“Over the next 20 years there will be massive competitive pressure as universities look to recruit senior academics to staff those universities. There will also be a massive increase in the number of graduates around the world,”

He then went on to suggest that one of the main solutions to that problem was ultra-fast broadband.

“The method of teaching is crucially important. The unspoken challenge to the university sector worldwide is whether we can provide sufficient quality teachers that match this upsurge in learning that is going to be occurring.”

“This is where I think technology is going to play a huge part. Ultra-fast broadband linkages between our institutions and between our institutions and our students provide a huge range of opportunities for learning which we should all look to take advantage of.”

TEU national president Dr Sandra Grey was astonished Mr Joyce then said the solution to understaffing was using broadband to beam overseas lecturers into New Zealand lecture theatres.

“He is effectively telling Saudi students to fly 17 hours to New Zealand to sit in a lecture theatre and watch an academic on television – an academic who might well be Saudi.”

“He cannot paper over staff shortages and funding cuts with ultra-fast broadband and remote learning. International and domestic students pay large amounts of money expecting face-to-face contact and human interaction with their lecturers and tutors. If New Zealand wants to remain an attractive place to study for international, and domestic students, it needs to invest in training and recruiting new academics to cover the impending skills shortage,” said Dr Grey.

New Zealand has a funding system that rewards universities for training PhDs but discourages the employment of post doctorates. That is the criticism of Dr Melanie Massaro, author of an open letter to the government last year, challenging the government to create better employment opportunities for new and emerging researchers. Dr Massaro was speaking this week at a New Zealand Association of Scientists (NZAS) conference. After outlining the struggle to cross the post-doctoral void to full employment, Dr Massaro compared post-doctoral fellowships to helicopters that carry PhD researchers over the void, to a position where they are able to compete with the overseas- trained scientists arriving on the international jumbo jet.

“We need more helicopters and we need them urgently.”

Dr Massaro’s challenge was exemplified later that night on TV3 with the story of Oxford University doctoral graduate Jo Chapman who has been unable to find permanent work in her field of expertise since returning to New Zealand.

Last week Science and Innovation Minister Steven Joyce responded to some of these concerns by proposing changes to the Rutherford Discovery Fellowships to repatriate overseas post-doctoral researchers and ensure post-doctoral researchers within New Zealand have sufficient opportunity to stay in the country.

Science reporter Peter Griffin said the general tone at the conference seemed to be that the minister’s changes were “merely tinkering at the edges” and they don’t address the deeper issue that opportunities for emerging scientists including those wanting to come back to New Zealand to continue their careers, are very limited, and that New Zealand underspends on postgraduate fellowships to the detriment of the science system.

Mr Griffin said that emerging scientists still had numerous issues with the newly established Rutherford Discovery Fellowships, including that the fellowships were available to scientists more advanced in their careers, potentially shutting out early and mid-career scientists who need financial support from beyond a scientific institution while they establish themselves in research.

Also in Tertiary Update this week:

1. PBRF rort is fault of system, not universities
2. Brains are draining earlier
3. Secrecy around student loan budget changes
4. Growing pacific student numbers creates challenges
5. Casualisation, high workload key to Australian universities’ success

Other news

Last week Tertiary Updateincorrectly reported that Dr Jane Millichamp worked at Otago University’s Department of Psychology. She actually works in Psychological Medicine at the university’s Dunedin School of Medicine. We apologise to the University of Otago, and to readers, for the error.

The University of Canterbury announced last week it had awarded a UC Teaching Award for 2011 to six recipients including associate professor Peter Falkenberg (Theatre and Film Studies), whose department the university is currently in the process of closing. Deputy vice-chancellor Professor Ian Town congratulated Dr Falkenberg and said he would receive his award at a ceremony early next month. Hopefully he will also receive news that he still has a job?

Robert Birnbaum from the University of Maryland writes tongue-in-cheek onnew ways to rank universities. Suggestions include The ‘Jeremy Bentham system’ which would rank institutions, according to the level of happiness they provided and the ‘Olympic system’ — head-to-head feats of physical prowess amongst senior administrators. The problem, he notes, is that we get what we measure.

Almost 250 University of Otago students were suspended last year for failing to pass an adequate number of papers as the university increases its focus on producing quality students, vice-chancellor Prof Harlene Hayne says -Otago Daily Times

Education experts have questioned National and ACT claims that charter schools will lift achievement in disadvantaged pupils. The study by 12 Massey University academics suggests the schools will cause more harm to those it intends to help - Stuff

Policy makers seem to have created the equivalent of a magic pudding: the more money you scoop away, the more universities produce. But, inside the institutions, there is tension as they give priority to research and increasingly leave the teaching to casual staff.

As universities face tough decisions to improve their international rankings, it is the casual teaching staff, and their first or second year students, who are paying the price, say concerned academics.

Professor Frank Larkins, a former deputy vice-chancellor at Melbourne University, says universities rely on international students, and their ability to attract such students depends on the university’s international ranking.

“Worldwide it is a reality that standing tends to be measured by research performance rather than teaching quality,” he says.

The priority given to research over teaching is also reflected in staffing trends, he says. Between 2000 and 2010 the number of specialist research staff employed at universities increased by 78 percent, according to Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) statistics. During the same period, full-time equivalent teaching staff increased by 26 percent, despite student numbers rising by 54 percent.

“The effect has been that the student-to-staff ratios for coursework students have blown out quite significantly,” says Professor Larkins.

Casual teachers are hired, particularly for undergraduate classes, to deal with growing student numbers. Many have not taught at universities and are astonished to find they receive little support, may be expected to develop course material and can face tutorials of up to 30 students.

An extract from Gary Newman at the Melbourne Age

TEU has just won a significant employment authority case that challenges the use of confirmation at Otago University.

The employment authority found yesterday that the University of Otago breached Dr Jane Millichamp’s right to natural justice and its own duty of good faith when it failed to confirm her as a lecturer after ten years on a fixed-term employment agreement.

