One of the major differences between public and private sector workers in the education and training sector is most public sector education workers belong to a strong national union, whereas very few private sector employees belong to unions or have a collective employment agreement, which they can use to negotiate a pay rise.

Statistics NZ’s labour cost index data shows that the most common reasons employers gave for awarding pay rises in the last year were either to match a rise in the cost of living, or because of the existence of a collective employment agreement, and union members with whom they needed to negotiate at their worksites.  Most surveyed employers said they were unlikely to give pay raises for other reasons such as to match market rates, or to attract or retain staff.

The Herald reported yesterday that Victoria University was one of only five organisations so far to express an interest in running a private charter school.

Dr Grey says Victoria’s expression of interest to run a charter school raises worrying questions about what direction the university has for education.

“If it has innovative new ideas for education, why is it not already teaching and promoting those ideas in our existing public schools through research and teacher education at its own Faculty of Education.”

“New Zealand has a high quality public education system, from early childhood right through to adult and tertiary education. One of its strengths is that everyone, no matter where they come from, has the same opportunity to high quality teaching and learning. In contrast, charter schools, like many other private education providers, are limited and divisive. They take the focus away from improving education for all New Zealanders to focus instead on rewarding private, for-profit companies. Victoria should not involve itself in legitimising this attack on quality public education,” said Dr Grey.

For more information:

Dr Sandra Grey, TEU national president, 021 844 176 or 04 801 5098
Stephen Day, TEU communications officer, 021 2900 734 or 04 801 4792

http://www.teu.ac.nz

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.

The TPPA is an international investor dispute agreement currently under negotiation between New Zealand and eight other countries including the USA. If passed it would allow private companies, such as for-profit universities, to sue governments to protect their right to access international markets.

PPTA cites two recent international trade law cases where private companies have attempted to sue governments to allow them access to public services

“In 2000, United Parcel Services – a US company – claimed that Canada Post’s parcel delivery service was unfairly subsidised because it was part of the larger public postal service. USP sought US$160 million in damages. Although the claimant was unsuccessful, several years of arbitration were at a significant cost to the Canadian government.

“Similarly in 2008, Centurion Health – a company owned by a US national – initiated a claim against Canada under NAFTA challenging the Canada Health Act. Centurion Health’s plans to open a private health care facility in Vancouver fell through. The claimant argued that its plans to open a private health care facility in Vancouver were blocked by measures at federal, provincial and municipal levels.”

PPTA says widespread private provision of public education that occurs in New Zealand could be opening up the education sector for these types of claims if it ratifies the TPPA in its current form.

By Paul Michel Taillon

The vandals are at the gate, according to David Robinson, Senior Advisor at Education International (a trade union federation representing thirty million education employees around the world) and former Associate Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. So who are these ‘vandals’? And what ‘gate’ have they reached?

The ‘vandals’ for Robinson are those who believe in the philosophies of the free-market and have foisted then upon public tertiary education. Just a few of the negative effects are the undermining of the integrity and independence of the academy; narrower of research agendas; constrained of professional autonomy; and, attacks upon academic freedom.[i] Then there’s the impact on the academic workplace: the rise in fixed- and short-term contracts; stagnating salaries; greater levels of micromanagement; and pressure to cough up research outputs to meet the requirements of metrically-driven research funding regimes for tertiary institutions (never mind that the quality of those outputs can end up taking back-seat).

And do these developments help academic staff produce an educated critical-thinking citizenry, equipped to deal with the economic, ethical, social, and factual complexities of contemporary life? Despite lip service to the importance of teaching, there are few incentives to devote oneself to teaching well (a 1990s study of US universities found that staff commitment to teaching was negatively correlated with compensation).[ii] Overall, academic citizenship—academic freedom, the responsibility to participate in the governance of the institution, and the social and the moral obligation to serve various communities (from students to the wider public)—has diminished over the past three decades because tertiary education institutions have been turned into large markets and required to act as private corporations.[iii]

I’d say the vandals are not just at the gate—they have breeched the walls.

All of the negative effects David Robinson (and a host of others) talk about should sound familiar to anyone who has paid attention to tertiary education in New Zealand over the past decade. The vandals have ravaged public access, public funding, and public governance of tertiary institutions. So what’s to be done? My answer: organise and unionise.

