I am going to seek your indulgence today and share tales about the hopes and aspirations of three 7-year-old children; hopes and aspirations which rest on the existence of a well-funded, quality public tertiary education system.[i] My 7-year-olds were born in different decades but all have one thing in common – they live in a moment in history when the tertiary education sector is being increasingly marketised, corporatised, and subject to managerialism. The first child is now a 43-year old woman – it’s me. Born in 1969, I did all my schooling in the small semi-rural community of Waiuku. I left school at 17 and moved to the big city – to Auckland -to start my tertiary education journey. For the duration of my first tertiary course I boarded with family-friends in Auckland, living on an 80-dollar-a-week student allowance and spending money from my parents. One certificate, three degrees and some 26 years later – after borrowing $20,000 and being charged $27,000 in interest for the privilege of studying in New Zealand – I find myself travelling around the country as the President of the TEU. I spend my days standing shoulder-to-shoulder with hundreds of union activists, backed by the will and support of 10,000 tertiary education staff determined to ensure we have a quality public tertiary education system for future generations.

The second 7-year-old is my nephew, Josef Russell. He’s now 19 years old. Like me, he grew up and went to school in Waiuku.

[Play clip from Josef]

Just like me he left school at 17 to start tertiary studies but Josef benefited from a new tertiary education scheme – Youth Guarantees. Last year Josef’s Level 1 qualification at the Manukau Institute of Technology in motorsports was paid for out of taxpayer dollars. Like most youth guarantee students Josef was too young to get funding for living costs so his participation was predicated on living at home and on his aunt finding at least $50 a week to pay for gas so he could to get to the Pukekohe campus where he was studying. This year Josef has gone on to do a Level 3 qualification in motorsports. At 18 he has had to borrow $5,500 for fees but is lucky because he gets a student allowance. I say lucky, because most of our students borrow to put food on the table and a roof over their heads; the only saving grace is that there is no interest on student loans anymore.

In terms of Josef’s learning experience, I know he has fantastic teachers, tutors, technicians and administrators at his institution – many of them our members – but the staff are overworked and the classrooms over-crowded. When I was studying in 1999 the student: staff ratio was 14.8:1 by 2010 the ratio was 17.7:1. This means tutors at universities being asked to take “small group” classes of 60 students – that’s a lecture not a tutorial. It means trades classes of over 20 when there are only 16 work benches. It means lecturing staff are told that student consultations must be no longer than 15 minutes for each student. If this trend continues, by the time my third 7-year-old is at a tertiary education institution the student: staff ratio will have risen by another three students will be 20.6 students for every staff member.

The third 7-year-old I is my god-daughter, Rhianna Pace.

[Play clip from Rhianna]

Rhianna won’t be starting her tertiary education journey until around 2022. And, while crystal ball gazing is always dangerous, the trajectory we are currently headed on as tertiary education institutions is likely to mean that she will have to borrow over $8,000 each year. That figure is conservative as it relies on our institutions keeping fee rises at the 4 per cent level and some of our institutions are now claiming that in order to meet government performance indicators they will need steeper fee rises. Added to this some politicians are keen to see tertiary education as something that is completely self-funded. If we move down the track which sees tertiary education as merely a private good, fees for Rhianna would begin at around $27,000 per year and a first degree will cost over $81,000.

So Rhianna and Josef have dreams and aspirations predicated on tertiary level study. What about my dreams and aspirations? They have changed a number of times since I was a 7-year-old child who wanted to be a writer. Not just any writer, a crime novelist. But I have been able to use education to follow my dreams even as they have changed.

When I left school at 17 I pursued my childhood passion to become a writer, though not a novelist. My father urged me to take up writing that would pay the bills, so I trained as a journalist at what was then the Auckland Institute of Technology, which led to a job as a radio journalist. But, like so many New Zealand workers, the realities of my working life didn’t quite match my childhood dreams. I found journalism to be a profession which ate away at me daily (and one that cut into my time partying with my friends). I abandoned my full-time newsroom role at the age of 22. What came next was four years of drifting through a range of jobs including working as an itinerant guitar teacher and as a supermarket deli worker. This continued until a number of events in my personal life convinced me to shift gear. The most significant was a suicide attempt by one of my closest friends. I realised that I couldn’t spend my life working in jobs that provided me with little real satisfaction. So I decided to enrol at the University of Auckland to complete a Bachelor of Arts degree with the aim of using a BA to get a job as a features writer at a magazine.

I still remember the afternoon when the enrolment pack arrived and the excitement and fear that swept over me. I enrolled under open entry provisions as a ‘mature student’ which meant no need to prove how I had done at school or that I was up for the university challenge. Luckily it was a challenge I was up to, and by 2000 I found myself at the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, a prize-winning student with a fully paid scholarship to study political science.

The ANU is one of the most prestigious places to study in the Southern Hemisphere, well the world if we are to believe world rankings. In fact, I have been very privileged to have attended two world-class universities and a world-class polytechnic in my lifetime, both in New Zealand and Australia. You wouldn’t think New Zealand institutions were world-class if you listened to the rhetoric of our government. But they are. There are currently around 17,000 universities in the world – and seven of New Zealand’s universities rank in the top 500 in the QS world rankings. This means our students really are getting world-class degrees.

Three years into my PhD journey I got a job at Victoria University as a lecturer in Social Policy, a 3-year fixed term position which fortunately became a permanent academic role. The sad thing is that the opportunities offered to me – a first qualification and job in journalism and then a degree in political science – aren’t likely to be open to Josef and Rhianna because of the way education is now being governed, managed, and funded.

Josef and Rhianna may be luckier than me and pick the right career path the first time, but somehow I’m not sure that’s really ever possible. But if they don’t pick right the first time, chances are they will have no option but to stick with it. Current directions in tertiary education policy (as set out in the TES) and provision mean that there are limits on when and how long kiwis can study. In 2011 the government put in place a lifetime limit for student loans of 7 EFTS; for most people that is five years studying. That was followed in the 2012 budget with a decision to set in concrete the 200-week lifetime limit for student allowances. Added to this the government ruled that people aged 55 years and over will no longer be eligible to borrow for living costs or course-related costs . This limits the hopes and aspirations of students like Josef who might use up their five-year lifetime limit on their first qualifications and then want to retrain. And it’s just too bad for those kiwis made redundant at 55 – something faced by many tertiary education staff this year alone – the government won’t invest in their retraining.

Rising fees and time limits to financial support raise major questions about equity and access to education in New Zealand, but the current political and managerial direction of the tertiary education system places ever more limits on Rhianna and Josef pursuing their dreams and aspirations. I want Rhianna to have the skills and knowledge which enable her to get a job, but I want education to be much more than this for Rhianna and her 7-year-old friends. I don’t want the high cost of education and government directives about training ‘good workers’ to stop Rhianna from fulfilling her hopes and aspirations. At the moment she aspires to be a teacher; later in life she may want to become a builder; she might want to study history and work at the Waitangi Tribunal; or she might want to become a sculptor. Some of the areas she might study in may be less-than instrumental, they may not directly contribute to our nation’s economic growth, but she should not be denied the opportunity to be the person she wants to be. Learning is important for life, not just employment.

My own study choices have hardly been instrumental – I had no intention of becoming an academic when I began my BA studying History and English. When I moved to studying politics people often asked if I wanted to be a politician! Definitely not. There was nothing instrumental in my ‘training’ – no skills shortage I was filling, no commercialisable product I was learning to create, no specific profession I was training to be part of. But more importantly for me, and I think the society I live in, my tertiary education experience was transformative. It was transformative because I learnt to label some of the inequalities, inequities, and power differentials I had borne witness to as a 17-year old journalist. Inequalities that when I was in my late teens I had no explanation for and no way of challenging – all I could do was cry all the way home from Auckland to Waiuku. From my social science degree and the fantastic university staff who taught me I learnt fledgling skills which allowed me to analyse the structural and systemic causes of disadvantage. What I learnt – and continue to learn – compels me to stand up and challenge our political, social and economic order. And my employment as an academic has provided me with the space – albeit highly constrained space – to speak up publicly, to exercise my academic freedom in activities such as the Campaign for MMP and in public debates about the Search and Surveillance Bill.

As a lecturer I take great pride if I pass on to my students’ passion for social and political change. For example, the student who lets me know that the hours taking my course gave them the confidence to write a submission to a parliamentary select committee on the carers’ bill in parliament and challenge current views about support for those who care for sick or elderly family members based on her own experiences.

Why isn’t there a box on the forms used to evaluate my worth at Victoria University which acknowledges this type of transformative activity? What the government measures and financially rewards are ‘research outputs’, student completions, retentions, and progressions; and, our ability to get funding for research or to commercialise our ‘research outputs’. What about the public sphere work we are engaged in; what about our pastoral care work; what about the student we helped to gain basic computer skills which got them a job even though they didn’t complete the course?  Does none of this matter? Of course it matters; it’s just not as easily measurable as economic growth.[ii] What is crucial for tertiary education staff is to resist being defined by what is measurable.

It is important we consider whose interests are served by the instrumental focus which ties tertiary qualifications to a single output – economic growth? Not Josef’s. In his lifetime technology changes and volatile job markets mean he needs to know how to be a good worker and a good citizen, as well as how to fix engines.

So those are my tales based on the hopes and aspirations of three 7-year-olds – one who wanted to be a writer, the other two need tertiary educations to fulfil their aspirations to be a mechanic and a teacher. The problem is the tertiary education system they need to help them achieve their aspirations is groaning under the weight of demands that staff must do more with less. It is a system where rising fees and tight targeting of funding means kiwi families are bearing more of the cost of education. It is a system in which institutional autonomy has come under attack and where individual choices are tied to economic growth. This means that what Josef and Rhianna can study, how they will be taught, where they can study, and when during their lifetime they can study is being tied to economic and labour market growth.

So who cares that these policies and management practices are squashing the dreams and aspirations of ordinary kiwi kids?

Not the Minister of Tertiary Education and his backers – the repeated actions of this government confirm Stephen Joyce isn’t interested in quality public tertiary education. Take for instance the move to competitive funding for Level 1 and 2 provision.[iii] This ideological experiment has stripped millions of dollars from polytechnics across New Zealand, which will lead to dozens of programme closures and hundreds of job losses from public institutions. In this competitive funding model: “Final decisions were made on the basis of value for money”. So as long as a tertiary provider just makes it over the quality assurance bar, and provided they are cheaper than any other provider, the prize of taxpayer funding is all theirs. This is Stephen Joyce’s vision of tertiary education – getting more for less… and less… and less. The Minister even boasts about his under-investment in education.

We’ve made some changes in the last two years that have resulted in an additional 20,000 places at universities and polytechs and the like without putting any more money in . . . (Stephen Joyce: Q&A Sunday April 17, 2011).

This is like boasting that you’ve got 20,000 kilometres out of your car without getting it serviced or even getting the oil checked. If you never spend money on getting your car serviced it will break down. Is that what the minister wants for tertiary education, for it to break down?

