“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

Tertiary education is part of our public/social infrastructure.  It provides opportunities and education for all who are no longer in compulsory education.  It also provides skills and education to support our economy and our communities.  By investing in tertiary education we give our whole country opportunities, not just those who study.  Tertiary education also provides opportunities for research development and critical thinking that contribute to our understanding of current issues and to finding solutions to future challenges.

As the Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-2015 notes, higher education levels have been linked to better general well-being, better health and greater social mobility.  Tertiary-educated people are more involved in the community and are more likely to vote and stand for public office.  Tertiary education promotes debate, democracy, culture and expression.

For Māori the opportunity to access tertiary education through a well-funded and accessible public system is one way by which individuals and their whānau, hapū and iwi can realise their development aspirations, as well as contribute to their communities, society and the economy.

Introduction

Tertiary education has the capacity, if well-funded, to provide much needed skills and knowledge that can contribute to a strong and sustainable economy and vibrant, positive communities.  Investing in tertiary education is an investment in the future wellbeing of our country.

Tertiary education provides individuals with the opportunity to continue to develop their human and social potential through the advancement of knowledge and the acquisition of skills.  The purpose of a tertiary education extends beyond acquiring skills for employment, by providing individuals with the knowledge and skills to contribute to the wellbeing of their communities and our society.  Therefore in order to ensure that citizens can make a positive contribution to our communities and societies, the funding available to the tertiary education sector needs to support a broad range of programmes and disciplines and be focused on supporting students and ensuring staff have good working conditions.

Principles underpinning good tertiary education funding policies

The TEU believes that the following principles are fundamental to the development of good tertiary education funding policies:

Education is a human right

The provision of quality public education for all citizens is a crucial pillar of democratic societies.  An adequate level of public funding for education must be sustained regardless of fluctuations of the economy, because it is through education that our society, communities and individuals will flourish.  In times of economic difficulty, every endeavour should be made to prioritise additional funding to the tertiary education sector, because it is through investment in education and research that our society develops and maintains the necessary skills and knowledge to withstand such global crises.

Education is a public good not a commodity

Education contributes to the wellbeing of society as a whole and is therefore a matter of public concern; as such, it should be seen as a common, public good, not a privately owned commodity.  Whilst education has private benefits, its greatest benefit is to society and communities – it is a resource that can be used for economic gain, but its yield is directly related to what we invest in it.

Education has a vital social and economic transformative role

Education plays a key role in building and defending democracy; it contributes to individual fulfilment and wellbeing and to community development; it is a prime mechanism for promotion of equality, non-discrimination, and understanding among people from different backgrounds.

Quality education requires quality teachers and quality researchers

Decent working conditions contribute to quality learning environments.  Education unions therefore have a vital role to play within the education sector in advocating for these conditions and promoting the features of an ideal education funding system.

Features of good tertiary education funding policies

The TEU believes that good tertiary education funding policies should include the following elements:

Public funding is reserved for public tertiary education institutions

A high quality accessible public tertiary education system gives all citizens the opportunity to participate in higher education and contributes to strong communities and a strong economy.  Focusing public funding on resourcing public tertiary institutions also reinforces the principle that education is a public good rather than a private commodity.

Adequate funding levels

Funding of tertiary education institutions is maintained at levels that ensure providers can provide quality learning experiences for a broad range of students.  Maintaining adequate levels of funding also includes providers having sufficient resources to ensure that working conditions for staff support the provision of high quality teaching, research and support services for students and the institution.

Funding reflects the educational profile of the community the institution serves

The funding system needs the flexibility to take into account the educational profile of the community the institution serves, population concentration or spread, ethnicity, and national, regional and industry requirements.  These factors will differ from region to region thus requiring any funding system to be flexible enough to meet identified national or regional needs.

Distribution of funding should encourage a collaborative tertiary education sector

Collaboration between providers is desirable and should be informed by a detailed national strategy for tertiary education provision that outlines the short, medium and long-term skills and education requirements anticipated for our projected population.