As I see it, 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.[iv] If attacks upon academic freedom, the undermining of academic self-governance, and the erosion of university working conditions are the result of a ‘more market’ philosophy running rampant, then it follows that unions, as entities historically dedicated to ameliorating the pitiless effects of market forces, can be effective counters to these management practices.

If university senates have become marginalised and withered as effective means of representing the views of staff, and vice-chancellors operate more as CEOs than as members of communities of scholars, then unions, which are set up to engage with senior management, must take up the challenge of not just bargaining for decent wages and working conditions but also advocating for meaningful staff participation in university governance.

Such an agenda must begin with resisting the trend to fixed-term, casual employment. Unions can also negotiate for participation clauses in collective agreements that require the university to include the union in discussions around policy changes that may affect conditions of employment. More fundamentally, unions can argue for promotion policy criteria and workload norms that not only allow for staff to engage in service – to their students, their disciplines, their workplaces, and their communities.

Unions must also play a key role in revitalizing academic citizenship. To flourish, academic citizenship needs space in the workplace, and unions are best placed to deliver it. Union members can demonstrate academic citizenship through example (in my experience, they tend to be the most active and collegially-minded members of staff) and unions can nurture academic citizenship by reminding members of the responsibilities they bear as academic citizens.

Universities are not-for-profit entities.[v]  Of course, their purpose is to make doctors, engineers and the like. However, they must also create citizens, fully-developed human beings who can tackle the social, economic, and ethical dilemmas facing our world. The market may value the former but has little use for the latter. By defending the conditions necessary to academic citizenship, unions can help universities fulfill this vital function.

One place to start this defense is by highlighting just what has happened to public education in New Zealand. David Robinson’s lectures, organised by the Tertiary Education Union, will help spark debate about the world the vandals armed with corporate ideals and market philosophies are leaving in their wake.

“Destiny’s outlandish ‘university’ makes a mockery of the public education responsibilities of New Zealand’s real universities, polytechnics and wānanga,” said TEU President Dr Sandra Grey. “Our public universities all provide accredited evidence based high quality public education. That is what New Zealanders expect when they hear the term ‘university’.”

“In all likelihood Mr Tamaki’s ‘university’ will do none of those things. It is likely that his own battered reputation will be enough to ensure most Kiwis are not conned into paying for an education of little value. However, there are thousands of other pseudo-educational institutions like Mr Tamaki’s out there in the world, many wanting to expand their market access into New Zealand.”

“The Government’s Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, currently being negotiated with the United States and seven other countries, will ensure those sham-universities have the same rights to set up business in New Zealand that Mr Tamaki has. In effect, the combination of proposals like Mr Tamaki’s and the TPPA threatens to open the floodgates for dozens of foreign privately-owned, extremist sham-universities to set up a campus in New Zealand and seek public funding.”

For more information:

Sandra Grey, TEU national president, 021 844 176 or 04 801 5098
Stephen Day, TEU communications officer, 021 2900 734 or 04 801 4792
http://www.teu.ac.nz

Thanks to Curtis Gregory Perry at Flickr for the photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisperry/118610793

If the Māori Party chooses to focus on tertiary education in its negotiations it could have a significant impact for the sector over the next three years says the TEU Tumu Arataki, Cheri Waititi.

While the party did not publish a specific tertiary education policy before the election, two of its three caucus members, Dr Pita Sharples and Te Ururoa Flavell, have been very involved in tertiary education prior to their election as politicians and have continued to advocate for education as part of their portfolio responsibilities.

The party’s kāwanatanga policy proposes making education more accessible for all by introducing a fee reduction policy to reduce fees to a nominal level over time. It would also increase access to student allowances, by reintroducing a universal student allowance – which will be set at the level of the unemployment benefit.

Ms Waititi says this means “working with our people in our tertiary institutions about how those in the sector can push to have these policies implemented.”

“This is all about making sure tertiary education is accessible to everyone in our society, not just those who can pay. The sector has experienced sustained underfunding over a long period of time, which has resulted in course cuts and restrictions on entry for some programmes. The government currently does not have a clear vision for how it will ensure that Māori are able to participate in tertiary education in the same way as other citizens.”

