of having an accessible tertiary education system by looking at the state of women’s involvement in the sector. She examines a number of initiatives that have been successfully implemented both in New Zealand and other jurisdictions that have made a difference for women’s participation.

And finally Scott considers the role that unions play in advancing social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing, and how their ability to do this effectively has been eroded by the impact of neoliberal capitalism and the marginalisation of any collective representation. She also argues that this loss of influence has undermined the productivity for wellbeing agenda. This has occurred because unions (and other democratic social organisations) have much more limited access and ability to push for institutional change to address social inequities, income disparity, and other disparities that have become more pronounced with the rise of neoliberal capitalism.

But there are barriers to innovation, in particular the constant change and hypervigilance in the sector by managers and the government. This approach is harming the wellbeing of staff and students overall, and severely impacting on particular groups, including Māori and women, who are often disproportionally affected by decisions such as changes in funding. The impact of continuous reforming of tertiary education away from its primary outcomes – of transformational life-long learning, set out in the Act – can be seen in the NZWRI 2013 study “The State of the New Zealand Tertiary Education Sector” (Bentley et al 2013)

3

CONCLUSION What is clear from both TEU’s original submission and these papers is that education can only work if people are placed at the heart of any decision making processes, particularly those that aim to shape business and delivery models. Those at the heart of the system – staff and students – must be afforded the time to engage in reflexive and collegial practices. Only through collegial evaluation and critique can we ensure the quality of our tertiary education system.

Quality does not come through relentless change for change sake, but from change borne out of good research and based on sound pedagogical goals.

Only in those circumstances can we expect those working in the sector to take responsibility for their role in advancing the public good that comes from tertiary education; only in a high trust business and delivery model will the people in the sector (staff and students) be able to take the risks needed to ensure high quality innovation.

Finally, productivity for well-being can only be realised if the well-being of all staff and students is at the forefront of any models guiding the sector.

4