So if the Minister and government don’t care about public tertiary education; about access; about life-long learning; about transformative education – who does? We care – the members of the TEU. We care about public tertiary education, we care about our students, and we care about future generations of teachers and learners.[iv] We care enough to take action. This time last year we took to the streets demanding the government invest in New Zealand’s future by investing in public tertiary education. This year across the country we have held Speak Up for Education seminars to set out clearly the detrimental effects of increasing marketisation, commercialisation, and micro-management in tertiary education.[v] We have been active in writing submissions to government[vi] and held meetings with representatives of government departments. And at times we have signals our voice is being heard – for example the TEC made changes to the way PBRF scores will be reported. And while the changes were only minor, they confirmed to us that officials have heard TEU’s views about the perverse incentives of this auditing system. We have also engaged with opposition politicians inviting them to Speak Up events and meeting with them in parliament. As a result we now see politicians asking a range of questions in parliament. We have gone into any media forum we can to get our views hear – even Truth! We have written blogs and letters to the editor on all manner for issues. For example, VUW’s Dolores Janeiwski wrote a letter to the Dominion Post questioning moves to take staff and student representation out of university councils. And of course we have spoken up at our institutions in meetings with senior management; at departmental meetings; in too many reviews and restructuring processes; and, in protests and industrial actions on campuses. Sometimes we’ve been heard. Earlier this year the Canterbury University Council stopped the closure of programmes in the Faculty of Arts after extensive and vocal protests by staff and students at the university. At AUT the decision to close International House was reversed by the submissions and arguments put forward by members.

There is no doubt in my mind – TEU activists have lived up to the challenge set at the last conference to speak up for education. Our next challenge is to get more TEU members to speak and to get more people to join us in seeking a fundamental change in direction in tertiary education policy and management, including students and their families.

We need to show ‘ordinary kiwis’ that what the government is doing to ‘save them money’ as taxpayers, is harming the futures of those they care about most. We need to give ordinary kiwis a reason to say it is time for a fundamental change in direction in tertiary education policy.

To that end, over the next six months we will be working on TEU’s Alternative Tertiary Education Strategy. Interestingly in the last few months the ‘strategy’ has morphed into a ‘vision’, which is not my doing but fits well with this speech. And I know that if members of this sector – the teachers, technicians, support staff, librarians, researchers, tutors, academics, and, administrators – put their mind to creating an Alternative Tertiary Education Strategy it will be visionary.

By the middle of next year, I hope hundreds of TEU members will have contributed their aspirations for tertiary education and what we need to achieve that vision.[vii] I know already from meeting with members that there are some key elements that will be included in an alternative strategy. First, that quality public tertiary education requires public investment. We will need to be up front with the public that increased investment is needed if their children, nieces and nephews, parents, grandchildren, and friends are to benefit long-term from quality public tertiary education. Funding must ensure life-long learning for all New Zealanders; learning which is accessible, affordable, and supportive. Ideally this means higher education should be free of fees (See Education International 2010 Education Policy Paper).

Our alternative strategy document must stress the value of involving of staff, students, and communities in decision-making. The government stripped polytechnic councils of staff and student representation, and has hinted the same may happen to university councils; what’s more the very structure of our current tertiary education sector limits the professional voice of those working in the sector. This must not continue. Tertiary education should be publicly controlled and collegially governed. The current ‘market model’ with its ‘competitive funding’ and top-down ‘managerial’ approach is toxic. It contains too many perverse incentives. We have seen this with PBRF where institutions have used ‘variable human resource practices’ to push up their institutions’ PBRF score. Our senior managers have done everything they can to hide or get rid of low-scoring academics no matter how well teach because the tertiary education sector has been corporatised and competitive incentives put in place.

Teaching, learning, and research are public goods. Our alternative tertiary education strategy will state clearly that we want research carried out for all members of the public, not solely for profit. Research to support business and the economy is important but we have a duty also to support researchers working in non-commercially applicable areas, in “blue skies” research, or even in research that might affect individual businesses negatively.

So adequate funding, access for all, collegial decision-making, a focus on education as a public good not a market, and institutional autonomy are all going to be part of our alternative tertiary education strategy. But writing down our vision and aspirations for tertiary education in the 21^st century is not enough, we are going to have to do more.

As well as writing our alternative tertiary education strategy over the next year, the plan is to set up campaign teams on every campus who will be ready to take our strategy – our hopes and aspirations for tertiary education – to public meetings, to rallies, to the newspapers, to blogs, and to election meetings in 2014, in order that our collective vision drives the political agenda for tertiary education at the next election and beyond.

I leave this conference handing over to a new President, Lesley Francey, who will take the helm of TEU and our campaign for better public tertiary education. But I leave recommitting myself to this collective campaign. If TEU members will have me, I plan to stay as part of the leadership team of TEU and accept nomination to the role of Vice President Industrial and Professional. I will also commit to being part of the Victoria University’s Speak Up for Education campaign team.

And I believe in this room we have 130 other TEU members who have over the last two years shown the dynamism, resourcefulness, and let’s just say it, the stubbornness, to do likewise. Our commitment to public tertiary education has to move from diagnosing the problem, to stating clearly the solution, and then shouting that solution from the rooftops until hundreds and thousands of students, parents, and friends join us to bring about a fundamental shift in tertiary education funding, governance, and management.

When a new government is elected in 2014 we don’t want them to tinker around the edges of the failed policies and procedures of the commercialised, marketised, and managerial tertiary education sector – we want them to commit to a 21st century public tertiary education sector. A sector that is a little chaotic, a lot creative, diverse, vibrant, well-resourced, and where decisions are made collectively.

If we can get this ground shift, then I have some hope that if Josef tires of being on the spanners, as my brother/his stepfather did, he can retrain if he chooses – retrain without increasing his already sizeable student debt which hinders his ability to buy a home and start a family.

If we can get this ground shift, then Rhianna can study whatever she wants, something which not only aids the economy by ensuring she is a productive worker, but something that allows her to be a visionary citizen, a creative thinker, or a dynamic artist.

If we can get this shift, I will be able to work in a university and be the academic I aspire to be – one engaged in ‘challenging received wisdoms’, and working with social and political change movements. A new 21^st century tertiary education sector will let us all exercise academic freedom to challenge the world we live in and create something better.

If we can get this ground shift, all of us will find ourselves working in institutions we are proud of, with outcomes we can be proud of, and students who will be proud of us.

Endnotes

[i] Guiding the work of the TEU is our policy on Public Tertiary Education http://teu.ac.nz/2010/11/public-tertiary-education/

[ii] The current singular focus on economic growth cuts across the primary legislation governing our tertiary education sector the Education Act 1989 See 159AAA Object of provisions relating to tertiary education.

[iii] For discussion of the result of the opening up of Level  One and Two funding to competition see the following:

• http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/7861376/UCOL-to-cut-courses-jobs
• http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/7858221/Huge-cuts-to-UCOL
• http://www.wanganuichronicle.co.nz/news/full-ucol-facts-wanted/1603689/
• http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/7781667/Witt-to-miss-out-on-funds
• http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/7785732/Editorial-Witt-setback-will-hit-hard
• http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/7830828/Funds-loss-raises-fears-for-unique-Taranaki-dialect

[iv] Auckland Co-Branch President Paul Taillon (TEU website 2012) noted that “… academic unions are the best (perhaps only) hope to reverse the spread of heavy-handed corporate style micro management, defend academic freedom, reinvigorate academic citizenship, and address the spread and condition of contingent teaching staff.”

[v] As Gordon Campbell noted in a blog entitled ‘Marketing the Mind’ (2012): “Whereas reasonable access to higher education has been seen as a virtual right within a civilised society, it is now increasingly seen as a privilege, and treated as only one more item among many in the government’s toolkit for generating economic growth. In the light of that change of emphasis, the stakeholders are no longer primarily seen to be students, or society at large via the pool of knowledge that the university creates and maintains, for the common good. Instead, the stakeholders are seen to be students viewed only as prospective employees, government, and business. As a consequence, universities are being treated as something of an assembly line, and one geared primarily to the production of obedient, work-ready recruits for the corporate sector.”

[vi] For example we made submissions on the Vocational Pathways and Teachers Council’s proposals -

• http://teu.ac.nz/2012/09/vocational-pathways-initiative-teu-submission/
• http://teu.ac.nz/2012/09/terms-of-reference-for-the-review-of-the-new-zealand-teachers-council-teu-submission/

[vii] Members of the Rural Education Activities Programmes (REAPs) branch have completed a contribution to this strategy see their alternative tertiary education strategy on the TEU website

“We had one family on the East Coast where one member of the family enrolled in a REAP programme and that led to three generations of the family participating in adult education. Four of the five family members have now graduated and developed a love of learning. The grandfather, three daughters, one son and one mokopuna all participating in tertiary education through wānanga. This shows the importance of learning amongst familiar people in a familiar environment.”

A TEU member at a rural education activities programme  (REAP) uses this story to show why the government needs a new Tertiary Education Strategy that recognises the importance of rural provision and the difference learning in-context makes not only to an individual, but to their family and community.

Some of TEU’s REAP members met a couple of months ago and have now drafted a vision statement for the provision of rural and regional education, which they will be sharing with other members at TEU’s annual conference next month.

The REAP workers argue that the government’s refrain that they must do more with less means courses are cut because they are seen as too small or uneconomic. And this leaves some people with nowhere to go. For example, when Waiariki Institute of Technology cut its Turangi and Taupo early childhood course prospective students were told they would need to go to Rotorua for courses.  For some the cost and time involved in travelling from their community through to Rotorua was up to three hours a day.

While a programme that puts through 1000 people might look the most economically efficient it ignores the quality and benefit of smaller courses.

“You shouldn’t underestimate the importance of twelve parents learning Te Reo on the East Cape on a 10 week course which takes 1/3 of the annual budget of our REAP but those parents can communicate with their children who are in the Kohanga and Kura system.”

“Currently the government’s narrow goals mean that whole sectors of our community are missing out. For example, the focus on young people and their engagement in learning, which is important, but means there is nothing for the older members of our communities. Often REAP or ACE courses provided crucial social connectedness for older community members who had retired to rural localities who felt isolated. Where can they turn now?”

You can read the REAP members’ vision statement online here, or contribute your own thoughts about what an alternative Tertiary Education Strategy should contain at the bottom of this webpage.

16 August 2012

Many thanks to all the members of university and polytechnic councils who joined us to debate this issue at meetings in Auckland, Wellington, and Dunedin. Your experience and knowledge was invaluable.

Executive Summary

Ensuring strong tertiary education governance is crucial if our universities, polytechnics, wānanga, and other places of education are to fulfil their roles as leaders in social, economic, human, environmental, and scientific progress.

TEU does not believe the current system of governance is fundamentally ‘broken’. However, as the union for staff working in the tertiary sector we are absolutely sure that our perspective on the governance of tertiary education – the governance of teaching, learning, and research – must be heard in any discussions instigated by the current government.

We present a number of core principles which must underpin decisions about tertiary education governance – from the development of nation-wide tertiary education strategies to the composition of councils, academic boards and departmental decision-making bodies.