Passed by Annual Conference Nov 2011

Policy review date: 15^th October 2013

The rally included a number of satirical re-writes of well-known pop and rock songs including “Good Golly Ms Tolley”, and Queen’s “I want to break free”

Louise Green, NZEI national executive member and principal of Khandallah School talked to the rally about the damage National Standards could do to primary schools if teachers give in to its managerial pressure.

Kevin Bunker from the secondary teachers’ union PPTA described the on-going cycle of poorly researched policy that is introduced into schools without evidence that the old system in not working.

TEU national president Dr Sandra Grey criticised the massive cuts in funding across the tertiary education sector and Adult and Community educator, Robyn Hambleton, noted that only 24 schools now offer government-funded adult and community education compared to over 200 two years ago.

Student leader, David Do, noted rising fees were driving students into tens of thousands of dollars of debt.

All speakers called on the government and other politicians to speak up for education as a priority this election. There are photos and videos of the rally online.

TEU members will be joining other education colleagues and students in a large public rally on the Monday evening in support of education.

“We see ourselves as part of a wider education community that stretches from early childhood right through to lifelong learning for adults,” said Dr Grey. “We’ve been working closely with tertiary students all year to speak up for education and we are keen to work more closely with other teachers and learners too.”

Policy remits at the conference will focus on the funding of public tertiary education. One such remit notes that TEU is committed to publicly funded and publicly owned tertiary education in New Zealand. “A high quality accessible public tertiary education system gives all citizens the opportunity to participate in higher education and contributes to strong communities and a strong economy.”

Guest speakers David Robinson from the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Australian National Tertiary Education Union’s Matt McGowan will be providing an international perspective on public education.

The TEU recognises the importance of trade to New Zealand’s economic well-being and does not oppose trade agreements in principle. We are concerned, however, with the neo-liberal ideology that underpins much international trade policy and free trade agreements. This ideology emphasises a market-driven approach to economic and social policy, which, when applied to trade, prioritises the free movement of goods, services and investment between international markets. However, this freedom is often at the expense of local development, environmental protections and human rights – in particular, the rights of indigenous peoples.

The TEU is concerned that many international trade and investment agreements also actively promote further deregulation, privatisation and commercialisation in New Zealand. When such agreements include commitments on education, the result has often been negative, with cuts in public funding, increased casualisation, limitations placed on professional autonomy, academic freedom and intellectual property rights, and restrictions on student access. Education is not a commercial product to be bought and sold. It is a fundamental human right that should be available to all citizens, no matter their how old they are, where they live or what they earn. All international trade agreements that include education commitments need to focus on improving educational quality and access, rather than on allowing private companies to make profits from students or governments.

In addition, free trade agreements often threaten national sovereignty because governments risk costly litigation by multinational companies where domestic policy is regarded as impeding the free movement of goods, services and investment. In New Zealand, such agreements also undermine the rights and responsibilities of the Crown and tangata whenua under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Protecting society and the environment

The objective of trade policy should not be simply to increase the volume of trade and rate of economic growth but to improve living standards and quality of life in the form of human rights, labour rights and protection of the environment.

Until now, the limited market focus of most trade agreements has failed to address the local social, cultural and natural impacts of “freeing up” trade in goods, services and investment. Governments need to take action to correct these market failures and to ensure that the benefits of economic growth are fairly distributed and any negative impacts addressed.

TEU commitments under this policy

1. The TEU opposes New Zealand’s accession to or continued membership of any international agreement that does, or is likely to,

• lessen New Zealand control of its own education system;
• increase pressures for privatisation of all or part of that system; or
• reduce funding for, or otherwise damage, New Zealand’s public education system.

2. The TEU also opposes any tertiary educational institutional alliance, merger or other arrangement which does, or is likely to:

• lessen the New Zealand control of the institution; privatise or increase pressure for privatisation of the institution; or
• otherwise damage the public and academic nature of that institution or New Zealand’s public education system.

3. The TEU reaffirms its belief in a high quality, publicly-owned and funded tertiary education system that gives everyone a chance to learn and helps make our communities and economy strong.

4. Further, the TEU opposes commitments in trade and investment agreements that constrain the rights of international students in their host country. These rights should be regulated nationally by the host government. Currently, the needs of international students and the educational system that hosts them are framed almost exclusively in economic terms. National regulation and international agreements should instead focus on the educational, social and cultural aspects of their participation in our education system.