The Māori Party would delay the requirement to repay student loan debt. It would advocate for increased Māori representation on tertiary governance bodies, including mana whenua and Māori student representation. It would also link funding to Māori course and qualification completion, and legislate to require the Tertiary Education Commission, to have regard for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The party wants to increase Māori trade training, cadetships and apprenticeships across growth areas, to reinstate the Training Incentive Allowance, and to promote collaborative arrangements between WINZ, iwi and education providers for training opportunities.

The Maori Party’s policy to make Te reo Māori compulsorily available in schools and compulsory Treaty education should have ‘flow-on’ effects for tertiary education providers as well.

Ms Waititi says if the Māori Party wants to leave a legacy it should consider doing so in tertiary education. “We teach the teachers…ECE through to tertiary.”

“We, as educationalists, need to build a relationship with Māori Party MPs and they with us, so they can influence tertiary education policy over the next three years in ways that supports high quality public education for all Māori students.”

Also in Tertiary Update this week:

1. McDonalds pressure needed to end meat-works lockout
2. Jobs go at Canterbury Uni
3. Cuts and accountability no longer saving money
4. Tax avoidance by multinationals: this shameful game must stop

Other news

Excellence in Research for Australia (a research management initiative of the Australian government) has a number of limitations: inputs are counted as outputs, time is wasted, disciplinary research is favoured and public engagement is discouraged. Most importantly, by focusing on measurement and emphasising competition, ERA may actually undermine the cooperation and intrinsic motivation that underpin research performance – Brian Martin in the Australian Universities Review, Volume 53, Number 2

The University of Otago has forecast it will struggle to meet a minimum requirement for its operating surplus target in 2012, as set by the Tertiary Education Commission. The TEC asks for a 3 percent return on revenue, but a combination of increasing costs and the poor likelihood of any significant increase in Government investment for the tertiary sector has made it difficult to achieve such a surplus, university financial services director Grant McKenzie says – Otago Daily Times

At universities here in Aotearoa New Zealand there are inklings that a new type of protest movement may be emerging. Closely linked to the Occupy movement that began on New York’s Wall Street and quickly spread around the world, there is an emergent tertiary-education-focused protest movement – Dr Sandra Grey in NTEU’s Advocate

Protests at the University of Sydney followed an announcement last week by vice-chancellor Michael Spence that around 150 academics “not pulling their weight” will go, with 190 general staff positions to be cut according to no specified criteria – The Australian

—

Authorised by Sharn Riggs, Tertiary Education Union, 8th Floor, Education House 178-182 Willis St, Wellington 6011.

TEU Tertiary Update is published weekly on Thursdays and distributed freely to members of the Tertiary Education Union and others. You can subscribe to Tertiary Update by email or feed reader. Back issues are available on the TEU website. Direct inquiries should be made to Stephen Day.

“Big sticks are not needed to get better performance in a professional workforce, and increasing the number of forms we all fill in does not mean better quality teaching, learning, and research, it just means more paperwork.”

Dr Grey, who spoke to TEU’s Annual Conference last week says the demands for increased productivity ignore the fact that public education is not a ‘production line’ into which you can force more raw product and turn out more widgets.

“Though even for the hard core “econocrats” who dislike notions of public good we could argue that the on-going drive for productivity ignores the gains already made in the sector, gains made at a cost I might add.”

“In the last three years staff: student ratios in New Zealand have risen from 1:17.9 in 2009 to 1:19.8 in 2011. The calls for more productivity ignore that there has been an increase in research outputs at institutions and that students’ completions of programmes of study have risen. It also ignores the fact that funding in the sector is not keeping up with costs. The government is getting more for less.”

Dr Grey says the government and managers who continue to demand greater efficiencies need to be aware that this push could cost New Zealand institutions in terms of their international reputations.

“Underpinning much of the drive for greater accountability is the desire to ensure tax payer monies are well spent. We all want money spent efficiently, but some of the measures taken by tertiary institutions under the guise of prudent financial management have immensely high transaction costs.”

“At its most bizarre and banal, the drive for ‘economic efficiency’ in our sector has led to a department demanding that tutors bring back their used whiteboard markers before they can be issued with a new one.”