• Diversity is necessary for the health of the tertiary education sector, including diversity between and inside governance bodies and institutions themselves
• Tertiary education institutions require autonomy from the political, social, and economic elite of the nation in order to best serve the interests of all New Zealanders
• Institutional autonomy enables the academic freedom so crucial to economic, social, scientific, and human discovery
• Including staff, student, and community representation in the governance bodies of the tertiary education sector will ensure educational and pedagogical decisions will be at the centre of decision-making
• Good decision-making in the tertiary education sector requires sound, open, and on-going input from those who work and study in the tertiary education sector
• Staff, student, and community involvement in tertiary education decision-making is necessary in order for these groups to have confidence in the decisions made

Background

Over the past few years there have been significant changes in the way that decisions are made by governments about the tertiary education sector and the way decisions are made within tertiary education institutions.

One was the legislative change made with regard to polytechnic governance. In 2009, these changes reduced councils down to eight members, four of whom are directly appointed by the Minister for Tertiary Education. The ministerial appointments then get to choose the remaining four. The Minister also appoints the chair and gives her or him the casting vote. Council members may also sit on multiple councils. Staff, student, union, and Māori representatives all lost their legislated seats on polytechnic councils in the 2009 changes.

More recently, the Minister for Tertiary Education Stephen Joyce announced that the way our universities are governed may need to be changed to make the governing councils, which he said were ‘large and unwieldy’, ‘more innovative’. There is much speculation that Minister Joyce is looking to reform university councils along the lines of the changes enacted on polytechnic councils.

Added to direct changes in tertiary education governance there has been to the adoption of ‘New Public Management’ as the mode of operation in the tertiary education sector. This move has seen the development of rising compliance and auditing processes as we moved from a high-trust model of decision-making, to a low-trust model.

For decades, universities, polytechnics, and other public tertiary institutions were managed as collegial enterprises. That is, decisions were made by the staff, students, and communities that worked, studied, and benefited from the existence of a strong and autonomous public tertiary education system. The ultimate governance body for each institution was a council made up of lay people (business and community leaders), staff, students, alumni, and a limited number of senior managers. The council made decisions about the broad goals for their institution on the advice of staff within the institution and stakeholders outside the sector.

From the 1990s New Zealand governments put in place ‘managerialism’ in the tertiary education system. This resulted in increasing line-management within institutions and a “drift upwards” in decision-making from faculty to professional administrators (Gumport 2001 in Stewart 2011:57).

As noted by Stewart (2011:49):

The ascendancy of entrepreneurial university managements who emphasise a market-based rationality in which education becomes a consumer good, and who have a correspondingly anxious eye on consumer satisfaction and public relations as well as governments concerned with fiscal constraints, corporate ties and short term priorities, are paving the way for dangerous widespread institutional change.

Added to the rise of managerialism in the sector there has been a shift in New Zealand in the level of ‘steering’ of the tertiary education sector by government. Internationally governments have generally been withdrawing from direct management of institutions, yet at the same time introducing new forms of control and influence, based largely on holding institutions accountable for performance via powerful enforcement mechanisms including funding and quality recognition (OECD, 2003: 75). Certainly in New Zealand we see a complex set of planning processes and auditing mechanisms being imposed upon tertiary education institutions in order to ensure compliance with the strategies set by government.

In particular, over the last four years National-led governments have begun using a range of auditing and accountability mechanisms to ‘strategically steer’ the tertiary education sector single-mindedly towards one destination – education as a driver of economic growth. In this model, added weight has been given to the views of ministerial officials and external stakeholders (in particular industry stakeholders) with regard to decisions about what should be taught, to whom, and how, while at the same time denying any voice for staff and students in national and institutional policy development. The government’s approach to changing the composition of polytechnic councils is an indication of staff perspectives in planning for the sector as they were seen as ‘vested interests’ in the new public management environment.

These changes to policy and the approaches to policy implementation are having major impacts on the core objectives of the tertiary education sector and we believe in the long run will impact negatively on New Zealand society, democracy, and economy. Given the current debate on tertiary education governance it is important that TEU members examine just what good governance looks like for the tertiary education sector and whether we already have some of the elements in place. TEU does not believe the current system of governance is fundamentally ‘broken’ and we are unclear as to what is being ‘fixed’ by government actions in this area. However, as the union of staff working in the sector we are absolutely sure that our perspective on the governance of tertiary education – the governance of teaching, learning, and research – must be heard in any discussions taking place.

While Tertiary Education Minister Stephen Joyce is exploring whether to change university councils in order to make them ‘leaner’ and ‘more innovative’, we cannot look at councils in isolation, we must examine the range of ways decisions are made, constrained, and enabled in the tertiary education sector.

The debate around the governance of higher education in New Zealand sits in the context of major work being done internationally on this topic. In particular, in Scotland there has been extensive work done on the issue of higher education governance which is applicable for inclusion in New Zealand debates due to similarities in the size, histories, and nature of higher education in both nations. The information from international cases is used to further enhance the debate around tertiary education governance in New Zealand.

In this paper we have chosen to look at the core principles which would ensure good strong governance of our public tertiary institutions, the protection of democratic debate and institutional autonomy for decision-making, and ultimately the framework which allows quality public tertiary education to flourish in New Zealand for the good of society, the economy, and our environment.

Good governance principles for the tertiary education sector

The exact structures used to govern each tertiary education institution are likely to vary, but all models of governance and management in the tertiary education system must adhere to some core principles: the recognition and celebration of diversity; responsible autonomy and academic freedom; upholding of the objects of the Education Act 1989; and ensuring education and pedagogy at the heart of decision-making. These core principles can all be upheld by ensuring the involvement of staff, students, and community representatives in the governance of the sector.

Diversity between and within tertiary education institutions

Any discussion of tertiary education governance and management must begin with recognition that the sector is highly diverse and that this diversity is fundamental to ensuring a strong and vibrant tertiary education sector. As noted by Universities Scotland (2011:13) in its recent review of university governance:

Diversity supports institutional competitiveness and thereby enables the very broad collective contribution our universities make to social, cultural economic life both in Scotland and further afield.

In New Zealand this diversity must be reflected in the complex governance arrangements which are needed to ensure our tertiary education system flourishes. Currently there is diversity in how university councils work and how they are composed. Each has its own characteristics. We must recognise and enable that diversity. After all the body which will govern a research-intensive university may be quite different to the governance approach needed for a small, regional polytechnic.

We must also recognise that there needs to be diversity in who sits on the governing bodies of the tertiary education sector. We fully support the Section 171 of the Education Act 1989 which explicitly notes the importance of diversity around ethnicity, socio-economic status, and gender:

• It is desirable that the council of an institution should reflect so far as is reasonably practicable,—

1. the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the communities served by the institution; and
2. the fact that approximately half the population of New Zealand is male and half the population is female.

Balancing autonomy and accountability

Currently the accountability and the strategic decision-making of the sector is undertaken through the Tertiary Education Strategy (TES), which identifies priorities for the sector through the Statement of Tertiary Education Priorities (STEP). The TES outlines the key objectives for the tertiary education sector as envisaged by the government of the day.

Individual institutions then outline how they will address these priorities through their investment plans (negotiated with government representatives), which must reflect their institutional profile (wānanga, institute of technology, university etc.). It is the councils of universities and polytechnics, who on advice from senior managers, put together the investment plans to be negotiated with the Tertiary Education Commission. The result is a highly regulated sector with constraints on how public money can be spent and evaluations of how well the sector is meeting government objectives. There are also a range of system-wide and institutional mechanisms in the tertiary education sector which are aimed at ensuring the quality of the courses taught and credentials being awarded.

While public institutions must be accountable for how they spend taxpayer money and the quality of the services they provide, it is crucial to balance this accountability against the necessity for the tertiary education sector to maintain responsible autonomy. In the ‘Westminster’ countries (UK, Australia, New Zealand) national systems combine university autonomy with explicit central government steering. This mix between autonomy and accountability is evident in New Zealand’s Education Act 1989:

The object of the provisions of this Act relating to institutions is to give them as much independence and freedom to make academic, operational, and management decisions as is consistent with the nature of the services they provide, the efficient use of national resources, the national interest, and the demands of accountability (Education Act S. 160).

A significant public investment is needed to ensure a strong public tertiary education system. It is naïve to think the state would bankroll the sector without attention to how money is spent, but there must be a balance between control and freedom (Hedley 2010: 132).

Responsible autonomy for institutions

The tertiary education sector is charged with generating and disseminating new knowledge, and with contributing to New Zealand’s social, cultural, environmental, and economic development. These objectives – the core democratic functions of the tertiary education sector – can only be achieved if tertiary education institutions have ‘responsible autonomy’ and the staff within the institutions have academic freedom.

The role of testing ideas, of acting as critic and conscience, is essential for society as a whole. The Council of Europe makes clear the value of university autonomy in noting that ‘history has proven that violations of academic freedom and university autonomy have always resulted in intellectual relapse, and consequently in social and economic stagnation’ (Universities Scotland, 2011: 11).

The democratic role of tertiary education institutions can only be fulfilled if tertiary institutions receive adequate funding from taxpayers through the government but this does not mean government control of what is taught and researched within the sector. Public tertiary education must be independent from the current political, economic, and social elites if it is to fulfil the core purposes of the sector. In particular, universities have long histories and should not be subject to the whim of each new government. As was noted by one member of a university council, “politics is often about expediency for the moment” but our universities by necessity must have much longer term visions for their staff and students, and for the contribution the institutions make to our society, our economy, and our environment.

We acknowledge that the role of governments is to set the broad direction of the tertiary education sector, but democratically elected elite must do this after extensive consultation with all the communities who have a stake in education, including but not limited to staff, students, businesses, local communities, the non-government sector, and iwi. And once the broad direction is set, institutions must be given the autonomy needed to flourish.

An autonomous tertiary education sector is also crucial for ensuring that the educational and research objects of tertiary institutions benefit all New Zealanders, a key pillar of public tertiary education. If tertiary education institutions are too tightly tied to government and business, we will see the degradation of intellectual and scientific discovery in favour of small advancements in knowledge which are commercialisable and money-making. Even a more functional output of the tertiary education sector, such as training workers, justifies the protection of institutional autonomy. Academic work identifies a positive correlation between autonomy and a university’s performance (Universities Scotland, 2011:11).

We must all acknowledge that the autonomy of the tertiary education sector is already constrained by the compliance required by the many government agencies and policies covering the sector. Institutions can only act within the framework set by the state. And governments are achieving compliance with sector-wide strategic plans even at universities that currently have staff, student, and community representation on their councils.

One of the outcomes of allowing TEIs responsible autonomy is that this has led to differences between institutions, how they operate, what and how they teach, and where they are located. This diversity in the operations of institutions, and the research and teaching will better enable the sector to weather change and crises.

Enabling academic freedom through autonomous governance

Responsible autonomy for institutions – their separation from the political, social, and economic elite of the age – is crucial to ensuring an environment in which staff are able to exercise their rights and duties in relation to academic freedom. “In 1954, at the height of the McCarthy hearings in the US, Albert Einstein offered as a definition of academic freedom the “right to search for truth and to publish and teach what one holds to be true”. This right also implied a duty, he asserted: “One must not conceal any part of what one has recognised to be true.”” (2010: “A clear and present danger” Times Higher Education, 11 February 2010).