Dr Millichamp began as a Psychological Medicine lecturer at Otago University in 1998 but was subject to confirmation – an employment agreement where academics go on long-standing trial periods while the university assesses the academic’s suitability for the position. TEU has long argued that confirmation is an unfair and illegal use of fixed-term-employment trial periods. Confirmation is currently only used at the universities of Auckland and Otago.

Dr Millichamp’s department was in disarray during her confirmation period because, among other reasons, her head of department, Dr Colin Bouwer, murdered his wife. There were a number of workload pressures that meant her teaching load grew significantly. The university extended her confirmation period several times, until 2007, at which point the university chose not to confirm her because it did not believe she had published a sufficient quantity of research. Instead, it offered her the choice of dismissal or going from being a lecturer to a teaching only fellow.

Dr Millichamp appealed but the university rejected her appeal.

TEU then took a case for her through mediation and then to the Employment Authority. The authority finally heard her case in 2010, but the authority member who heard the case resided in Christchurch, and the files for the case were lost in one of the earthquakes.

The authority has recently retrieved its files and finally found in favour of Dr Millichamp. The authority found that the university failed to follow its own appeal process by referring her appeals back to the original review committee rather than a new independent appeals committee. Added to this, Dr Millichamp was not permitted to appear before the review committee to give evidence on her research and was not told about two people who gave evidence against her, nor was she given a chance to respond to their allegations.

TEU deputy secretary Nanette Cormack said the case is an important win for academics on fixed-term agreements.

“Confirmation is unfair – it is not fair to employ people on trial periods that can last up to a decade with no employment security. In addition, it is also unfair to decide people’s futures and make judgements about them without first giving them a chance to tell their own story and respond to allegations that others have made.”

Also in Tertiary Update this week:

1. Turia quiet in tertiary education role
2. Member’s bill to extend paid parental leave welcomed
3. Lobbying bill could end secret tertiary education lobbying
4. Domestic students staying loyal to CPIT

Other news

A student coalition has formed to oppose the cuts to University of Canterbury programmes. “You Are UC” condemns the consultation process, as university management has still failed to release to students the details of their proposed changes - You Are UC

The Agricultural and Marketing Research and Development Trust has issued its spending priorities for the next three years. The trust distributes up to $3 million per year by way of grants from a $70 million investment fund, to encourage growth in the agri-business sector. Chairman Jeff Grant says three-quarters of that funding traditionally goes to Lincoln and Massey universities. But the bulk of the funding will now be directed to commercial ventures, focused on market access - Radio NZ

Since the 1970s, a radical shift has been occurring in higher education, as growing numbers of institutions turn to contingent (or adjunct) faculty to cut costs, while keeping pay as low as possible for the support staff who keep campuses running. Students suffer, as the number of available services are reduced, class sizes increase, and educators are less able to provide direct assistance and mentoring to the students they are there to teach. Now, employees in higher education are fighting back, and facing real challenges from administrations when they do - Salon

Tertiary education, science and innovation minister Steven Joyce today announced the appointment of three new convenors to the Marsden Fund Council. The new appointees are Dr Ian Ferguson, who will convene the Cellular, Molecular and Physiological Biology Panel; Professor Jari Kaipio, who will convene the Mathematical and Information Sciences Panel; and Professor Robert Hannah, as convenor of the Humanities Panel. The minister has also appointed Dr Grant Scobie for a second term as Convenor of the Economics and Human and Behavioural Sciences Panel - Hon Steven Joyce

An unholy alliance is slowly forming between traditionalist defenders of the university as an “ivory tower” and market-obsessed modernisers determined to transform higher education into a consumer good. Both have come to the – mistaken – conclusion that the idea of the public university must be abandoned. For very different reasons, of course -The Guardian

A Texas community college district’s move toward standardised and electronic textbooks has raised the hackles of faculty members, who say the process threatens academic freedom and instructor autonomy because individual sections will be limited in their ability to have individual book requirements - Inside Higher Ed

Tertiary Update is our weekly bulletin about news in the tertiary education sector from the perspective of people working in the sector.

March 2012

In this newsletter:

1. Filling extended leave positions – is a trend developing for not appointing staff to fill these positions?
2. Recruiting general staff in the ITP sector – your chance to be involved.
3. General Staff Day 2012 – all about recruitment – and some fun!
4. The impact of VSM – are student support services staff noticing any impacts?
5. What’s in a name?
6. The general staff sector group in 2012 – contact details for your representatives.
7. A brief outline of the purpose of the general staff sector group.
8. Where to go on the TEU website for information about general staff in the union.
9. The TEU staff person responsible for the general staff sector group.

The first general staff sector group meeting for the year was a combined meeting with the ITP (institutes of technology/polytechnics) sector group, which also includes a representative from Te Wānanga o Aotearoa.  This worked really well and we could see the advantage of working more collaboratively as a union and how this would benefit the advancement of issues important to general staff.  We also benefitted from a breakout session to focus solely on general staff issues and believe this needs to continue as part of the Industrial and Professional Committee meeting format next year.

Below are some of the issues discussed during the meeting that the general staff sector group will be working on in 2012.

Extended leave

General staff continue to find themselves under pressure due to government funding shortfalls of tertiary education.  One of the ways which this manifests is TEIs choosing not to backfill positions on extended leave (including parental leave).  Not only is this making members on leave feel more vulnerable but it also creates significant workload issues for their colleagues.  The general staff sector group agreed to further canvas this issue, and if a trend is developing, a strategy for addressing it will need to be developed, including highlighting health and safety issues that may result from workload intensification.  We have asked branches for information on this issue – if you would like to contribute from your own experience, please contact your branch president.

Recruiting general staff

Supporting general staff recruitment this year will be a major focus for the general staff sector group.  Last year, we identified recruitment in the ITP sector as the major focus for 2012, however there is still plenty of scope to recruit general staff in the university sector.  We encourage all branches to have a specific focus on how to recruit general staff in their recruitment plans.  There are many excellent resources available from the national office – either check online teu.ac.nz or give the office a ring 04-801-5098.