5. The TEU will actively promote informed discussion and debate with government, within the education sector and with unions in New Zealand and internationally about the nature and implications of free trade agreements.

6. The TEU will work with other organisations with similar concerns to replace free trade agreements based on a neo-liberal ideology with ones that regulate international commerce and promote economic cooperation without compromising the right of New Zealanders to adopt education, labour and environment policies of their choice.

Passed by Council, Aug 2011

Policy review date: August 2013

It’s election year – Who cares?

Sandra Grey, President Tertiary Education Union

Commentators are lamenting the fact that with the world cup rugby on, that’s where all attention is diverted. This means no one cares about the election at the moment.

But there is deeper problem and that is the number of people who are not enrolled or don’t vote if they are enrolled.

• 71% of 18-24 year olds NOT enrolled
• About 10% of whole population are not enrolled.
• In terms of our membership, around 10 per cent of members details do not match information held by the electoral agencies – so may not be enrolled correctly or at all.
• Also there are 650,000 enrolled voters who did not vote last election

This disengagement from politics threatened legitimacy of system and immediately impacts on outcome of elections. So how do we get people interested, enrolled, and voting?

The only way to make people care about politics and election is to make it real for them. People want to talk about how politics has impacted upon them, their families, their friends, and their communities. For our members and the students we teach this means talking about a range of political decisions that have impacted upon our daily lives inside universities. Firstly, we need to talk to our members about the cuts in real funding which we’ve seen under the John Key government. And the news from Treasury figures just gets worse if you look out to the next election in 2014.

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. Certainly we can see very clearly in Tertiary Education Commission figures that there has been rise in the student:staff ratio. This has real impacts on staff and students in our tertiary education sector.

But it’s just not in terms of financial investment that the National-led government has let down New Zealand’s universities, polytechnics, and waananga. There have been changes to the way decision-making is carried out that is detrimental to the tertiary sector. First of all the government changed the composition of the Councils of polytechnics, stripping out staff and student representation. Why does this matter? Because our professional expertise and knowledge should be acknowledged and incorporated into decision-making.

But more recently the John Key government passed the Voluntary Student Membership Act which will effectively collapse student associations around NZ. And who will have to pick up the extra work generated because there is no longer a sound student-run volunteer base for dealing with a range of issues faced by students – staff. This will add a burden to already overworked staff.

So we need to make all staff and students to speak up for education. We also need to convince our families and friends to be passionate about public tertiary education. We need them to know the tertiary education sector is in crisis and this has implications for them and for. There is no doubt that poorly devised government policy is impacting upon our sector and this has resulted in concerted attacks on the tertiary education sector. As a result the conditions of work in the tertiary education sector, crucial conditions that make the sector function, are being attacked by employers in order to meet the government’s drive for greater productivity and economic efficiency.

What can help you to speak up for public tertiary education this election? We have a public tertiary education policy for the TEU which covers the broad philosophical ideals that can be used to defend public education. You can find lots of examples in Tertiary Update of attacks on our conditions of work and the job losses that have come about through underfunding which you can share with people. You can take time to point out that our conditions of work are the students’ conditions of learning. When the government fundamentally changes the staffing levels and conditions of staff, this impacts on the quality of learning that can occur. The only thing that holds New Zealand’s tertiary sector together at the moment is good will of staff who passionately defend quality education and go beyond the call of duty to deliver. And you can stress to all voter that the social and economic advancement means NZ should invest in good quality public education.

And what sorts of actions are needed in the lead up to the election. We need TEU members to take a little bit of time to increase awareness of the difficulties facing staff and students in the tertiary sector. This could mean simply putting up a poster (say the illustrations above) on a noticeboard in your institution, showing just what effect underfunding has. You could perhaps take the time to talk with colleagues about the impact of government policies. And most of all spend a little bit of time talking with friends and families about what it means for tertiary education to be under such strain – what it means for them. If you’re are feeling energetic, what about popping along to a candidate forum and political parties what they plan to do for education as a whole, and tertiary education in particular.

Just take some time between now and November 26 to speak up for tertiary education.