This position is also reflected in the NZ Education Act 1989:

Sec. 161 Academic freedom

(2) For the purposes of this section, academic freedom, in relation to an institution, means —

(a) the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions:
(b) the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in research:
(c) the freedom of the institution and its staff to regulate the subject matter of courses taught at the institution:
(d) the freedom of the institution and its staff to teach and assess students in the manner they consider best promotes learning:
(e) the freedom of the institution through its chief executive to appoint its own staff.

(3) In exercising their academic freedom and autonomy, institutions shall act in a manner that is consistent with —

(a) the need for the maintenance by institutions of the highest ethical standards and the need to permit public scrutiny to ensure the maintenance of those standards; and
(b) the need for accountability by institutions and the proper use by institutions of resources allocated to them.

(4) In the performance of their functions the Councils and chief executives of institutions, Ministers, and authorities and agencies of the Crown shall act in all respects so as to give effect to the intention of Parliament as expressed in this section.

It is due to their autonomy that tertiary education institutions are able to provide space for staff and students to challenge received wisdoms, to be innovative and creative, and to generate new knowledge so crucial to social and economic progress. As noted in a UK paper prepared by students and academics “In Defence of Public Higher Education” (no date: paragraph 3.12):

The future of public higher education also matters not only because higher education prepares individuals to participate as citizens in debate, to understand the nature of expertise and to understand its modes of authority, but also because it provides the space in which expertise is tested and made publicly available.

Upholding the Education Act’s focus on social, economic, and human progress

Both institutional autonomy and academic freedom are crucial for intellectual, social, economic, and scientific advancement, and allows us as a society to address the major issues of our time. Any governance structures must function in a way that upholds the broad goals of the New Zealand Education Act 1989. This Act states that tertiary education should:

• Contribute to the development of cultural and intellectual life in New Zealand;
• Help develop a skilled and knowledgeable population;
• Contribute to the sustainable economic and social development of the nation; and
• Strengthen New Zealand’s knowledge base (Part 13 Education Act 1989)

Any strategic direction set by the governments and any actions taken within the tertiary education sector, must take into account the fulfilment of these broad objects.

Involvement of staff, students, and communities in decision-making processes

Our public education system is something we all own and should care for together. Public control of tertiary education institutions is crucial and there should be no circumstances in which government-appointed boards control the governance and management of the sector. As noted above, such control by the state would cut across the central democratic function of tertiary education providers to be the critic and conscience of society.

To get the best outcomes in the tertiary education sector we want sound collegial decision-making within institutions and in all auditing bodies set up by governments. While these collegial groupings may have varied compositions, the principle is that the experts will play an active role in setting and maintaining standards for tertiary education. For example, academic control of academic decisions (what courses are taught; credentialing); library staff making decisions about library collections.

Staff and student involvement in decision-making is crucial for two major reasons – to ensure sound decision-making; and, to ensure staff have faith in the governance of the sector.

Staff, student and community engagement will mean better decisions

The overall governance decisions for any institution (be it an education institution or a private company) will be improved if there is full information on which to make decisions. Tertiary institutions are highly complex institutions and ‘outsiders’ need access to the first-hand knowledge of how policies, processes, and actions impact upon teaching, learning and research. Who better to gain this from than representatives who sit alongside them on council and who are working or studying within the tertiary education sector? First-hand knowledge of the tertiary education system can only enhance decision-making.

At times in decision-making it is crucial for those sitting on governance bodies to have the specificities of issues spelt out to them to ensure any decision are really for the best of the institution. While vice-chancellors, chief executives, and senior managers provide one perspective of any issue being debated by a tertiary education institution council, it is crucial for decision-makers to hear first-hand the impact of decisions and policies on staff, students and communities. The importance of the staff voice was made clear by council members who are from outside the university. As one external representative noted “it is very hard to get a sense of the people who work in the organisation, and I’m not sure if the staff feel connected to us as a council” and the only link is through the staff and student representatives.

The engagement of staff in decision-making will ensure that educational and pedagogical considerations are at the centre of debates and decisions. A professorial representative on a university council noted: “It is staff, student, and alumni representatives who have an understanding of what the university does and what matters.” To ensure these considerations are centre stage in policy-making and implementation, academic staff should be a substantial majority in all bodies that make recommendations or decisions on academic matters. For example, a board made up of academic staff who carry out the teaching and research at an institution, should be responsible for making decisions on what courses are taught and how. Often these decisions are sent on to the ultimate governing body – a tertiary institution council – but the expectation would be that they take the advice of the staff who are professionals in teaching and learning. As noted by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (2009:3):

“Because academic staff are effective agents for the execution of the research and educational functions of the academy, our working environment and our terms and conditions of employment are inseparable from academic policies and objectives.”

A high-trust model which ensures the democratic engagement of staff in decision-making at tertiary education institutions is founded on a belief that sound decisions will necessarily rely on the expertise of staff. As noted by one member of a university council (2012): “Staff ensure that council is properly informed on university and academic matters.”

These views are echoed in research into corporate boards in Europe. For example, in a research project comparing board composition in France, Sweden, UK, and the Netherlands it was noted that there are strong positive reasons for including employee representatives on the boards of corporations. In France respondents to a study on employee representation on boards stated that employee representatives added greater knowledge to the debate (Fulton, Lionel ed. 2007: 61-63). And a study of German boards notes (Fauver and Fuerst, 2004: 29) “We propose that employee representation provides a credible communication channel to the highest levels of the firm. Consequently, this superior information improves decision making by the board.”

With regard the formal governance roles of councils, one duty is to hold senior management to account for their decisions and actions. We would question how this can be done if the only voice heard by the governing body is that of the senior managers? The inclusion of staff, student, and community representatives in council provides a fuller picture from which council can perform its formal governance roles. Robust questioning of senior management decisions does occur in some councils on some issues at present, and must continue if we are to get the best out of our tertiary education system.

What’s more, we live in a complex world where locality matters. Different communities may need different responses from their institutions and the bodies that govern them. Diversity of representation on tertiary education councils, including local community representatives and alumni, will ensure that each institution can meet the needs of their communities. As one council representative noted, diversity of membership will ensure councils ask: “What is suitable for this institution? After all, universities are embedded in place.”

The second reason for inclusion of staff, student, and community positions on councils is to ensure the confidence of those communities in the decisions made. Staff feel they can approach the staff representatives on council and seek clarification around the broad governance of the institution. As one current council member at a university noted “staff will feel discouraged if there is no staff representation on council and will feel they have lost their voice”.

This perspective is backed up by research into European corporate boards. In Sweden where employees sit on company boards it was noted by company directors and CEOs that employee board level representatives are seen as providing an effective channel of communication allowing employees to better understand by specific decisions have been taken (Fulton, Lionel ed. 2007: pp. 61-63).

The importance of ensuring staff believe decision-making is being done in a manner which gives them confidence is seen in international debates. As the OECD (2003:75) has noted: “Effective leadership must take that community with it; university leadership will fail if it leaves “academic” interests behind.” This means staff involvement in internal and external decision-making processes of the tertiary education sector. It is essential for there to be government consultation with the professionals who work in the sector on an on-going and genuine basis.

So who should make decisions for the tertiary education sector?

Based on the above principles – diversity, responsible autonomy, and collegial decision-making – we have set out what this would mean for the composition of the multiple layers of decision-making surrounding the tertiary education sector. We recommend the following approaches to decision-making, governance, and management in the tertiary education sector based on good governance literature and research:

Policy making through the Minister/TEC/Ministry of Education

• Any policymaking agencies must include a mix of expertise from across the sector;
• Consultation modes must be inclusive of professionals from across the sector and recognise that involvement of staff and students in education debates is crucial to good governance and decision-making;
• Any planning must acknowledge that the sector is unique and diverse;
• Policy-making decisions must take account of the diverse needs of local communities and businesses.

Responsible autonomy for institutions through independent councils

• All tertiary education councils should be dominated by lay-persons (that is people who are not employed full-time in the tertiary institution) who bring a variety of ‘expertise’ to the decision-making table (Universities Scotland, 2010: 13);
• Councils in New Zealand should include a mix of members drawn from the local communities and iwi; and from business/industry;
• One third of places on tertiary education councils should be filled by staff and student representation;
• While input from senior management into council decisions is important, less than 10% of the council positions should be held by management;
• Where possible, positions on council should be appointed through open and democratic methods, with appointments used as a last resort to ensure a balance of skills and talents on the governing body;
• There should be a good practice guide for all councils in the tertiary education sector and training made available to council members to ensure they are clear about their roles and responsibilities;
• The importance of council training and of ensuring there are ‘lay people’ is that council members must “act in the best interests of the institution as a whole, with this obligation to take precedence over any duty a member may owe to those electing or appointing him or her” (Universities Scotland, 2010: 15).

Education decisions made by academic boards/senates

• As bodies responsible for setting curriculum and credentialing, academic boards must be have a majority of academic decision-makers;
• In any academic board there should be seats for two senior management representatives (i.e. VC and AVC academic) and other senior management should be available to provide advice but should not vote;
• The chair of academic board must be elected by the members of that board, and should not be the vice chancellor or any other senior management team member.

Collegial governance within tertiary education institutions

• Academic decisions (curriculum; admissions; hiring of new academic staff) rest with the academic community and is to be done in collegial meetings;
• Other professionals will be accorded full rights to participate in decision-making in their area of expertise i.e. library staff on library matters;
• All staff and students will be consulted on major projects which impact upon their workplace and on students’ conditions of learning.

Bibliography

(no date) “In Defence of Public Higher Education”, prepared by a working party of academics and students representing a number of campaigns in the United Kingdom.

CAUT (2009) “Report of the CAUT Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Governance”, November 12, 2009.

Fauver, Larry and Michael E. Fuerst (2004) “Does Good Corporate Governance Include Employee Representation? Evidence from German Corporate Board.” A paper presented at the 2004 European Financial Management Meeting in Zurich, and the 2004 Financial Management Association Meeting in New Orleans.

Fulton, Lionel ed. (2007) “The forgotten resource: Corporate Governance and Employee Board-Level Representation. The Situation in France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.” Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Germany.

Grey, Sandra and Scott, J. (2012) “When the government steers the market: implications for New Zealand’s tertiary education system”. A working paper for NTEU’s Future of Higher Education Conference, 22-23 February 2012, University of Sydney

(OECD (2003) “Chapter Three: Changing Patterns of Higher Education Governance”, in OECD, Education Policy Analysis.

Penni Stewart (2010) “Academic Freedom in These Times: Three Lessons from York University”, Cultural and Pedagogical Inquiry, 2 (2), pp. 48-61.

New Zealand Education Act 1989, Part 13, 301.

Universities Scotland (2011) Review of Higher Education Governance: Universities Scotland’s submission to the Scottish Government’s Review of Higher Education Governance, September 2011

The strategy has a strong focus on 18-24 year olds completing qualifications, and EXMSS believes this, coupled with capped funding and penalties for non-completion based on internal student timeframes, is causing universities to enrol young students in preference to older part time and extramural students .

“The punitive action of penalising institutions which offer courses for students who are working and studying, often as  second chance learners, sends the message that not only is part time study inefficient, but that distance and web-based learning (the predominant mode for part time university studies) is somehow inferior to traditional on-campus teaching and learning,” says EXMSS president Ralph Stringett

Ralph Springett believes a better tertiary investment would be to equally prioritise part time students, who demand a more developed web-based teaching and learning model; who have 80 percent less loan uptake; who have stronger connections between their study and their work; and who have a higher tendency to remain in New Zealand following graduation.