General Staff Day 2012

Recruitment will also be a major focus of General Staff Day this year.  The date  is tentatively set for Wednesday 4th July, pending feedback from branches.  Some university branches may want to look at how they can support the recruitment efforts of their local ITP colleagues – either with practical support by contributing time to these activities, or by sharing tips and success stories.

The impact of VSM – are student support services staff noticing any impacts?

The Bill to introduce voluntary student membership to students’ associations was enacted in January this year.  The general staff sector group is interested in tracking whether student support services staff have noticed any impact on their work as a result of this.  Send your thoughts to Jo Scott in the TEU national office jo.scott@teu.ac.nz

What’s in a name?

We have noticed some of our instituions are adopting different terminlology to describe the very broad occupational group “general staff”.

At the University of Auckland, the term “professional staff” is being used; at Massey University, management have begun using the term “professional and service staff”.  Other terms in use either in new Zealand or overseas include: allied staff and education support staff.

What do you think?  Send thoughts and ideas to Jo Scott jo.scott@teu.ac.nz

General staff sector group 2012

We have a dedicated group of members working on your behalf during 2012:

The general staff vice president (ITPs) position has recently become vacant with Ken Laraman’s retirement form the sector.  Best wishes for the future Ken and thanks for your contribution to general staff in the TEU.

We have vacancies on the sector group in general staff positions for the ITP sector, however a number of ITP general staff (and their unviersity counterparts) work in other sector groups or committees within the union.

What is the general staff sector group?

The general staff sector group (GSSG) is the union’s representative body for general staff in all tertiary education organisations.  The GSSG provides other sector groups, committees and council with general staff perspectives in relation to industrial and professional policy and strategy, recruitment strategies, lobbying and campaigns.  These groups may also direct issues or concerns that require general staff involvement to the GSSG for action.

Find out more…

The TEU website has a page dedicated to the general staff sector group.  Follow this link teu.ac.nz/general-staff

The TEU staff person responsible for the general staff sector group is Jo Scott jo.scott@teu.ac.nz

]]> http://teu.ac.nz/2012/03/welcome-to-the-teu-general-staff-sector-groups-newsletter/feed/ 0 http://teu.ac.nz/2012/03/university-staff-seek-assurance-reviews-will-not-increase-workload/ http://teu.ac.nz/2012/03/university-staff-seek-assurance-reviews-will-not-increase-workload/#comments Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:34:19 +0000 TEU http://teu.ac.nz/?p=17395 Tertiary Update Vol 15 No 8

Employment negotiations for thousands of university staff at seven of New Zealand’s eight universities will begin in three months’ time, and union members are already working out what the main issues they need to see addressed to improve their working life.

One of the biggest issues facing many staff is increasing workloads because of staff numbers not keeping pace with student numbers. TEU members across all seven universities will be claiming employment protection for staff whose workload increases because of redundancies or restructuring.

The nationwide claim says if within six months of a review, restructuring or management of change process concluding, employees believe that their workloads are excessive, or that staffing levels are not sufficient, they may request a review of their workload. If the review finds that workloads are not safe, equitable, or reasonable the university must take appropriate steps to remedy the situation.

TEU university academic vice-president John Prince says the short-term effect of reviews is stress and job losses, but the long-term effect, if reviews are poorly conceived, is increasing workloads.

“We want an assurance that the many reviews currently taking place are not just about cutting staff numbers and shifting all the existing work onto those staff who remain.”

Employment negotiations will begin at the end of June for staff at the universities of AUT, Canterbury, Lincoln, Otago, Massey, Victoria and Waikato.

If you have a workload story to support TEU’s negotiations, leave a comment below.

Also in Tertiary Update this week:

1. Restructuring affecting 500 workers
2. New super ministry to manage commission
3. Farewell Ray Fargher
4. Auckland ports back down on contracting out
5. Aussie tutors join the ‘Precariat’ workforce
6. International trade agreement akin to asset sales

Other news

There is a nasty narrative creeping into the national conversation New Zealand is having about education these days, that of the superhero teacher. If you’re unfamiliar with the plot line, it goes something like this. There is a massive achievement gap in academic achievement and this gap is because of bad schools. Since teachers are the most important things in schools, if the schools aren’t delivering then it must be because teachers aren’t delivering. Enter the superhero teacher - Teaching the Teacher

A Cambridge student was suspended from the university for two-and-a-half years today for his part in a protest during a speech by the Universities Minister David Willetts. The “unprecedented” sentence handed down to Owen Holland, a PhD student in the Faculty of English, came on the same day as students marched in London and walked out of institutions across the country to demand Mr Willetts’ resignation - The Independent

A private computer training institute with hundreds of students has gone bust owing more than $8.3 million in tax, penalties and interest. Computer Power (NZ) Ltd, which runs Computer Power Institute campuses in Wellington, Christchurch and Auckland, was put into liquidation in the High Court at Wellington this week. The institute has about 750 students including about 150 international students. The 47 staff have been paid until the end of the month - Dominion Post

An Indian immigration consultancy claiming to operate in NZ (and actually operating in India) has used a murdered US student’s image in their marketing (seemingly lifted from the Internet). It works with, among others, Canterbury, AUT, BOPP and Unitec - ED Blog

TAFE has hit the wall in Victoria’s open training market, with unprecedented private college growth relegating the public provider into minority status and throwing its financial viability into question. Details from an unpublished quarterly report from Skills Victoria, which shows that TAFEs now have less than half of the government-supported enrolments, emerged the day after Prime Minister Julia Gillard said states needed to protect their TAFEs -The Australian

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.

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.

Two key points need to be recorded here.  First, we seek an undertaking that there is a real staffing surplus in each of the areas where a surplus has been identified which is the stated quantum – if there is not, then the Institute risks consultation being challenged as a cosmetic exercise.  Second, we fundamentally disagree with the opening statement that the changes will “… ensure we are agile and sustainable in the future…”.  In fact, the proposal risks the educational and vocational sustainability of the Faculty, and also risks the wider purpose of MIT in serving its community in South Auckland.