In the United Kingdom, technical changes in pension plan design will cut 25 percent from the lifetime value of a pension, some teachers losing more than £50,000 in the value of their pension over a 20-year period. Union research has highlighted that people with the lowest levels of qualifications were most likely to suffer from a cocktail of the Conservative government’s policies. It argues these policies will restrict access to education for both young people and adults, e.g. the axing of education maintenance allowances for teenagers; the tripling of university tuition fees; and, the introduction of fees and loans for working adults who want to retrain.

Education International (EI) and its affiliates in the UK, including the University and College Union (UCU), and the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), are now launching the study: Global Corporate Taxation and Resources for Quality Public Services.

The study, commissioned by the EI Research Institute on behalf of the Council of Global Unions, underlines the shocking extent of tax avoidance by multinational companies, totalling trillions of US dollars annually.

This EI study follows on from a previous study published in March estimating that current total deposits just by non-residents in offshore and secrecy jurisdictions were close to US$10 trillion.

The EI study shows how powerful multinational companies use their global reach to avoid meeting their fair fiscal obligations. They achieve this, first of all, through strategies like exploiting legal loopholes and offshore tax havens. The study highlights the extraordinary statistic that an estimated 60 percent of all global trade is actually routed through tax havens.

EI president, Susan Hopgood, said: “Closing loopholes in international tax legislation will require changing attitudes, and calls for strong political will. The widespread acceptance of tax avoidance as a legitimate goal of large corporations must change. Unless this appalling and unjustified tax evasion is stopped, quality public education and other services will continue to be put at risk by cuts in public spending.”

The EI/Global Unions Study on Global Corporate Taxation was earlier this week in London. Click here to download a copy.

• Kahui kaumatua
• Delegates
• Observers
• Staff

I would forgive you all for nodding off during the annual conference because it has been a very hectic year on campuses across New Zealand and we are all due a well-earned rest.

We deserve a well-earned rest because we have been very busy this year. We have taken industrial action including strikes at sites around New Zealand; we have held rallies, public meetings, and demonstrations to fight against major restructuring which has occurred at dozens of institutions and to fight against job losses; we have mounted on-line petitions and post card campaigns to challenge the decisions of senior managers and the government; we have engaged in working parties and on-going discussions with senior managers about the direction of our institutions; we have held stop work meetings over conditions, collective negotiations, restructuring plans, and even to express a vote of no confidence in the leadership of an institution; we’ve written endless responses to change proposals, held meetings to plan strategies and map out new approaches to the on-going attacks on the tertiary sector; we’ve held teleconferences and face-to-face meetings; written responses to proposed legislation and made presentations to the Tertiary Education Commission, Universities New Zealand and many other bodies.

It really has been a frenetic year for members and in particular to you our branch officials and activists. And while I forgive you all for being exhausted, what I am urging is for us to build on this tremendous level of work and amplify the voice of the TEU in the tertiary education sector, in the union movement, and in society.

Before going on I want to take this moment to thank you all for your work this year. To thank you all for your immense fortitude and strength. To thank you for the hospitality members have shown me as I have travelled around the country to hear from you the issues and concerns facing you. To thank you for sharing your knowledge and expertise.

I also want us all to pause for a moment and thank the staff of the TEU. I have on numerous occasions noted how crucial our paid staff are in terms of ensuring that we are a well-functioning and profession organisation. But I want to say it again. We are a strong union because of our members, but we are a stronger union because of the expertise and dedication of our staff.

Finally I want to thank our national secretary Sharn Riggs. I found stepping into the position of President of the Tertiary Education Union somewhat daunting. Sharn’s knowledge, hard work, and her friendship have meant more than Sharn knows.

But back to our story – our collective story and the paths that are before us.

It’s not just about our jobs, it’s about public education

For many from outside the sector it would seem that TEU members have been fighting lots of fires in order to defend our jobs and conditions of work. People are very quick to judge our actions as being those of privileged elite protecting their own interests. Yes, we have taken a range of actions to defend core conditions; to seek pay rises; and to defend our role in decision-making processes in tertiary institutions. This is only right and proper of a union.

But our actions stretch beyond defending our own jobs and pay. The actions we have taken as the Tertiary Education Union have been a response to fierce attacks on our public tertiary education system.

The attacks on public tertiary education are not new, they began in the early 1990s. What we have seen in the last few years however is a renewed attack on the publicness of tertiary education – both in New Zealand and internationally – which has been exacerbated by government and management actions which dismiss the expertise of staff in the sector and present staff as vested interests protecting our own skins.