He says tertiary education institutions are constrained by the priorities of the TES and this is affecting where and how they invest their resources

New Zealand Tertiary Education Union

A working paper for NTEU’s Future of Higher Education Conference, 22-23 February 2012, University of Sydney

View or download ‘When the government steers the market: implications for the New Zealand’s tertiary education system‘ as a pdf

Introduction

Three decades of policy development and change has significantly altered the operation of the New Zealand tertiary education sector. Rather than policy that supports the important autonomous characteristics of tertiary education, successive governments have put in place policy levers focused on disciplining what is seen as an ‘unruly’ subject – the tertiary education sector and in particular its staff. The policy approaches of successive governments have imposed a market-led framework on tertiary education; have created a single ‘tertiary education sector’; and, have heightened the government’s ‘strategic steering’ of the sector. The result is that the primary focus of the tertiary education sector has moved from that of broad-based social, human, scientific, and economic progress, to the much narrower goal of economic advancement. We argue the changes experienced have been detrimental to the sector and the nation. By examining the major policy trends since the mid-1980s we aim to contribute to the current understanding of how the ‘rules of the game’ have shaped the nation’s tertiary education system, and propose a change of direction for the sector.

Continuous reviews reflect international trends and local regime change

For three decades New Zealand’s tertiary education sector has been under a state of continuous review. In 2003 McLaughlin (17-19) noted seven government initiated reviews and/or reports which were carried out on the tertiary education sector in the 1980s and 1990s (1987, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1197-8, 2000 and 2001). Since that time there have been further major reviews. The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) noted in 2005 some of the work it was completing included reviews of the Performance Based Research Fund, Adult and Community Education funding, and a review of Private Training Establishments (PTEs). In 2009 government agencies were charged with reviewing the provision of tertiary education in greater Auckland, the framework surrounding PTE funding, and the development of the New Zealand Skills Strategy (TEC 2008: 19-22). And there is currently a major review of industry training which the Ministry of Education (2011: 14) notes “has the potential to significantly alter the delivery of vocational education in New Zealand”. The result of all these reviews has been major legislative changes; the cessation of some government agencies and the creation of new ones; the modification of funding environments; redefinition of roles of institutions and those within them; changes to the way institutions are governed; and, the creation of new accountability and auditing models. We have no space in this paper to cover all of the changes that have been made to tertiary education but identify three major shifts in the rules surrounding the tertiary education sector which have significantly changed the operation of universities, polytechnics, wānanga, and other education providers.

New Zealand is unique because it clusters all parts of the sector together under a single strategy (Mahoney, 2003: 8)

The changes seen in New Zealand reflect international trends in tertiary education. In particular, there has been significant literature on the imposition of neo-liberal rules on public education globally (See Abbot 2004 for references to major international literature). And the drive to develop a national tertiary education strategy is evident in a range of jurisdictions as was noted in the opening of its briefing to the Minister of Tertiary Education in 2008:

A recent Organisation for Economic Co-oporation [sic] Development report notes a worldwide trend for governments to link their tertiary education systems to their social and economic objectives:

The imperative for countries is to raise higher-level employment skills, to sustain a globally competitive research base and to improve knowledge dissemination to the benefit of society.

National strategies are found in South Africa, France, and Britain, however, New Zealand is unique because it clusters all parts of the sector together under a single strategy (Mahoney, 2003: 8 ) and the implications of this will be evident as this paper progresses.

As well as reflecting international trends towards commercialisation, marketisation, ‘massification’, and steering, the policy approach imposed on the tertiary education sector in the last three decades has been part of New Zealand’s shift from a Keynesian welfare state, to a more market-driven state. Like many English-speaking democracies, from the 1980s New Zealand rejected Keynesian economic management in favour of a more market, less state, neo-liberal approach (Boston et al (eds) 1999; Castles 1996). The neo-liberal project affected both policy direction and the operations of the public sector through the instituting of the ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) (Sharp, A. 1994; Boston, J. (ed) 1995). Corporate management and marketisation (Davis and Rhodes, 2000: 75) led to contracts and other competitive market mechanisms becoming the preferred public sector methodology (Reddel 2004: 133). The Fourth Labour Government’s 1988 State Sector Act replaced input focused (implying high levels of trust) permanent secretaries with output focused (emphasis on efficiency) chief executives contracted to ministers and responsible for determining and delivering outcomes – the ‘new public management’ model (Bale 2003:210). This fundamentally altered the relationships between politicians, the public sector, and the public. However this ‘neo-liberal project’ changed over time. As Larner (2003) notes:

Indeed, it can be argued that New Zealand’s neoliberal project has now been through three distinct ‘‘phases’’: during the 1980s the state withdrew from many areas of economic production, while at the same time attempting to preserve — and even extend—the welfarist and social justice aspirations associated with social democracy; the more punitive phase of the early 1990s which saw an extension of the marketisation programme accompanied by the introduction of neo-conservative and/or authoritarian policies and programmes in the area of social policy; a third phase in the late 1990s characterised by a ‘‘partnering’’ ethos and in which discourses of ‘‘social inclusion’’ and ‘‘social investment’’ sit awkwardly alongside more obviously neoliberal elements such as economic globalisation, market activation and contractualism (Larner 2003).

A unicameral legislature with a single level of bureaucratic organisations implementing government decision-making set the ground for New Zealand to be a ‘laboratory’ for social and economic policy change since colonisation, including in the 1980s when Rogernomics (the nation’s neo-liberal programme) saw rapid and deep change instituted. Added to this New Zealand operates on a three-year election cycle which means that the longer term vision for tertiary education frequently gets lost in the upheaval of changes in government.

The New Zealand tertiary education sector

New Zealand’s tertiary education sector comprises public tertiary education institutions – universities, institutes of technology/polytechnics, wānanga – and a number of other providers, including smaller community providers such as Rural Education Activities Programmes (REAPs), and other small government-funded providers (for example Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa – the New Zealand Early Childhood Association). The sector also includes approximately 800 private training providers – both for-profit and not-for-profit and an industry training sector which includes industry training organisations, responsible for setting industry standards and arranging workplace education and training.

The central agencies responsible for policy and funding decisions for the sector are the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) and the Ministry of Education. TEC was set up in 2004 to take responsibility for policy development, auditing and funding but as of 2010 were responsible primarily for funding and auditing. TEC comprises at least six but no more than nine Commissioners appointed by the responsible Minister. The Ministry of Education is the main agency responsible for education from early childhood to tertiary education and has been responsible for the policy advisory function for the tertiary sector for decades. The National-led government in 2011 created a crown agency to market New Zealand institutions on the international education market – Education New Zealand. And there are currently two agencies responsible for quality assurance: New Zealand Qualifications Authority and Universities New Zealand (through the Committee on University Academic Programmes).

As well as these central agencies, there are a number of other government agencies such as the Ministry of Social Development, Te Puni Kōkiri (Ministry of Māori Development) who have a small percentage of their budgets allocated to funding tertiary education and training.

Policy implementation is undertaken through the Tertiary Education Strategy, which identifies priorities for the sector through the Statement of Tertiary Education Priorities (STEP). Individual institutions then outline how they will address these priorities through their investment plans (negotiated with government representatives), which must reflect their institutional profile (wānanga, institute of technology, university etc.). (For a more details see OECD’s Thematic Review of Tertiary Education – Country Reviews).

So what norms, ideals, and philosophies guide this government machinery and what does it mean for those who work and study in the tertiary education sector?

The rules of the New Zealand tertiary education system

There are three clear discourses (sets of rules) which have impacted upon the operations of public tertiary education in New Zealand over the past three decades:

1. The imposition of free-market ideals;
2. The creation of a single tertiary education sector; and,
3. The implementation of strategic ‘steering’ of the sector to meet pre-determined government objectives.
   
   top

To market we go

Policy approaches which moved tertiary education from an old ‘elite’ model of provision to a ‘market’ model has occurred in many parts of the globe (as noted in Marginson 2007, and others). Whilst some like to present this shift as a seamless transition from one model to another, in reality in New Zealand it occurred over several decades, through a range of mechanisms and policy changes, rather than through one single policy or legislative change.

The ‘massification’ and commercialisation of the tertiary education system resulted in rapid and extensive growth in the sector

The ‘massification’ and commercialisation of the tertiary education system resulted in rapid and extensive growth in the sector. The 1997 Green Paper supported high levels of participation, particularly by school leavers, and enrolments rose by 17% from 1997 to 2002 (Mahoney 2003: 3). Polytechnics took advantage of the autonomy given to them under the 1989 Education Act and set up a range of new programmes and degrees. This led to what was perceived as an unnecessary duplication of courses (Russell 2007:112). As the Ministry of Education (2008:25) notes:

During the 1990s, the tertiary funding system was designed to support increased access and equity through a market-led model. This system successfully increased access and showed considerable improvements in equity, but there were increasing public concerns about the rising cost of study and the quality and relevance of provision, particularly at sub-degree level.

During the 1990s the market driven approach to education intensified and successive governments sought to create a tertiary education system that was efficient, innovative and responsive to the ‘market’ (McLaughlin 2003: 22). This expectation of efficient use of resources continues in current state documentation: “Rising demand for tertiary study in a period of significant fiscal constraint means that we expect our investment to be used efficiently and effectively by tertiary education organisations and students” (TEC TES 2010-15: 3). This drive for efficiency resulted in higher levels of learner contribution to individual tertiary education costs (See McLaughlin 2003: 15) and increased accountability mechanisms being introduced into the sector.

Creating the single sector

The second major policy change in the tertiary education sector in New Zealand was the move to create a ‘single sector’. This began with the Hawke Report of 1988 and the Labour government’s Learning for Life policy statement, both of which defined tertiary education as all post-compulsory education irrespective of where it was happening (Eppel 2009: 76). This ‘single sector’ approach was enshrined in legislation with the passing of the 1989 Education Act.

The early legislation and policy left private training establishments (PTE) and industry training out of the single tertiary education sector. However, over the coming two decades both were integrated into the tertiary education sector. In 1992 the Industry Training Act resulted in Industry Training Organisations (ITOs) being brought into the sector. And following the 1997 Green and White papers on education released by the National government, a pool of contestable funding was created and PTEs were given the opportunity to bid for public monies (Abbott 2004: 2).

Codd (2001: 13) states that this move to create a single post-school education sector can be seen in other parts of the world but that New Zealand has gone much further with the creation of a single sector than other countries. This is also noted in Mahoney (2003: 2): “NZ is currently unique in that no other country has clustered its community, vocational, and academic education together in quite this way.”

Time to steer the tertiary education ‘market’

The market model and single-sector approach to tertiary education was overlaid in the early twenty-first century with a strategic steering model. When the Labour-led government was elected in 1999 it set up the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (TEAC). The Commission was (amongst other things) to develop a widely-shared strategic direction for the tertiary sector. TEAC recommended more active engagement by government in the tertiary education system, including policies such as capping student numbers, targeting funding, and funding institutions based on differentiation and the creation of strategic investment plan for each institution. TEAC was responding to the perceived lack of direction in the sector, the result of which was seen as inefficient use of funding (OECD Thematic Review 2006: 135).