We note that the CEO in the February 2009 Forum stated that change is behind us, that the right people, processes and structures are in place.  What has changed so significantly in the past 2 years within MIT that the entire structure is in need of an overhaul and the slashing of many more positions is necessary?  The capital investments that have been talked about were in the plans at that point, so they are not new.  We note that within some Faculties there were significant redundancies 12 months ago, some which resulted in new appointments being necessary shortly afterwards, as the cuts were too deep.   There is nothing in this or other proposals that give us the confidence that a more careful (or indeed any) analysis has been done on actual staffing needs in each subject area.

Timing

TEU was informed of the ‘rightsizing exercise’ across MIT some months ago, however the actual proposal has only been presented three weeks ago. This has meant the consultation process on the proposals is happening during the busy time of exam marking and final mark preparation. This has resulted in a large number of impacted staff being unable to actively participate in this consultation whilst at the same time discharge their professional obligations to their students. One of the results of this process is that it is highly unlikely that many academic staff will know their teaching allocations until the new year.

An already stressful situation has been exacerbated due to inadequate planning by MIT and its external consultants.

 Consultants

We note that the use of external consultants comes at considerable expense  to the Institute and yet simple things like the provisions in the collective agreement and considering when Faculties were due to go on leave were not taken account of as these proposals were rolled out.  This does point to a lack of communications at best.  It also shows the lack of understanding that staff of MIT are human beings.  Members deserve more respect.

Further, the earlier phase 1 of this review process dismantled what the previous consultants had put in place only 4 years ago which does raise doubts of the effectiveness of this exercise given that MIT has engaged the same firm of consultants.

Design

The document states in the Design Objectives that the objectives of the ‘Rightsizing’ include:

• Demonstrating a clear and integrated view of student and community issues. There is no evidence in the document that this is an objective, and we seek information as to how the proposal will meet this objective.  In particular, how have students and relevant community stakeholders been involved in or consulted in this proposal?  We note that a significant number of Hair and Beauty’s students are mature with young children.  The proposal can only potentially be accomplished by changing the class hours to run later in the day.  This will have a significant negative impact  on the  ability of these students to  attend the courses, and we are surprised that no thought has been given to this.
• Concentrating resources on the organisations core teaching and learning functions:  There is no evidence of this; in fact it is the opposite. The proposed cuts and reductions are substantially in the teaching areas in the faculty.
• Reducing costs to stakeholders and taxpayers, while aiming to improve services delivered. The proposal does not reduce costs to stakeholders and taxpayers, as the reduced budget is simply being shifted to another part of MIT’s purse, in pursuit of a higher surplus for reinvestment.
• Increasing organisational agility and flexibility. The proposal reduces staffing flexibility in all areas, which will reduce the agility and flexibility of delivery   

Information

The document refers at page 8 of the Tribal data as showing that “MIT is out of balance as an organisation”.  There is no credibility to this information which MIT is refusing to share with its staff who risk job loss and major changes to the way in which they work.  This is despite the Employment Relations Act stipulating that the duty of good faith “requires an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will, or is likely to, have an adverse effect on the continuation of employment of 1 or more of his or her employees to provide the employees affected – (i) access to information, relevant to the continuation of the employees’ employment, about the decision; and (ii) an opportunity to comment on the information to their employer before the decision is made. “[1]

The lack of substantive information has also been a significant concern.  TEU operates across the tertiary sector and does have some idea of what are norms and reasonable expectations put on members.  We also know that there are difficulties with the tribal data, and differences over what each institution counts in which category. 

Review drivers

There is significant scepticism about the real driver in this review process.  While the euphemism of reinvestment fund is used, it is clear it is not for a very significant resource of the institution, its people.    Members have consistently queried the Hayman  Park project and they sense they are either being fired, or asked to do even more so that Hayman Park can be resourced.  In the current capped EFTS environment, it does seem extraordinary that such an ambitious project is being undertaken at the expense of so many staff.

The reality for members is that they are aware of the significant reserves MIT has, and while they appreciate that much of these are for investing in facilities, it comes as a shock that they are being reduced to enable more reserves to be built up.  There is, as perhaps you are aware, a growing level of concern that Hayman Park may not turn into such a good option given the developments that AUT already have underway, and the opportunities via Auckland University that have been available in various parts of MIT but not continued. 

Analysis

It appears there has been no thought given to the fact that the savings that have been requested by you may not be achievable, and have the potential to create a less supportive and more hazardous environment for your students.  It feels like a ‘paint by numbers’ exercise.  It is without regard for the actual level of educational preparation of the students that come to MIT from South Auckland, nor for their specific needs in regard to this group of programmes. 

In addition, each unit / area appears to have been analysed assuming or perhaps hoping that all other areas will still function as they have.  This is a serious deficiency which will leave gaps, and is a result of trying to cut all areas at the same time.

The material near the bottom of page 10 of the proposal was also in the Business Faculty document.  We were told at the time that it was specific to the Business Faculty, apparently a clearly wrong assertion.  The members note that while some of these things are not new, the term “traffic light data” is a complete mystery to them.  The suggestion that moderation will lessen is simply not possible as it is their external agencies which determine the frequency of moderation.

Our comments are mainly focused on Hair and Beauty as that is where the majority of members are.  We note however, that the proposal to combine 4 functions into one Programme Leader role at 0.8 in hospitality is unrealistic and will create problems in this area in the future.

Workload

The proposal allocates the maximum TTH to members.  This means the TTH allocated and the associated attendant duties is a full workload.  This does not include any programme development, nor any preparation of teaching material beyond routine updating.  Therefore preparing for a new curriculum, or making changes to accommodate blended learning would required a reduction in TTH as would any other additional task. Trying to allocate staff to the maximum limits the Faculty’s ability to be responsive and up to date, and reduces opportunities for members to develop and learn new skills.

Size of HOS and Programme Leadership role within the School of Hair and Beauty:

We have the view that this role is bigger than the .5 allocated.  This is based on actual analysis from the HOS of what time it took to undertake the role and what time had been available for teaching duties.  We understand that she has responsibilities for the management of staff, resources, financial management, and health and safety.  She also has day to day responsibility for an administrator and one technician.  There is also an expectation that she represents the School and MIT at various forums and consults with industry and the community.  These items are not in the Programme Leader responsibilities that were in the Job Description for the proposed CHATs Programme Leader. We consider the role to be more accurately described as at least 0.7.  Currently it has been possible for other staff to contribute more teaching to cover this, but with the staffing reductions that have been proposed, this will no longer be possible.

