Strategy submission emphasises secondary-tertiary interface
Greater emphasis is required on the secondary-tertiary interface, according to the NZVCC submission on the Government’s
Draft Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-2015. On the strategy priority of more young people gaining degrees, the
Committee suggests that more attention should be given to the importance of improving the interface – “a key issue for
universities”. The submission says the draft strategy is silent on this issue “yet a particular block to young people
advancing successfully from secondary to degree-level study is the lack of continuity between secondary school and
university”.
As well as the “more young people gaining degrees” priority, the NZVCC submission comments on three other strategy
priorities most relevant to universities – assisting Māori and Pasifika to achieve at higher levels, strengthening
research outcomes, and improving the educational and financial performance of providers.
“The NZVCC welcomes the emphasis the draft strategy places on the advancement of Māori and Pasifika students,” the
submission says. “Universities are committed to increasing the number of Māori and Pasifika graduates and all
universities have strategies in place to strengthen the engagement of Māori and Pacific communities with university
education.” However, for this priority, an effective secondary-tertiary interface was also an issue. “Increasing the
number of Māori school leavers entering university will be difficult as long as Māori are failing to complete secondary
school or leaving school without the necessary qualifications for entry into university.” The NZVCC submission notes
that in 2008, 43% of all school leavers attained at least university entrance or a level 3 qualification while only 20%
of Māori school leavers did so.
On the research priority, the NZVCC cautions against too great an emphasis on what the strategy refers to as “research
of direct relevance to the needs of industry”. While universities were at the forefront of commercialising research
results, that was not at the expense of the broader aspects of research, fundamental research being an important part of
innovation. It was important to retain the most able of students for postgraduate study. Although the proportion of
postgraduate students had grown from 14.5% of university equivalent full-time students in 2000 to more than 17% in 2007,
it would be concerning if the constrained funding environment limited the growth of postgraduate student numbers. The
NZVCC submission queried the draft strategy’s reference to an investigation of whether the Performance-Based Research
Fund was working well for all parts of the sector. “The PBRF was not designed to be appropriate for non-research
tertiary institutions … the focus should be on ensuring that a definition of what constitutes research that is
internationally credible is applied consistently across all institutions.”
Addressing the draft strategy priority on improving the educational and financial performance of providers, the NZVCC
submission supports the increased emphasis on degree completion but notes that it must be linked to improving the
preparedness of students at entry to university, another reflection of the importance of the secondary-tertiary
interface. The proposed reduction in the number of sub-degree qualifications is strongly endorsed – “the overall quality
of the tertiary education system would be enhanced if Government adopted a deliberate strategy of diverting funding from
lower-level certificates to degree programmes”. The NZVCC expected that Government would ensure, as part of its emphasis
on quality, that non-university providers offering degrees were also required to meet international quality standards.
In general comments on the draft strategy, the submission says the NZVCC has serious concerns over the implication that
the current funding limitations will continue for the duration of the new Tertiary Education Strategy – “for
universities, this will be counter-productive to achieving the Government’s priorities, especially in light of New
Zealand’s history of internationally low levels of investment in universities and inadequate indexation of funding”.
The NZVCC submission gives four examples of how a prolonged limitation on funding would impact on the achievement of
Government tertiary education priorities. The priority for more young people gaining degrees was already compromised by
the current enrolment cap. Demand for undergraduate and postgraduate places had been boosted by the weak employment
market. Coupled with the pipeline effect of students already in the system, and no increase in per-student funding, this
would mean student numbers would need to be restricted to maintain quality. That in turn would impact on key groups like
Māori and Pasifika – “restricting access to university could impinge heavily on efforts to improve their achievement
levels”. Without the ability to offer internationally competitive academic salaries and with strong competition from
Australia, there were significant implications for recruitment and retention of academic staff in New Zealand
universities. In the long term this could affect the quality of university teaching and research. The fourth example was
the shortage of sustained funding for research programmes which acted as an impediment to universities achieving
increased research and innovation.
On the Government’s desire for tertiary education organisations to look for other sources of funding, the NZVCC
submission says the expansion of alternative funding sources would be assisted by a reconsideration of the current fees
maxima policy. That could provide greater freedom for institutional decision-making and an enhanced ability to
differentiate fees among programmes according to the cost of delivery. The submission also called for a halt to
Government research funding policies that reduce universities’ access to contestable research funding.
Other items …
Benefits to the individual stressed
The personal benefits of university education are a theme in a number of the individual university submissions on the
Draft Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-2015. One notes that a section of the draft makes passing mention of the
enrichment of life that education can provide, “but this is the merest lip service as the rest of the document deals
with education as a way of increasing economic performance, with meeting the needs of learners as a secondary
commitment”. The contribution to economic performance would be enhanced by ensuring participation and achievement in
tertiary education by as many people as possible.
A further university submission makes a similar point: “While we can appreciate why Government has chosen at this time
to focus on the economic and labour market benefits that accrue from investing in tertiary education, we are of the view
that as well as this, there should be a greater acknowledgement within the main body of the new strategy of the societal
and personal well-being benefits that accrue from the raising of skills and knowledge of New Zealanders, and from
undertaking research of national and international significance in these areas.”
Short-sighted is how another submission refers to the draft strategy. The document was not significantly different from
the earlier iteration in terms of its overall vision although it reflected a very different economic context. The
discussion about the short-term priorities placed less emphasis on increasing participation and more emphasis on
achieving the best return on a necessarily limited investment – “that is, doing more with less”. The university was
disappointed in an approach that was based on reduced costs rather than increased investment. “The strategy is less than
visionary, and reads instead like a short-term management response to the current global economic crisis.”
One university submission emanates from a workshop session by its Council. It notes a perception that the aspirational
thrust of the strategy is needlessly blunted by its cross-sectoral generic emphasis. “If differentiation is to be
encouraged and embraced then there is a need for separate strategy documents for each of the sub-sectors that can
provide cogent statements of intent and aspiration.”
Most university submissions echo the NZVCC’s position on the importance of the secondary-tertiary interface. One notes
that some students are embarking on university study with inadequate preparation and inappropriate prerequisites. While
the review of the National Qualifications Framework might help resolve the situation, it might not be sufficient to deal
with issues around pathways from secondary to tertiary study. The draft strategy’s emphasis on reducing pre-degree
programmes also created an anomalous situation for bridging education. A second submission says the draft strategy
should address the significance of the secondary-tertiary interface to recognise that the strategy’s success will not
only depend on the efforts of the tertiary sector but also on other parts of the education system.
In the view of one university, many of the short-term priorities targeted in the draft strategy represented, in effect,
failures at the secondary level. “We acknowledge the importance of the secondary-tertiary interface in terms of
supporting those people who need extra services. However, the financial incentives for tertiary providers to resource
and deliver these additional services are very limited. The appropriate interventions must continue at the secondary
level to minimise the extent to which bridging support is necessary at tertiary level.” Another submission expresses
concern with the section of the draft strategy dealing with targeting priority groups, that concern centring on the lack
of acknowledgment of barriers to successful tertiary participation. One of those barriers was the proportion of students
who were failing to gain the necessary skills at school to proceed to tertiary study, and particularly to the
degree-level study identified in the draft strategy as a particular priority.
ENDS