While many of the market-led traits remained in the tertiary education system, the government shed the massification approach of previous decades. “The government recognises that its investment system needs to change to support tertiary education organisations to shift their focus from participation and funding to achievement and the long term needs of stakeholders” (TES 2007-12: 13). Strategic steering was seen as important if New Zealand governments were to enhance the ‘knowledge economy’ (TEAC 2000a: 4) and broad goals for the sector were set out by TEAC (2000a: 6):

Tertiary education has a key contribution to make to New Zealand’s economic and social development, including:

• Cultivating the intellect and personal well-being;
• Reducing inequality;
• Preserving, renewing and transmitting culture;
• Building research capability and creating new knowledge
• Responding to the needs of the labour market;
• Supporting business and industry development; and,
• Promoting social cohesion.

The consultation process carried out by TEAC led to the creation of the Tertiary Education Commission. The role of TEC was that of being “the proactive steerer” of the tertiary system (Parliament Library Overview 2003: 6). The Commission (in conjunction with the Ministry of Education) was to oversee the development and implementation of the Tertiary Education Strategy (TES). As has been noted earlier, this strategy is reinforced by the Statement of Tertiary Education Priorities (STEP) and the development of institutional charters and profiles which outline their unique contribution to the government’s national objectives.

While rhetoric around the need for strategic steering has increased in recent years, it has always sat in the background of the New Zealand tertiary education sector. As noted by Simon Marginson (2007: 79) the “idea of a University is nested in national contexts, historical identities and conditions of possibility. In the ‘Westminster’ countries (UK, Australia, New Zealand) national systems combined university autonomy with explicit central steering.” The notion of national objectives for the sector can be seen in the 1989 Education Act:

The object of the provisions of this Act relating to institutions is to give them as much independence and freedom to make academic, operational, and management decisions as is consistent with the nature of the services they provide, the efficient use of national resources, the national interest, and the demands of accountability (Education Act S. 160).

What develops over the last decade is a much closer focus on aligning the actions of tertiary organisations to the goals of the government: “The aim of reforms since the early 2000s has been to link public investment in tertiary education more closely with identified social and economic priorities, to increase stakeholder influence, and to improve fiscal certainty for government, providers, students and their families” (MoE 2008: 25). The philosophy underpinning the decision to increase strategic steering was based on a belief that the education system, left to itself, was incapable of recognising economic imperatives (Mahoney 2003: 4).

Critiquing the new ‘economic focus’ of the tertiary education market

The changes discussed above have had a major impact upon the activities of those who govern and manage the tertiary education sector, as well as the students and staff within each institution. The question is – do policy advisers know what they have created and continue to impose upon the tertiary education sector? In Foucault’s terms policy makers “often know what they do; they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don’t know is what they do does” (In Middleton 2009: 193).

Some of the changes may have had positive outcomes for some individual staff and students. Certainly government agencies claim the policy environment has improved the quality and efficiency of the tertiary education sector. For example, bibliometric data is used by governments to demonstrate that the Performance Based Research Fund has improved research performance within universities. In the 2003-2007 year the relative academic impact of New Zealand institutions was higher than G8 Australian universities in three of ten areas; and higher than non-G8 universities in eight of ten broad subject areas (Smart 2009: 5). And improved course and degree completions is seen as another positive indicator that the policies put in place as part of the government’s steering is working (for example http://www.tec.govt.nz/Learners-Organisations/Learners/performance-in-tertiary-education/what-the-indicators-mean/completion-of-qualifications/). Though, even government agencies acknowledge that some of these outcomes have been overstated: “While good progress has been made in implementing some major policy changes, it is too early to say whether the reforms are delivering the gains in quality and relevance that were sought. On-going monitoring of progress and impact will be required” (MoE, 2008: iii).

While governments may claim success from the new policy approaches, we argue that on balance the three discourses bounding New Zealand tertiary education are doing harm to the sector, its staff and students, and to society. It is crucial that the professionals working in the sector – the academics, librarians, technicians, tutors, teachers, administrators, and so on – demonstrate these harmful effects clearly and definitively, because the Ministry of Education states that the TES approach is “accepted by the sector as the necessary way forward” (MoE 2006: 17-18).

While these harmful effects need to be demonstrated, this paper is not a treatise against ensuring taxpayers dollars are well-spent. Neither is it an attempt to reify some mythical past in which tweed jacket-wearing professors offered gems of wisdom to eager minds who spent their days on campus debating whether Kant had unpacked the true meaning of existence or if Einstein’s theory of relativity is accurate. What we aim to do is to illustrate why the approach outlined above of a centrally steered tertiary education ‘market’ with an increasing emphasis on economic outcomes is not serving the needs of our society, communities, or our economy.

Steering the sector with both eyes on the economy

Government does and can legitimately (on behalf of citizens) have expectations that tertiary education institutions will “produce public value” (Moore 2005 in Pearman 2009: 8). But steering is complex (OECD 2006: 41). In particular, we would argue that goals can easily become too narrow. As time has passed the New Zealand tertiary education sector has been driven much more to meet national, or more correctly government, objectives (See McLaughlin 2003: 25-28; Zepke no date: 3). Economic benefit has become the predominantly desired outcome (Zepke no date: 5) and the immeasurable outcomes of tertiary education are set to one side (See an example of this in work of Bhaskaran et al 2007: 4). A comparison of the opening statements from Briefings to Incoming Ministers since 2005, show the narrowing of objectives for tertiary education:

The tertiary education system is expected to deliver outcomes for learners, stakeholders and New Zealand’s strategic goals. In addition, tertiary education research is expected to achieve outcomes for New Zealand’s research goals. The concept of outcomes can be summarised as a combination of performance, quality and relevance. It means that the results of the education and research offered by tertiary education organisations and undertaken by learners are positive for the learner and meet the needs of the relevant part of the wider community (TEC 2005:4 para 19).

For New Zealand to participate effectively in the global environment, it needs to develop networks of world class firms, research institutions and tertiary education organisations that collaborate for the benefit of New Zealand’s economic and social development, cultural identity and environmental sustainability (TEC 2008: 6).

Key Priorities

Strong fiscal and performance imperatives require a further lift in tertiary education performance over the next term of Government. There are three particular priorities that should shape the agenda for the sector: First is the drive to enhance New Zealand’s economic growth performance and raise labour productivity. Greater added value in our products and services will require more effective use of high-level skills in our population and more efficient application of new knowledge and ideas. This applies just as much in the vocational and applied technology areas as in the more general areas of academic study. (MoE 2011: 3)  

Increase the incentives for research and tertiary education institutes to undertake more firm-relevant research and to transfer knowledge to firms (Treasury 2011: 5).

The Government wants relevant and efficient tertiary education provision that meets the needs of students, the labour market and the economy

The first Tertiary Education Strategy took a broad and inclusive approach to cover the diversity of tertiary education. This Strategy continues that inclusive direction but sharpens the focus. The focus is much more explicitly on what the government expects the tertiary education system to contribute and the priority outcomes for the immediate future.

The driver for increased economic gain from tertiary education budgets has also seen governments demanding improved linkages with industry by sector. Progress in this regard will be measured “increased research contract income at tertiary education providers from industry” and “increased placement of research students in industry and business” (TES 2007-12: 39). A systematic examination of the types of research being carried out in New Zealand tertiary education institutions is needed to understand whether the focus on economic outputs has had an effect on the breadth of research being undertaken.

In short, the National-led coalition government has “…removed the boundaries between academic and non-academic type post-school education, and has shifted the position of publicly funded tertiary education from one of an individual right to that of a tool for national economic growth” (Mahoney, 2003: 2). The aim is to improve the ‘alignment of tertiary spending with the government’s economic growth goals and to ‘use research to support its economic growth goals’ (MoE 2011:4-9). As well as aligning tertiary education outputs with economic growth, successive governments want the sector to be more ‘business-like’.

An economically efficient tertiary education sector

Evidence that education is viewed as a business is found in multiple government policy documents and funding decisions. For example TEC (2008:32) noted: “The challenge is to work with the sector to transition to sustainable business models that support this focus on quality and outcomes.” And the Ministry of Education (2009a:1 emphasis added) stated: “Completion is useful as a measure of the rate of production of qualifications from New Zealand’s tertiary education system, and hence as an indicator of the rate of a country’s skills acquisition.”

The most significant manifestation of this corporatisation of the sector can be found in the drive for greater economic efficiency in the tertiary education sector. Over the next three years there is a shortfall between the costs of running the sector and the funding provided by the state of $1.1bn (see Figure 1)

Figure 1

This shortfall means that government agencies are repeatedly noting that there is “a continuing need for fiscal restraint in the public sector and a drive for cost effective education” (MoE 2011: 7).

The focus on economic efficiency has had a direct effect on what courses are taught, and non-economic courses (those with limited or low enrolment) are shed. For example, at Victoria University of Wellington ‘financial reviews’ were used to close Gender and Women’s Studies, the Masters of Strategic Studies, and the Social Science Research and Evaluation programmes during 2009 and 2010. Where institutions once used cross-subsidies between departments to keep courses running for pedagogical reasons even if enrolments were low, it seems in the new tertiary market this is less likely to occur.

TEC’s Financial Performance Information shows the rising numbers of students and falling number of staff in the sector. In 2008 the student staff ratio was 17.9:1 and by 2010 it was 19.8:1

The focus on ‘economic efficiency’ has also led to a rise in contingent work in the tertiary education sector, as the more efficient sector is seen as one in which ‘research’ is seen as the pinnacle of tertiary education environment. The result is that research stars are given space to ‘research’ and teaching has increasingly been moved to fixed-term/casualised labour. Our members have shared experiences such as departmental heads being pressured to only employ high-ranking researchers, with other staff being threatened with performance management if their research outputs are deemed inadequate. Jobs are advertised highlighting ‘research’ in a way not seen before. And employers have sought to vary collective employment agreements so that staff members who are unlikely to rank highly in PBRF evaluations are not counted for the census date. For example, we are seeing the creation of new categories of ‘academics’ such as Professional Teaching Fellows at The University of Auckland – academic positions with less pay and limited career paths.

The drive for efficiency has also increased the amount of evaluation individuals in the sector and tertiary institutions themselves are required to complete. The requirement for external accountability (for measuring and counting the outputs of the sector) has led to the growth of the ‘centre’. “If the government wishes to reduce the size and cost of the centre, it could review which roles and functions are best undertaken by the centre and which are most properly undertaken by education providers” (MoE 2008: 13). We suspect that the model for the sector has also led to higher transaction costs within each institution (for example, in the increased size of senior management teams to administer accountability measures, or  in the teams needed to meet measures to secure funding allocation requirements under the PBRF funding model). However, as of yet there is no research on the transaction costs of New Zealand’s strategic steering model.

Trampling on the non-economic goals of education

The narrow economic goals set by the government and the corporatisation of tertiary education cut across the primary legislation governing the tertiary education sector – the Education Act 1989. The Education Act sets out clearly that the sector has a:

• Critic and conscience function
• Role in creating good ‘citizens’
• Requirement to contribute to broad social, environmental and economic development goals (Education Act 1989, Sec 159AAA(1)(d) & (e)).