Courses

We note there are 3 hairdressing (2 half year programmes with 3 classes each, and 1 full year programme) and 2 beauty courses (1 half year and 1 full year) being run.  In addition to this there are HITO apprentices who come in 1 day per week for 10 week and 19 week blocks.  It appears that this non-base work has not been factored into the original calculations of the staffing required.

We note that it is only possible to run one L4 Hairdressing programme as there is not enough staffing to run more.  Two classes ran in 2010 and also prior to this, but with the loss of a staff member at the end of last year, only one class has been possible.

Staff

We understand that the intention is to cut 1 staff member from the School of Hair and Beauty.  We note that the skill and qualification bases of the two areas are separate. It is therefore not possible to cut parts from both programme areas as this would result in partial severances.

Given the level of staffing in beauty with the FTE of 1.8 staff and 2 programmes, there is no scope to reduce by a whole person.  Further, these staff are doing their own stocktaking and internal ordering of products which does not appear to be taken account of in the workload allocations.

We assume therefore, that there is a management view that it is possible to cut 1 whole position from Hairdressing.  The current teaching staff level is 4.3, so this would mean 23% reduction.

Casual staff:

We note that there is no actual provision made for casual staff to relieve members if they are on leave or are sick.  We note in a reply to our query that this is provided for from the OPEX budget, a fact that was not known to the members.  This is also surprising to us, as this is not a staffing budget.  The proposal also reduces the OPEX budget, so we remain unconvinced that there is adequate provision to enable members to have access to the terms and conditions of the collective agreement.

Other work:

It appears that the work from HITO that is currently being done has either been forgotten about in the proposal, or the intention that MIT wants to exit this work.  The later would be a most odd choice if it was the case.  Including the work, which is close to 218 hours of teaching, would mean the proposal would then become a reduction of .7 of a staff member.

We also understand that there have been some difficulties with HITO in the past.  HITO has appointed a new liaison person and relations are improving, and there is real scope for an increase in work coming from them.

Taking into account these factors along with the actual work required of the HOS, at best the surplus as such could be 0.5 (not counting what is noted below).

On this basis, the proposal can not continue as it requires a partial severance

Work required in 2012:

We understand that there will be work required in 2012 on the new national Hairdressing qualifications as required by the Targeted Review of Qualifications by NZQA.  This will require the local programme documentation to be redeveloped in 2012, with course descriptors for each course within each programme as well as the delivery material to be written for each course to enable them to be ready for delivery in 2013.  There is also time required for involvement in the consultation with the national body, industry and the advisory group over the changes.  All of the above involves a significant amount of work required to prepare for all 3 programmes to be redeveloped.

We note that the staffing levels provide no scope for programme development, or any additional functions.  We regard this as short-sighted, particularly so when it is known that this work will be required shortly. 

We note that the Beauty subject area will be undergoing significant programme realignment in 2012 and that one of the current staff has been recently been elected on the national body that is responsible for coordinating and consulting nationally on this work.  There will be a time commitment needed in 2012. Again, we believe that this must be taken account of in this process, otherwise in a few months time the School will be short staffed. It is expected that in 2013 there will be a Targeted Review of Qualifications by NZQA of Beauty qualifications, this will then lead to rewriting of programmes as outlined above for Hairdressing.

In recognition of the significant programmes’ changes that will need to be implemented in 2012 – 2013 in both Hairdressing and Beauty, the HOS role will be virtually full time.  This is because she would be the person doing most of the work on the new programmes, and developing the programme documentation.  She would also be responsibly for implementing the necessary consultation and writing the course descriptors.

Summary

In summary we do not see any justifiable reason for the staffing reduction proposed.  

Running the programmes longer and later in the day puts at risk the viability of the hairdressing programmes as the student body that make up a significant proportion of the EFTS will have difficulty attending. Our analysis of the staffing needs shows there is no surplus, and certainly not a whole person surplus when allocations are made to the theoretical maximum.  This, in addition to the work that the school has flagged as coming up in 2012 and the analysis of the actual time required to do the work of the HOS, and the additional work in 2012 and 2013 means that there is no reduction possible.

We conclude that there is no surplus and this proposal to reduce staff in Hair and Beauty must be stopped.  This along with the fact that the HOS is going to be away from today on previously approved sick leave, and that there is currently an Acting Dean who has no knowledge of the subject area, means that any decisions made have a real potential to damage the school.  We believe that any decision aside from our above recommendation to stop the review should be put on hold until the new Dean has been appointed.

Two key points need to be recorded here.  First, we seek an undertaking that there is a staffing surplus in each of the areas where a surplus has been identified – if there is not, then the Institute risks consultation being challenged as a cosmetic exercise.  Second, we fundamentally disagree with the opening statement that the changes “ will position the Faculty to meet the challenges moving forward 2012 – 2016”.  In fact, the proposal risks the educational and vocational sustainability of the Faculty.

It also risks the wider purpose of MIT in serving its community.

We note that the CEO in the February 2009 Forum stated that change is behind us, that the right people, processes and structures are in place.  What has changed so significantly in the past 2 years within MIT that the entire structure is in need of an overhall and the slashing of many more positions is necessary.  The capital investments that have been talked about were in the plans at that point, so that is not new.  We note that within the Faculty there were signficant redundancies 12 months ago, some of which resulted in new appointments being necessary.

Timing

TEU was informed of the ‘rightsizing exercise’ across MIT some months ago, however the actual proposal has only been presented three weeks ago. This has meant the consultation process on the proposals is happening during the busy time of exam marking and final mark preparation. This has resulted in a large number of impacted staff being unable to actively participate in this consultation whilst at the same time discharge their professional obligations to their students. One of the results of this process is that it is highly unlikely that many academic staff will know what they are due to teach in the new year when they go on leave.