The attack on public tertiary education and the professionals in the sector can be seen to take three forms:

1. public control of tertiary education institutions has been weakened;
2. public funding has been decreased; and,
3. genuine public participation has been threatened.

The first attack on the public tertiary education sector is that of public control. A government and country committed to public tertiary education should embrace staff, student, and community involvement in the governance of institutions. And yet, the current National-led government has removed staff and student representatives from polytechnic councils and made sure that ministerial appointees will always have a majority on these councils.

Added to this we have watched as students have been progressively cut out of the decision-making on campuses and denied their democratic voice in the institutions that they are learning in. The impact of VSM will not be felt until next year but looking across to Australia I would argue that the impact of denying student associations a place on campuses (which is what VSM does in reality) is detrimental to both current and future students and the communities they come from. And it is detrimental to decision-making which benefits from the input of students.

And our own union has been dismissed as being of little relevance to decision-making in the tertiary education sector. We have repeatedly sought meeting with the Minister of Tertiary Education, who we know regularly meets with the vice-chancellors of our universities, only to be told that the Minister sees no reason to speak with us.

An example of how staff are sidelined in decisions can be found in the response to the Canterbury earthquakes. When it became apparent that the performance based funding round was going to be disrupted by the on-going earthquakes in Canterbury. We asked to meet with the Tertiary Education Commission and we were told that the vice-chancellors were going to be consulted for their views on what changes, if any, should be made to the round. There was no initial intention to consult with the TEU – apparently staff had nothing to add to this debate. A misconception that was soon proved wrong.

Staff, student, and public input into the tertiary education sector is important for ensuring institutions perform in ways that benefit the community as a whole.

Private institutions run by corporate boards might as a side effect provide public goods, but they are not designed to do so. Public institutions, run, governed and organised by and for the community can purposely pursue the public good.

Staff, students and the community are guardians of New Zealand’s commitment to public education. We are not only defending the interests of those members who currently pay to belong to our organisations, we speak for the good of the students to come, the staff yet to be hired, and communities that will in the future benefit from robust, well-funding quality public tertiary education. We need to let the government know our voice and the voices of students and the community are crucial to good governance in the tertiary sector.

So the National-led government’s report card on public control of the tertiary education sector is fairly poor. What about their approach to another of the p’s – public funding?

We have seen a drop in the funding of the tertiary education sector in real terms. This reduction in funding, coupled with a drive for increased efficiency, has led to major restructuring across the sector and job losses.

By the 2014 election the gap between the cost of running the tertiary sector and the amount of government investment into the sector will be 1.1 billion dollars. What is the impact of this type of under-funding? Most staff see its effects on a daily basis – an increase in workloads, rising stress, overcrowded classes, job losses, and cuts to core services.

We can see the impact through figures that a rise in the student:staff ratio. This has real impacts for staff and students in our tertiary education sector. Put more students into a tutorial, the space where students get to ask critical questions of staff and each other, and you substantively diminish the quality of the conversations that can be had.

And think about what happens when you raise the numbers of students in workshops where polytechnic staff are teaching students to use arch-welders, circular saws, and lathes. Would any of us really want to control 20 students who are just 16 or 17 years old in that type of environment? The rising student to staff ratio not only affects our ability to provide quality education in some cases it can threaten staff and student safety.

On the government’s report card this year we do need to note that diminishing public funding threatens the quality of public tertiary education and must not continue.

And what of the final ‘p’ – public participation?

How can people participate in tertiary education if the fees keep rising (even with student loans available).

And what about ‘second chance learners’. The National government’s tertiary education strategy means tertiary institutions are asked to manage enrolments and take predominantly those learners in the 18-25 year age group.

Add to this, the government’s decision to get rid of the tertiary incentive allowance which provided learning opportunities for sole parents.

The National-led government states its vision is to provide opportunities to New Zealanders and this means encouraging people into study. Yet the foundation courses that helped many people into tertiary education are being closed down due to a lack of funding.

And what about investment promised for regional New Zealand? We want a tertiary education system that supports communities in every region of New Zealand. And yet the National government has cut more that $50 million out of our polytechnics. This has hit regional institutions hardest.

So again when it comes to ensuring adequate public funding for the Tertiary education sector, we are currently seeing a failure in terms of policy and application.