The economic focus also cuts across government rhetoric about institutions contributing to the “success for all New Zealanders through lifelong learning” (TES 2007-2012 : 20). These broad goals are not part of the drive for ‘economic growth’ and ‘labour market productivity’.

The narrow economic goals also impact upon the daily lives of those studying and working in New Zealand’s tertiary education institutions. This is because “with goals, people narrow their focus” (Ordonez et al 2009: 6) and “you get what you reward” (Ordonez et al 2009: 7). Within the tertiary sector, three decades of change have resulted in people being motivated by external rewards rather than intrinsic value of the job itself (Ordonez et al 2009: 15).

In an environment of fiscal constraint the National-led government has decided to ‘target’ its investment on learners aged 18-25

Steering ensures the ‘right’ students are admitted to tertiary study: “There is little value for anyone if learners enrol in tertiary provision that they are unlikely to complete, or which lacks a clear progression to higher-level study.” (MoE 2011: 30). This approach leads to ‘risk aversion’ with regard those studying part-time who are being excluded from tertiary studies through enrolment policies and changes to the student loan policies.

There has also been a drive towards higher-level qualifications. The 2010-2015 TES (11) notes: “There is a significant wage premium for people who complete higher-level study, particularly bachelor’s degrees.”  Because funding is targeted towards higher level degrees, many courses at lower levels have been closed, often with little contemplation of the pedagogical impact. For example, the Ministry of Education (2001: 11) noted it was important to ensure it was “redirecting government expenditure away from low value spending, such as adult and community education courses for personal interest, towards higher value spending, such as degree level study.” Staff have also watched as universities have shed ‘uneconomic’ university preparation in order to hand the work over to neighbouring polytechnics.

TEC may acknowledge that “one challenge is to develop funding arrangements that can be tailored to individual circumstances and support a range of distinctive contributions within the sector” (2008:32) but current approaches have failed to do this. The focus on funding on higher level degrees has led to ‘mission drift’ in the New Zealand tertiary education sector, an outcome being witnessed around the world. As Vincent-Lancrin (2007: 16) notes “New actors – corporate universities, consortia, virtual universities, and others – have entered higher education have started to blur the usual borders between institutions.” The question is how do we stop “‘mission drift’ and convergence around a single dominant model of institution, normally that of the comprehensive research university” (Marginson 2007: 96).

Given that the strategic goals of the government for tertiary education were implemented over the top of the market-led approach to education it should not be surprising that the goals of the sector have been narrowed towards economic growth and labour market productivity.

Hollowing out the tertiary education sector

The creation of a single tertiary education market has resulted in the ‘public good’ element of education being overshadowed by the private benefits of completing post-compulsory education. Debates around student loans illustrate the dominance of the idea that education is a ‘private good’. “Reintroducing interest on student loans would create greater incentives for students and/or their families to save for tertiary education without significant adverse effects on tertiary education participation” (Treasury 2011: 15).

The shift to seeing tertiary education as a private good has led to rising costs for students, an increased ‘private burden’. New Zealand is one of the nine OECD countries where private income contribution exceeds 30 per cent of the total income of tertiary educational institutions (OECD 2006). We need to debate in New Zealand the point at which this contribution of private funding into tertiary education will become ‘intrusive’ on teaching and learning, and on any equity goals.

Meanwhile steering has stifled academic freedom (Codd 2001: 17) and has cut across research for knowledge (Zepke no date: 4). We only need to consider how government agencies think of academic freedom to see this effect.

The focus is now on research for ‘business’ which devalues the critic and conscience role of academics.

The absence of academic considerations in the direction of the tertiary education sector is in part due to the ‘public choice’ rhetoric which took hold in New Zealand during the 1990s. As was noted earlier, under the ‘market liberal’ philosophy interest groups (and that would include staff and their representative unions or associations) are seen as ‘self-interested, ‘vested’ interests, seeking special advantages or ‘privileges’ for themselves which are contrary to the public interest and to the long term prospects of the country” (Olson 1982, Vowles 1993 cited in Mulgan 2004, p. 212). Purging tertiary institutions of its ‘vested interests’ has meant dismantling collegiality and staff participation in decision-making (Russell 2007: 113). This has been extended into the governance of institutions. Prior to the Education Amendment Act 2010, staff representatives were elected to the councils of polytechnics. Now the government has primary responsibility for appointing these boards and we have witnessed the imposition of a corporate governance model on the sector. Even the public (citizens who pay for the sector thought their taxes) do not seem to feature the consultation and documentation which sets the strategic direction of the sector.

What we have seen in New Zealand, as in other nations where market philosophies and economic drivers now underpin tertiary education policy, is a clash of cultures

–  a clash between the independent autonomous tradition of the tertiary sector with a corporate-managerial approach (Morris 2005: 388). The market model has in many ways eroded the core of the sector (Codd 2001: 2). The policy regime has resulted in is the creation of the corporate-managerial tertiary institution: one that receive credentials from outside; is part of a command chain; is about hierarchy not voluntary cooperation; and one where you evaluate teaching and research by reference to external criteria (Hedley 2010: 119-120). It is a low trust model with high levels of external ‘accountability’ measures. For our members, in many cases this led to workload intensification, larger classes and increased demands to meet administrative requirements.

Course planning and curriculum development, marking and assessment (including moderation) and internal administration (and advisory committees) account for the highest increases in workload reported in recent times (i.e. since 1989) (McCormack, D, Ovens, J et al 1997: 19).

It is not just the autonomy of institutions which has been trampled on by external accountability, but the autonomy of individual professionals within them. The market model, with its high level of external monitoring, is an approach that conflicts with the underlying tendencies which motivate ‘professionals’ to work hard. A significant body of research shows that professional identities are based on both (internal) self-determination and (external) definitions of oneself that are offered by others (Middleton 2009: 196). Increasingly in the New Zealand tertiary sector we see the domination of the external definitions – for academic staff and professional staff from administrators to librarians to technicians – and little room for self-determination. Perhaps one of most discussed disciplining tools has been the PBRF. Codd (in Middleton 2009: 196) notes that the individualisation, and compulsion, of the PBRF suggest that its “consequence for academic identity are likely to be greater than is the case with the RAE”.

Our problem is not with the concept of efficiency but rather a wariness of the benchmarks being set. “The NPM sees national systems as economic markets and imagines institutions as firms driven fundamentally by economic revenues and market share, not teaching, research and service as ends in themselves” (Marginson 2007: 80). We are also wary of the drive for continual improvement and ever increasing economic efficiency. “The

There must be a point where efficiencies have been reached. For example, at what point do student: staff ratios reach an optimal level? At what point are we allowed to say we have reached the optimal point that allows for economic efficiency and quality learning?

Having reflected on what is happening in New Zealand, we agree with Hedley that it is the increased monitoring role of the government that is of significance to the sector (2010: 125). Hedley (2010: 141) also notes that tighter central control of university activities results in more information about their activities, which in turn is treated as revelation of further “problems’, the remedy of which is taken to be even greater control.

It is difficult to get a balance between autonomy and control in the tertiary education sector. It is naïve to think the state would bankroll the sector without attention to how money is spent, but there must be a balance between control and freedom (Hedley 2010: 132). We argue that the harm being created in the sector is evidence that the balance has shifted too far towards heavy-handed government steering.

There is an indication that politicians know that the sector requires a light hand. Steve Maharey (the Education Minister responsible for introducing ‘steering’ through TEC and now Vice Chancellor of Massey University) noted “What the government is looking for from TEC is firm but unobtrusive steerage of the whole system towards relevance, excellence, access, capability, and collaboration” (in Mahoney 2003: 15). And in 2006 then Shadow Minister for  Education Bill English stated: “Tertiary institutions should advocate for a much-simplified system with less central bureaucratic discretion, certain sanctions, and greater institutional autonomy. They should be demanding that central government stick to quality monitoring and funding limits until it can demonstrate that its own strategic processes can in fact add value to the institutions.” But government agencies seem to feel that the steering imposed on the sector has not gone far enough. “There is much to be done to more effectively leverage our investment in tertiary education to grow and strengthen the economy” (MoE 2011: 25). We have seen the sector overall (universities, ITPs, wānanga) ‘disciplined’ in order to meet ‘national objectives’, which in a parliament democracy where the term of government is three years, means fulfilling ever changing and altering national objectives of major political parties.

Heavy handed steering is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, the government has over-estimated what it takes to steer the sector. “Tertiary education systems inherently are complex and resilient, which makes steering a daunting task.” (OECD 2008: 41). Secondly, the steering has a negative impact on the autonomy so crucial to a flourishing tertiary education sector. What we have seen is creation of processes to determine strategic direction at the expense of ensuring that the sector has the freedom to teach and research unhampered by whatever political ideology has currency (OECD 2008: 42). Thirdly, like the rest of the state sector, the model which now characterises the tertiary sector is, we would argue, a low trust model, in which tertiary education staff are no longer viewed as professionals but as vested interests, who must be monitored and controlled. The lack of trust and autonomy is detrimental to the long term future of tertiary education and the commitment of staff to the sector. In fact in most of the government documentation, staff appear to be absent. Reference is made to ‘stakeholders’ (usually students and business), of tertiary institutions, of consultation with peak bodies and industry, but rarely with staff.

The time frame for the achievement of the government’s economic goals is also problematic. In practice in New Zealand there is a frequent shifting of goals, priorities, and objectives because of our three year election cycle. The latest briefing to the incoming tertiary education minister states: “Strong fiscal and performance imperative require a further lift in tertiary education performance over the next term of Government” (MoE 2011: 3 emphasis added)). Even the major strategy itself is changed with each new government: “This Strategy will revoke and replace the previous Tertiary Education Strategy 2007-2012, as required by the Education Act 1989” (TEC 2010: 3).

Can we change the rules of the game?

The first step in redressing the harm being done the tertiary education sector is to create a new vision for the tertiary education sector. We are not alone in seeking to carve out a vision for the future. Vincent-Lancrin (2007: 3) notes that the urge to reflect on the future of higher education worldwide is highlighted by number of on-going projects on the subject, the increasing literature on this subject, and, policy papers reflecting future directions for education.

A twenty-first century society needs a vibrant, diverse, creative, and dynamic tertiary education sector. We need to be able to effectively respond to the major challenges facing the world and the response required will not merely be an economic response. While government documentation limits tertiary education to achieving ‘economic’ outputs (MoE 2011: 6) there is room to move beyond a narrow economic framework. Compulsory education is still seen as having very broad goals: “Our over-riding goal is a world-leading education system that equips all learners with the knowledge, skills and values to be successful citizens in the 21^st Century” (MoE 2011: 3). We need to reassert that these broad goals apply not only to compulsory education, but to life-long learn. Even for the economy a broad teaching and learning environment is important. We need workers who are innovative and responsive to change, and this comes through broad based curriculums offered at a range of levels. And we need citizens who are broad minded and life-long learners.

New Zealand’s citizens and taxpayers do not need people to be trained solely for them to earn a larger salary in order to purchase more. We need tertiary education to provide our society, our communities, our families, and our economy with people who can fully take up their place creating, innovating, learning, fixing, mending, and developing all that is needed to ensure that our world is a better place. The collective good of tertiary education will only be realised if we allow freedom and space for teachers and learners to do what they all want to do so desperately – to teach and learn.