An already stressful situation has been exacerbated due to inadequate planning by MIT and its external consultants.

Consultants

We note that the use of external consultants comes at considerable expense  to the Institute and yet simple things like the provisions in the collective agreement and considering when Faculties were due to go on leave were not taken account of as these proposals were rolled out.  This does point to a lack of communications at best.  It also shows the lack of understanding that staff of MIT are human beings and deserve more respect.

Further the earlier phase 1 of this review process dismantled what the previous consultants had put in place only 4 years ago which does raise doubts of the effectiveness of this exercise given that MIT has engaged the same firm of consultants.

Information

The lack of substantive information has also been a significant concern.  Stating that something is a norm, or a benchmark and then not being prepared to show the evidence of this simply suggests that there is more to the data than is what is being said, as well as creating a situation where there is concern that you will simply say what you want rather than provide data with accuracy.  We believe it is actually in MIT’s best interest to provide the origins of the assertions of the ‘benchmarks’ used.  TEU operates across the tertiary sector and does have some idea of what are norms and reasonable expectations put on members.  We also know that there are difficulties with the tribal data, and differences over what each institution counts in which category.

The right sizing talk has always been underlined by reference to “useful comparative tools” of tribal benchmarking, but requests for that data have been refused.  The references to it imply that MIT sees itself as being, or should be, ‘performing’ in the top quartile of the sector, without us knowing why this is seen as appropriate.

Review drivers

There is significant scepticism about the real driver in this review process.  While the euphemism of reinvestment fund is used, it is clear it is not for a very significant resource of the institution, its people.    Members have consistently queried the Hayman  Park project and they sense they are either being fired, or asked to do even more so that Hayman Park can be resourced.  In the current capped EFTS environment, it does seem extraordinary that such an ambitious project is being undertaken at the expense of so many staff.

The reality for members is that they are aware of the significant reserves MIT has, and while they appreciate that much of these are for investing in facilities, it comes as a shock that they are being reduced to enable more reserves to be built up.  There is, as perhaps you are aware, a growing level of concern that Hayman Park may not turn out into such a good option given the developments that AUT already have underway, and the opportunities via Auckland University that have been available in various parts of MIT but not continued.

Analysis

It appears there has been no thought given that the savings that has been requested by you may not be achievable, and also has the potential to create a less supportive and more hazardous environment for your students.  It feels like a ‘paint by numbers’ exercise, without regard for the actual level of educational preparation of the students that come to MIT inSouth Auckland.

Overall structure

Whilst there can be pluses in having a centre of excellence, where the higher qualifications are focused, it removes the synergies that exist within disciplines.

It has the potential to add work to the administrative management of programmes such as Dip Eng as they will span across units.  It will mean that individuals will have to answer to more than one manager with respect to their teaching loads which appears to go contrary to the stated objectives of having an individual reporting to a single manager.

Matching Resources

We are concerned that the process is about cutting based on statistics and not looking at what can be done and what it would take to do in an educationally sound and safe way.  There is a need to match up resources with what can be offered.  Not doing this will risk what has currently worked.

Academic integrity

The data supplied on the question which asked if any analysis had been done regarding the impact on academic integrity of the programme suggests that these measures (completion rates) are not as high as expected within MIT.  It is unclear how what is proposed could improve these, and in our view is quite likely to make the situation worse.

We also envisaged that the analysis would have also included such things as timetabling, workshop availability and size, and the staff skill mix.  We believe that if it had, the scale of reductions proposed would not have been made.

TTH baseline

We know that the suggested number of TTH for the degree, or for the other programmes are higher than much of the sector.  We also note there is no recognition of the requirements of teaching on a degree is different from any other programme – it is more than just allocating research time, but differing workload out of the classroom.  How MIT is treating this is not in keeping with other Institutes.

TTH and attendant duties

If someone is allocated 668 TTH as you suggest on a degree programme, or 835 on certificate and diploma level then their work is made up of their TTH and attendant duties relating to that TTH.  That is a full workload.  Attendant duties are

• Lesson preparation
• Student evaluation and assessment
• Pastoral care and assistance to students
• Routine updating of course materials,
• Maintaining skill and professional currency
• Routine admin and participation in institutes processes
• Contribution to day to day maintenance of teaching areas

There is not that much time available for all the above activities.  If other tasks are required then TTH must be reduced.

It appears to be the view within MIT management that by reducing the student contact hours for each programme and stating they are blended delivery hours does not change the course but does reduces TTH and workload of staff.  We do not agree, and that blended delivery is still part of TTH.  We understand that the accreditation documents state the amount of student contact hours for each course.  Internal MIT documents state that the student contact hours in accreditation documents are divided up between student contact hours and blended delivery hours.  We also understand that quite a few programmes are accredited by external bodies, and that the specified content can not be changed and must be delivered in the ways specified in that accreditation document.  These must be taken account of in the analysis, as a simply statistical based reduction can not work.

We do not believe the rewriting of courses to have less contact hours actually reduces academic staff workloads to enable time to then take more courses.  The rewriting must be factored into workloads, as this work is not an attendant duty.  Having 4 hours contact with a group of up to 18 students for a course will be effectively less than having 4 hours TTH and then some or all students needing further assistance out of class time because the content of the programme is being delivered in a compressed way.  Whilst it may not be counted as TTH, it is workload.  It remains the employer’s responsibility to ensure that the full workload is set at safe, reasonable and equitable levels under the collective agreement.  There is also employer responsibility under the Health and Safety in Employment Act.

Rewriting courses is additional, not part of attendant duties, nor is rewriting to include the provision of blended learning

As noted above, the decreasing of the contact hours per course does not automatically mean an individual is available to teach more courses.  They are responsible for providing the same content of the courses, and in fact if anything it increases the associated work as they are forced to address the shortfall by helping students out of class time more frequently

Duty Hours

It is not possible to subtract TTH from duty time in the belief that is the time available that can be directed to various tasks.  The assumptions made in your replies to Q27 are not correct.  Based on your proposal, an individual that has been allocated 668 on the degree has a full workload with that teaching and the attendant duties associated with that teaching.  Updating of the nature that is being required is not routine and is additional. Therefore some teaching must be removed to enable any work that is not attendant duties to be done.