These 3Ps – public funding, public participation and public control – must be defended because education is a public good.

What we currently see is the state and tertiary education institutions acknowledging the economic benefits of tertiary education.

This economistic approach to public education narrows what is counted in the tertiary education sector and leads to an unhealthy focus on ‘productivity’.

The calls for ‘more productivity’ and increased ‘accountability’ ignore the fact that the staff who work within the tertiary education sector are driven and motivated individuals, who are always striving to achieve. Big sticks are not need to get better performance in a professional workforce and increasing the number of forms we all fill in does not mean better quality teaching, learning, and research, it just means more paperwork.

The demands for increased productivity ignore the fact that public education is not a ‘production line’ into which you can force more raw product and turnout more widgets.

Though even for the hard core econocrats who dislike notions of public good we could argue that the on-going drive for productivity ignores the gains already made in the sector, gains made at a cost I might add.

In the last three years staff: student ratios in New Zealand have risen from 1:17.9 in 2009 to 1:19.8 in 2011. The calls for more productivity ignore that there has been an increase in research outputs at institutions and that students’ completions of programmes of study have risen. It also ignores the fact that funding in the sector is not keeping up with costs. The government is getting more for less.

What’s more the drive for ‘increased productivity’ which centres of generating more – more degree students, more international publications, more classroom hours, more places for youth who can’t find employment – has unintended costs.

In the terms of what our employers and the government care about, this push has cost New Zealand institutions in terms of their international reputations. While international rankings of universities are flawed, in the QS world rankings five of the six surveyed New Zealand universities fell down the international rankings ladder – most likely because of the rising staff: student ratios among other things. And the Times Higher Education rankings show a similar downward slide for New Zealand institutions on the whole.

In terms of our members, the attacks on core conditions means increased workloads, a rise in insecure work, and increased stress levels. For students it means overcrowded classrooms and lecturers who run short of time to do fully formative feedback and much more.

Underpinning much of the drive for greater accountability is the desire to ensure tax payer monies are well spent. We all want money spent efficiently, but some of the measures taken by tertiary institutions under the guise of prudent financial management have immensely high transaction costs.

At its most bizarre and banal, the drive for ‘economic efficiency’ in our sector has led to a department demanding that tutors bring back their used whiteboard markers before they can be issued with a new one.

And the drive for productivity and efficiency means sound educational arguments are trumped by ‘economic arguments’. In fact what we are seeing is a denial of any space for academic and educational arguments in tertiary institutions, where economic rationality reigns supreme.

One example of this was the closure of gender and women’s studies courses at Victoria University of Wellington because the programme wasn’t ‘financially viable’. Staff and students were told that the decision to stop teaching gender and women’s studies courses did not need to go to academic board for review because the decision was ‘financial’ not ‘academic’. It seems VUW’s senior management were able to deny to themselves that the impact of shutting down courses is ‘academic’.

What we are seeing is a denial of professional autonomy and collegial governance.

Increasing managerialism sees goals of the sector being set by ‘management’ experts and ignoring the advice of teachers and learners. We have seen performance measured introduced for teaching and research; and this results in narrow goals and narrow activities for teachers and learners. Staff warned this would happen but were ignored.

But it is not just the professional views of academics that get trampled in managerialism. Expert technicians, librarians, and administrative staff find themselves ‘directed’ to undertake changes which they know are to the detriment of teaching and learning.

The attack on the professional autonomy of staff is evident in the University of Auckland dispute where the vice-chancellor is insisting that academic staff be subject to ‘managerial will’ with regard important conditions for research and research-led teaching.

And in many of the polytechnics this year we have seen management determined to dictate how staff spend every day of the year, with demands to increase time-tabled teaching hours and to claw back all discretionary leave provisions and to control that leave.

The professionals who work in sector, the students who study at tertiary institutions, the communities who surround our institutions, are the best people to know what is for the good of the sector. Our professional autonomy and collegial governance must be reclaimed.

But given so much has been going on in our sector, and there has been such a concerted attack, where do we focus our attention?

Professional autonomy and adequate funding

Interestingly there are two issues at the heart of the disputes our members are engaged in. The two issues are the need to see increased funding in order to defend the core conditions which enable quality research and teaching in the tertiary sector; and the interconnected issue of defending (or reclaim) professional autonomy. So how do we do this?