The collective good of tertiary education will only be realised if we allow freedom and space for teachers and learners to do what they all want to do so desperately – to teach and learn.

The outputs of the sector should be evaluated but New Zealand needs to drop the single focus of ‘economic efficiency’. Governments and their agencies are also going to have to abandon policy evidence based solely on outputs that can be ‘measured’ or ‘counted’. Data from the tertiary education sector is limited and this needs to be fully acknowledged before the data become ‘facts’.

A tertiary education sector that delivers broad social, scientific, human, and economic progress needs a funding and policy regimes which achieves a balance between: research; teaching; community service; and credentialing (providing degrees). Pedagogical considerations must be weighted as being more important, or at least as equally important, as economic considerations when deciding on who can learn and what they can study. We need to reassert that “the benefits from attaining tertiary qualifications are much broader than purely monetary ones” (Bhaskaran et al 2007: 213). We need to foster creativity and innovation. Managers in the tertiary sector and governments needs to consider the way in which creative industries are beginning to ‘free up’ staff from strict accountability for every minute of their day and allowing them room to flourish as creative actors. It is also important to cease the continual change in the sector and provide some security for those who work within it so they can focus on long term goals, particularly with regards to research (not single year or multiyear goals, but goals stretching out over several decades). Job security, what for academics was once called tenure, can help creativity flourish but does require high levels of trust. Improving job security and removing competition for funding may also help individuals and their institutions to co-operate for the good of all New Zealanders, rather than competing for the good of their institution, their department, or for their own career advancement.

Collaboration and co-operation is important if tertiary education to flourish. We need to find ways in which to stop debates which pit investment in students against investment in staff. This competition is evident in government documentation: “Universities have been framing what they describe as an under-funding issue in terms of striking a better balance between investment tin student support and direct investment in institutions, and the basis on which cost pressures are met through the funding system.” (TEC 2008: 27). And we need to find ways to value what is done in the many parts of the sector. In recent years both university and polytechnic lobbies have been putting out documents which illustrate that the government investment in their sector is the most economically efficient way forward. This narrative of competition is harmful if we want to ensure that a diverse range of teaching and learning approaches flourish in New Zealand.

Finally, there is no doubt any solution in the short terms means we must “make best use of scarce resources” (TEC 2008: 27), but in the long-run staff, students, their families and communities will need to demand greater investment in tertiary education even if it means giving back tax cuts.

How do we know that this is the best direction for tertiary education? This directionare justified by the aims of the sector as set out in the Education Act (a normative base) as well as in the needs of the world we live in (an empirical basis). We know it is needed because we have listened to the professionals who work in the sector. And this is the final piece of the puzzle, the government – if it is going to steer the sector – must listen to the staff who are experts in their fields (teaching, research, education support). Documents by government agencies repeatedly note that the ‘system’ has a role to play in identifying where future investment should go (See For example the TES 2007-2012: 36). The question is, who do agencies mean when they are talking about ‘the system’ and ‘stakeholders’? There is no indication that the government agencies mean staff who work in the sector, other than the ‘managers’ of the system. Larner and Craig maintain that the NPM environment delegitimised expertise gained by years of experience, replacing it with imposed requirements of “managerialism”, “professionalization”, “skill development”, and “technical capacity” – all terms which offer a common sense understanding but are often expressed without an explanation of actual implications (2005, pp. 408-409). In the tertiary sector it means that the advice of teachers, researchers, technicians, librarians, and so on, is ignored in tertiary education decision-making.

A fundamental philosophical change – a paradigm shift – is going to be needed if we are to see the recreation of the New Zealand tertiary education sector in a way that fits the Education Act. We have two paths that may lead to this paradigm shift. The first is to allow the current rules of the game to reach their natural end, and watch as the sector fails. However, this will have huge human costs – it with harm staff, to students, to whole communities. The second path is to keep fighting back. We need to show up the system for what it is. Such an approach requires constant and concerted effort at all levels of our institutions and government machinery. We need to find way to get our voice back.

Over the last decade the voice of the sector has been muted, a symptom of the restructuring of tertiary education itself. Many of the professionals in the sector are too tired, too busy, or too scared to speak up. We must stand up and defend the autonomy of the sector as a whole. Fatigue, apathy, and fear can be overcome if we fight collectively. What better place to start than to lay bare the very changes that have disciplined our behaviour – the single tertiary education market that is steered by government to meet economic goals. Not only to lay bare this travesty of a system but to seek its demise.

References

Primary sources

TEC (2005) Briefing to the Incoming Minister: Post Election 2005, Tertiary Education Commission, National Office, Wellington, October 2005.

Ministry of Education (2006) OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education: NZ country background report Ministry of Education, Wellington January 2006.

Ministry of Education (2008) Briefing to the Incoming Minister, Ministry of Education, Wellington, November 2008.

Ministry of Education (2009a) Completion of tertiary education, Ministry of Education, Wellington, December 2009.

Ministry of Education (2011) Briefing to the Incoming Minister, Ministry of Education, Wellington, December 2011.

New Zealand Treasury (2011) Briefing to the Incoming Minister of Finance: increasing economic growth and resilience New Zealand Treasury, Wellington.

Office for the Minister of Tertiary Education (2010) Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-15, Ministry of Education, Wellington.

OECD (2006) Emergence of Private Higher Education Funding within the OECD area, Kiira Kärkkäinen September 2006, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/20/38621229.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008) OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education: New Zealand www.oecd.org

Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (2000) Shaping a Shared Vision: strategy, quality, access, Tertiary Ministry of Education, Wellington, August 2000.

Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (2001a) Shaping the system: Second report of the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission, Ministry of Education, Wellington, March 2001.

Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (2001b) Shaping the strategy: Third report of the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission, Ministry of Education, Wellington, July 2001.

TEC (2008) Briefing to the Incoming Minister, Tertiary Education Commission, National Office, Wellington, November 2008.

Secondary sources

Abbott, Malcolm (2004) ‘Commercial Risks and Opportunities in the New Zealand Tertiary Education Sector’, School of International Studies, AIS St Helens, New Zealand, Working Paper No. 3, June 2004

Barton, Chris (2102) ‘Who’s speaking out on today’s big issues?’ New Zealand Herald, 3 February 2012, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10782885

Boston, J. (ed) (1995) The state under contract. Wellington: Bridget William Books.

Bhaskaran, Nair, Warren Smart, and Roger Smyth (2007) ‘How does investment in tertiary education improve outcomes for New Zealanders?’ Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, Issue 31, July 2007, 195-217.

Castles, F., et al (eds) (1996) The Great Experiment Labour Parties and Public Policy Transformation in Australia and New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Clear, Tony (2006) ‘TEAC Research Funding Proposals Considered Harmful: ICT Research at Risk’, Research paper, Auckland University of Technology.

Codd, John A. (2001) ‘New Zealand Universities and Tertiary Education Policy: TEAC and Beyond’, Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Christchurch, 6-9 December 2001

Davis, G. and R A W Rhodes (2000). ‘From hierarchy to contracts and back again: reforming the Australian public service’ in M. Keating, J. Wanna and P. Weller (eds.), Institutions on the Edge: Capacity for Governance, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.

Earle, David (2010) ‘Tertiary education, skills and productivity ’, Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis and Reporting Strategy and System Performance, Ministry of Education 2010

Edwards, Meredith (2003) ‘Review of New Zealand Tertiary Education Institution Governance’, Ministry of Education, Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit, May 2003.

Engler, Ralf (2009 ) ‘Future demand for tertiary education in New Zealand; 2009 to 2025 and beyond’, Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis and Reporting Strategy and System Performance, Ministry of Education, 2009

English, Bill (2006) ‘The TEAC (Tertiary Education Advisory Commission) reforms’, Journal of Management and Organisation, Volume 12 Issue 1 – 2006

Eppel, Elizabeth Anne (2009) ‘The contribution of complexity theory to understanding and explaining policy processes: A study of tertiary education policy processes in New Zealand’, PhD Thesis Victoria University of Wellington.

Larner W (2003) ‘Guest editorial: Neoliberalism?’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21(5):309–312

Larner, W., & Craig, D. (2005) ‘After neoliberalism? Community activism and local partnerships in Aotearoa New Zealand,’ Antipode, 37(3), 402-424.

Macpherson, Reynold (2010) ‘The Professionalization of Educational Leaders through Postgraduate Study and Professional Development Opportunities in New Zealand Tertiary Education Institutions’, Journal of Research on Leadership Education, July 2010, Volume 5, Number 6: 209-247.

McCormack, D, Ovens, J (1997) ‘Workload Working Party Report’, A joint report compiled by members of the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education and employer representatives of the Polytechnic Group – UNITEC Institute of Technology, Christchurch Polytechnic, Manukau Institute of Technology, Waikato Polytechnic, Auckland Institute of Technology, Eastern Institute of Technology.

McInnis, Craig, Roger Peacock & Vince Catherwood (2006) ‘Internationalisation in New Zealand Tertiary Education Organisations’,  New Zealand Ministry of Education International Division, Wellington, MAY 2006

McLaughlin, Maureen (2003) ‘Tertiary Education Policy in New Zealand’, Research Report, Ian Axford (NZ) Fellowships in Public Policy.

Mahoney, Paul (2003) ‘Tertiary Education Funding – Overview of Recent Reform’, Parliamentary Library.

Mahoney, Paul (2006) ‘Higher Education Funding – Overseas Models’, Parliamentary Library, Wellington, 2006/05 September.

Marginson S (2007) ‘Global university rankings’ in Marginson S (ed) (2007) Prospects of higher education Sense Publishers, 79-100.

Middleton, Sue (2009) ‘Becoming PBRF-able: Research Assessment and Education in New Zealand’, in Besley, Tina (A.C.)  (ed.), Assessing the Quality of Educational Research in Higher Education, Sense Publishers, 193–208.

Mulgan, R. (2004). Politics in New Zealand (3^rd edition, updated by Peter Aimer). Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Pearman, Geoff (2009) ‘Stakeholder Engagement and the New Zealand Tertiary Education Reforms: A sea-change or the emperor’s new clothes?’ Research Paper, Principal Partners in Change, www.partnersinchange.co.nz

Reddel, Tom (2004) ‘Third Way Social Governance: Where is the State?’ Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(2) May 2004, pp. 129142.

Russell, Matt (2007) ‘‘Slicing Up the Funding Pie’ Tertiary Funding in New Zealand: Where It’s Been, and Where It’s Going’, New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, Volume 4, Issue 2, 111-116

Sharp, A. (ed) (1994) Leap into the Dark: The Changing Role of the State in New Zealand since 1984. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Shulruf, Boaz, Sarah Tumen, and John Hattie (2010) ‘Student pathways in a New Zealand polytechnic: Key factors for completion’, Full Length Research Paper, International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education Vol. 2(4), pp. 67-74, August 2010

Smart, Warren (2009) Making an impact, Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis and Reporting Strategy and System Performance, Ministry of Education, Wellington.

Zepke, Nick (No date) ‘What of the future for academic freedom in higher education in Aotearoa New Zealand?’ Research paper.