There does appear to be confusion about what counts as duty hours and what can be attendant duties across the faculty.  Industry engagement, school experience, school liaison, programme development, interviewing, health and safety duties, purchases tasks and technology one, meetings, thesis review, conf review all need time allocation.  TEU will work with members to ensure that the provisions in the collective agreement are enforced in 2012.

Health and Safety

Any subject area that has practical components to the programme has additional health and safety concerns above those in other programmes.  The point of the programmes is to train individuals who have little or no knowledge on how to safely learn industrial processes and operate hazardous machinery.

The students on the youth guarantee scheme do appear to have a higher risks as members have found them worse at following instructions and a greater degree of supervision needed within workshops.

We understand that the design of workshops means that all equipment needed in any particular discipline is all within one large workshop.  Whilst this is useful as it more accurately reflects the situations that student would find out in the workplace, it does increase the risk of injury.  This is particularly so if there are multiple classes operating in the workshop space at the same time. Increasing the staff: student ratio will increase the risks to both students and staff.

Any workload allocation is about allocating a fair workload to an individual.  It is simply not a solution to say everyone else has to take on more.  It is you, as representative of the employer, who has to ensure that all employees that you manage have a safe work environment under OSH legislation as well as a safe, equitable and reasonable workload under the collective agreement.

Programme development

We were very surprised that any academic programme development work is not factored in at a Faculty level.  Developing new programmes is the lifeblood of any tertiary institutions, and not building that into your Faculty is a rather odd choice to say the least.  We believe that it should be.  Operating any programme development work from a central pool is impractical and will create competition between faculties that may well result in some areas not being able to develop and/or revitalise programmes in a timely way.

We also note that revision of programmes such as for blended learning or a lessening of contact hours will required time allocations as these are beyond attendant duties – that is, a reduction of allocated TTH  is required.

Research

This only applies for Electrical, and in the proposed new structure we assume it would be in the centre of excellence.    We note that where someone is allocated research time then their TTH is reduced and then their teaching, attendant duties relating to that teaching, and research is their full workload.

Professional Development

A number of members have said that the PD they have had recently has only been about blended delivery, not in their subject area.  We also note that in the proposal it is suggested that the only PD that will be approved is that which is in the strategic interest on the Faculty.  It would  appear unwise to not have staff keeping up to date in their subject areas.  We remind you that the provision in the collective agreement is that the approval of a plan put forward by an individual is not to be unreasonably withheld.

Academic support

Changes in CELT appear to reduce the expertise available to academic staff in the area of online learning.  The redevelopment of courses to use blended learning is quite an intensive thing and not one that can happen without the support of expertise in the design of blended learning.  The changes proposed in CELT do not appear to add any additional support and in fact it removes an individual who had expertise in the area.

Advertising

There does appear to be problems getting specific programmes advertised – with some being missed out of the big advertisements and others not having brochures done.  Whilst TEU does not agree with large amounts being spent on advertising, it is obvious that enrolments will not be good if the prospective students have no idea the programme is on offer.

Predicted income

Significant increases on non-base income are predicted with no indications of how it is going to be earned.  This is significant especially given the current projections not being met.

Increase in EFTS and non-base funding

The current EFTS budget is close to having been met, although the non-base target is only 58% of the target, a figure well short of the target.

The target for non-base income next year is less than this year, which does make sense given this years target was not achieved.  Then in 2016 it appears to have been set extraordinarily high, with it being $10M in 2016, with no apparent plan – certainly no plan that the members are aware of.  To achieve over a 400% increase will require resources, planning and expertise to achieve, as well as staffing to either deliver and/or develop materials.  The experience this year does suggest that targets need to be linked to what is achievable, not just wanting to increase revenue.  This is an unrealistic target with no resources being allocated.

An increase of EFTS from the target of 1370 in 2011 to 2050 in 2016, an increase over 4 years of 49% is not explainable, given the current capped EFTS environment.

In 2012 there is an increase proposed of 6% of EFTS to deliver whilst proposing to cut staff by 11%.  This is a significant change.

We do not believe that adequate account has been taken of the real staffing needs.  The assessment must be more than a simplistic ratio multiplied through.

Staffing numbers

We believe a total re-analysis is required in relation to the staffing numbers.  This is based on analysis of the data supplied and the answers to various questions, and from discussing with members about the practical “doability” of what is proposed.

The overall numbers that are stated as required in the proposal is 93.6 academic staff across the faculty, yet when asked how many staff there are, including permanent, fixed term and casual, we received a figure of 79.4.  This suggests a significant increase is needed!

We do dispute that “optimum capacity” is 835 hrs.  835 TTH can not be called a bench mark or norm in the sector, and it is certainly not “optimum capacity” as suggested.  Optimum suggests that it is the best level for the work being done, and given the various issues within this submission that appear to not have been considered, the 835 “optimum” is false.  We do not consider there is a crisis at all; rather the financial position has been created to try and produce greater surpluses from across the Institute.

Specific recommendations for each school

The figures provided have been confusing.  Three sets (automotive, construction and mechanical) have been prepared in a similar way which does not clearly indicate if the Programme Leadership functions have been taken account of.

It is not clear that there has been a consistent way of accounting for duties beyond that of “attendant duties” across the schools.  It has been difficult to match the total teaching hours required in 2012 which was listed in initially provided Faculty spreadsheet, and the spreadsheets from the Schools.

It has also become clear there are a significant number of fixed term positions as well as casuals. In our view, if indeed there does end up being surpluses, people who are casual and then on fixed term should be the first to go.

We also note that some fixed terms have tended to be occurring for more than 1 year which raises the questions of there genuineness. These must be addressed as well after the staff numbers have been properly assessed.