We need a multi-pronged approach which sets out our vision for public tertiary education and demonstrates that the current focus of our employers and the state on managerial control and economic gain, are harmful for staff, students, and New Zealand.

We need to ensure we have evidence of why public investment and public control of tertiary education is crucial. This means showing just how much harm the current economic and managerial approach is now causing. While we can all feel the harm done when we walk onto out campuses (with evidence such as overcrowded teaching spaces; colleagues who have fled to Australia to get away from the immense pressures found in the sector; and corridors that are silent as people shuffle to the next ‘urgent meeting’) it is important we show the impact through good quality research.

In particular we need to show two things. That managerialism has major transaction costs in the tertiary education sector and as a result the public are not getting better bang for their buck, but in fact just more paperwork for their buck. Tertiary education staff – from those teaching to those who make sure grades are entered accurately; from the technician teaching skills to the counsellors who offer a refuge for stressed students; from the cleaners who ensure lecture theatres are habitable to the PhD supervisor who gets their students back on the rails – are committed to ensuring life-long learning for all. They are motivated and driven. They are highly educated and passionate. This means they will perform well, but only when given the room to perform.

What the most creative industries in the world are discovering is that rigid controls and tightly managed working days stifle innovation, creativity, and passion. And is these things that are essential for quality public tertiary education.

We also need to show why a modern and future focused tertiary education sector cannot be staffed by a casualised workforce.

Anecdotally we are aware of how much of the core work in the tertiary education sector is now carried out by workers on fixed-term or casual contracts. While these positions may be for some a good stepping stone in to their chosen profession, for most it leads to a revolving door of jobs with little prospect of advancement. So how big is the problem of casualisation in New Zealand?

In Australia NTEU research has found that around 60% of all academic staff on a headcount basis are employed on a casual (that is hourly rate) basis. We need to know if this is the case in New Zealand. And we need to articulate clearly why such practices are of no benefit to New Zealand, to students, to communities, to staff.

While we need to ensure we have all the facts, we also need to recognise that ‘good evidence’ and ‘rational debate’ will not advance our cause on their own. We must take action to ensure our message for greater public funding and restoration of professaional autonomy is amplified.

Be unified in our response: Attack on one is attack on all

We need to see the common nature of many of the battles being fought across a range of professions, in a range of different teaching and learning spaces, and in different parts of the country. An attack on one part of the public tertiary education sector is an attack on all parts.

We as a membership have recognised the need for greater connections and unity, while not glossing over the differences in the sector. We recognised this when we decided to create a union covering staff from across the tertiary education sector. And three years on we have recognised this is by seeking to refine our national decision-making structures to have a more unified structure at the national level.

Putting into place an industrial and professional committee – if this conference chooses to do so – which brings together active TEU members from polytechnics, universities, wananga and other tertiary providers will allow us to focus at the national level on the difficulties for the sector as a whole.

And bringing branch presidents together once a year will provide us a way to ensure that the ‘major battles’ we are working on really are important to branches and their members.

But it is not just enough to meet and debate high ideals. Wee need to action both inside and outside the existing structures. We must also make sure we use every decision-making lever possible on our campuses. As a Canterbury member noted we need to teach ‘decision-making 101’ to ensure that all staff in the tertiary sector are aware of how decisions are made in their institutions, and which levers can be pulled to make a difference.

And we must work within existing government structures. An example of the insider approach was our actions with regard PBRF in Canterbury region. We met regularly with TEC, to provide TEC with information from members. TEU involvement was crucial – in the end even the senior managers came around to some of the ideas of those on the front-line.

But working inside our institutions is not enough. We need to be public in our actions. We need to garner public support through actions large and small. We need to speak up for education so the public understands why public funding, public control, and public participation are the cornerstones of a quality public tertiary education system. The public must be on board with us if we are to have any chance of shifting the funding and governance paradigm currently in place. Politicians will not take public tertiary education seriously until voters demand it.