Beginning with the numbers provided in each school’s spreadsheets

By simply adding the numbers in the spreadsheets provided by the schools gave different outcomes from what is in the proposal document.  The first number is the required from the spreadsheets, the second from the Dean’s sheet and the third is the difference between the school spreadsheets and current staffing as per the Dean’s sheet

• Mechanical 22.75 rather than 22.7, so potential surplus of 1.35

• Building and Construction 24.61 rather than 21.9, so potential surplus of .80

• Automotive 18.64 rather than 14.7, so potential additional staff of 2.04

• Electrical 23.8 rather than 21.7, so no surplus

• Horticulture 12.65, so surplus of 2.2

It appears that the figures have been developed assuming a staff student ratio of 1:18.  I understand from a number of members that at the conclusion of the review where a number of people were redundant last year, there was a statement that the ratio would be set at 1:16.

There are significant health and safety risks in having these ratios in an environment where there are groups of essentially untrained personnel operating dangerous equipment.

Again a statistical approach to allocating staffing is not going to take account of the specific risks associated with each course.

Looking at more detail at each area

Mechanical and Trades

TTH appears to be 18637 from discussion with members

Courses appear to require 22.32 plus 1 to Unitec so 23.32 (instead of 22.7 on Deans sheet)

This suggests a surplus of 0.78

We note that there are 4 distinct disciplines with their own expertise within this school. Any reduction will cause problems for which ever area the reductions come from.

Building and Construction

The TTH in the material given appears to be 20545,

Courses appear to require 24.1 (instead of 21.9 on the Deans sheet).

Suggesting there is surplus of 1.3

We note there are quite distinct programmes in this area.  For example in plumbing there are 5 classes running, so to suggest there is a fraction overstaffing (whether if be .44 or .1) is a nonsense as there are 5 classes that require tutors.

We note that this level of surplus is only possible if the classes are at 1:18, which is unlikely based on the estimated EFTS’s in each programme.

Automotive

TTH appears 14980 TTH

Courses appear to require 17.94 (instead of 14.7 on the Deans sheet)

This suggests that there is no surplus and in fact that staff should be increased by 1.3

There are 4 distinct disciplines with their own expertise within this school

In addition there are also problems relating to trying to move to 1:18 as many of the workshops have been built to fit 14.  We understand there is portable equipment for use, but clearly there would have to be more purchased, as well as a health and safety assessment on the feasibility of it.

Electrical

TTH appears to be around 19655 – these are weighted to account for the research time

Courses appear to require 23.54 (instead of 21.7 on the Deans sheet)

This appears to include programme leader of .8, suggesting a surplus of .26, not 2.1

We note there are at least 2 fixed term people and a casual person who appears to be doing a full workload (the later situation is contrary to the collective agreement) we don’t see why they are fixed term or casual.  If all of these are removed from the calculations then electrical will be short staffed by 2.86

Further, with a number of programmes we consider it inappropriate to increase the staff student ratios as it is a health and safety risk.  Also a statistical savings can only have an impact if the student numbers are at 17 or 18 (and multiples). The estimated EFTS for next year do not show ‘clean’ splits of 18 students in each class, but will still require an individual to be teaching on it, so it is a nonsense to say that MIT only needs a fraction of a staff member to teach on a full year course, as a person will need to be there fully if there are 16 or 18 in the class.

We note that returning to the 1:16 ratio which members understood was decided on based on health and safety grounds, then there is no need to lose any staff, included the fixed term and casual, and will need to appoint 3.8 additional staff.

Horticulture

TTH appears to be 10570

The courses appear to require 12.65 staff, and include the PL (the Dean’s sheet gives 12.6).

However the various other duties have not been factored in.  It does appear that the spreadsheet adds TTH and other hours together to come up with 1394 hours duty.  This is wrong as it is not possible to add these hours together and get figures that mean anything.  A full workload is the 835 TTH and the attendant duties associated with that teaching.  If there are other items that need to be done (an example is flower purchases) then this requires time which is duty time.  To free up some duty time if someone is teaching 835, then some teaching has to be removed.  Therefore if the additional things are not tallied up, the true workload is not understood.  Adding the relevant blue and purple columns from the spreadsheet (as some of these would be part of attendant duties), I have calculated that this adds another 1.6 staff to the requirements to run the programmes, giving a total of 14.25, resulting in a surplus of .55

This area appears to rely on a large number of fixed term appointments.  The permanent staffing is 7.3 while there is an identified need for 12.65 staff.  The number of fixed terms needs to be reduced by making some permanent appointments.

For ease of reference these are summarised

Accounting for HOSs

We note that the 2011 data includes the HOS roles that are proposed to be disestablished, which means that if any of the current HOS are appointed to a Unit or Centre manager role that the above figures for all or some of 4 of the 5 schools will have overestimated the surplus.  We believe that it is unwise to proceed with any surpluses until the new Unit heads have been appointed, otherwise there will be unnecessary loss of staff and their skills and expertise.

Timetabling

No thought in relation to timetabling

There must be analysis of the feasibility of timetabling the proposed staffing with the courses offered and the physical resources required.  We believe that this analysis will show that physical infrastructure and health and safety requirements in relation to students will mean this is not possible

In summary, for the five current Schools we conclude that there may well be some inaccuracies in our calculations above, as well as those provided from the Schools and the Dean. There must be – with three different calculated surplus results for each school.

It would be very unwise to proceed with such variability of calculations on the surplus.  The least we expect is that there is analysis of each programme to ensure that all the data used to make staffing decisions are treated consistently and the collective agreement is interpreted correctly.  This can not be done on a statistical basis.

Severance

Severance processes are in place for when there is an identified surplus of staff.

At this stage we are not clear that there is actually surplus staff.  If in the event that there are fractions of positions identified as surplus in any of the subject areas identified, then the review process must stop, as compulsory partial severances are not possible.  We believe the assumptions behind this proposal are flawed, and if the proposals are not amended significantly, will result in too many staff leaving, and that the faculty will need to employ additional staff during 2012, and will exhaust the reduced casual budget before the end of 2012.

If the changes result in members being made compulsorily redundant and the Faculty needs to employ staff during 2012 to cover what these individuals would have done, we will be looking at our legal options.

We are happy to discuss any part of our submission