Moments in which we speak up for public education may at the time seem quite small, but they can generate huge public impact. Take for example Vernon Tava, a student and tutor at Auckland University, who wore a rosette to graduation that read ‘staff and students unite to defend our university’. Tava was not alone in wearing a rosette, a protest over the Vice Chancellors on-going demands to remove core conditions from the academic staff collective at Auckland, but he made headline news. Why? Because an act which was fulfilling the role of staff and students to act as critic and conscience of society, including their own institutions, was interpreted as being inappropriate and he was informed he could not graduate while wearing the rosette. Tava’s case shows that even the smallest acts of speaking up are crucial in any campaign.

And tonight we will all rally in Cuba mall with educationalists and members of the public to speak up for education in the hope of getting the education onto the agenda of politicians and public sector officials. One rally today will not be enough to bring major changes, but it is a springboard for a public campaign for us all to ‘speak up for education’.

Tonight’s action will only work if we garner the support of our friends and colleagues from across the education sector. In order to really make progress in our sector we need to ensure we have allies – most obviously, we must continue to build our connections to student groups and communities.

There is no doubt that some of the victories we have had in 2011 are the result of collective action with our allies. Look for example to the actions taken by staff and students in Timaru, Ashburton, and Dunedin to push back against the closure of programmes by Aoraki Polytechnic management. Working together staff, students, and the communities were able to save some of the jobs under threat and ensure on-going educational provision in this region.

To gain public support we must find ways to say how professional autonomy and collegial governance is central to the innovation and creativity need in a 21st century tertiary education sector.

We also need to clearly say that we are speaking up not just for us but for our students, our communities, and the country – for those currently learning and using our research findings, and for future generations.

Next year we will hold a series of public forums at campuses across New Zealand in which we will set out our vision of the tertiary sector in New Zealand. We will run these in collaboration with the senior management of our tertiary institutions, with student associations where they exist, and with community groups. We will set our vision of the tertiary education sector where there is adequate public funding, a respect for professional autonomy, and an end to strict managerial controls in favour of collaborative and collegial governance.

We will use this space and others to explain why providing staff with room to perform their roles in creative and innovative ways, rather than applying one-size fits all model to teaching, learning, and research, will benefit all New Zealanders. After all our conditions of work are students conditions of learning. And students must learn if we are to grow as a nation, not just economically but in terms of our human and social development potential.

This series of public lectures will need to be accompanied by other actions – wearning rosettes, putting up posters, asking questions in departmental meetings, attending council meetings, speaking to the media, and much more. I look forward to working with you all this year to build up and amplify our voice, to promote our vision of a creative and innovative public tertiary education sector in which our voice and our expertise is respected.

We are a fighting union with immense capability. We need to build on this and campaign to ensure that our sector is freed from the prison being created by managerialism and market-models. We need to say clearly that the future of quality tertiary education lies in hearing the voices of the professionals who work within it and giving them room to meet their full potential.

Finally I do want to urge us to be creative in the way we amplify our message. We must find creative ways in which to say ‘quality public tertiary education comes through adequate funding and respecting the professional voices of staff’.

One such creative way is through song. I realise for some of our members one of the most controversial things of conference is the singing. So I want to talk briefly about why we should sing.

Songs of protest have been a part of major social movements for decades. Songs unify individuals in collective voice; they provide history lessons; and, connect movements to the broader society in which they operate.

Think of the anthem of the civil rights movement, ‘We Shall Overcome’. This song provided a collective voice for demonstrators; connected the civil rights movement to the anti-slavery movement as it used a melody from a spiritual sung by slaves; and, surrounded the movement with the respectability of the Christian religion as the song had been a hymn during the early part of the 20th century.

Added to all this, music has an intrinsic power to propagate a message. And the message of the union movement is clearly found in the songs of the movement. Union songs contain within them a prescription of the ills of the world (bad bosses) and the solutions – join a union and take action!

Song is a useful medium through which to pass on the messages of the union and other progressive movements, as songs are easily picked up and repeated by members, friends, and bystanders. As unionist Joe Hill noted: “The power of song will exalt the spirit of rebellion. A pamphlet, no matter how good, is never read but once, but a song is learned by heart and repeated over and over.”

This is why I think all TEU should join together in song. In singing, we honour the past, join together in one voice, and let all who are listening know what we want for the future.

And that is what we must do over the coming year – let everyone know that public tertiary education is critical for New Zealand and that we the staff are critical to quality public tertiary education.

So here is a song that expresses this sentiment for one part of our sector – a well known New Zealand anthem with new words …

If it weren’t for the Polytechs