KEY POINTS:
When a policy is deemed to be misfiring badly, the bluntest of instruments is often used to disown and reshape it. A cleansing of the slate is the precursor to a dramatic change of course. So it is with the Tertiary Education Commission's approval for the first investment
plans of 110 tertiary education organisations, under a scheme designed to align courses with economic and social goals.
This represents a departure from the equivalent-fulltime- student system of state payments, which rewarded institutions for the number of students they enrolled. The shortcomings of that approach were highlighted when some polytechnics introduced low-quality and worthless courses, such as twilight golf, simply to gain funding. The Government was severely embarrassed.
Its response has been to seek to ensure tertiary organisations are funded to deliver quality education and training that is relevant to students, their potential employers and the local community. Institutes of technology and polytechnics have been told to raise the number of higher-level qualifications offered and to improve student retention and completion rates. They must also service their home region, a fact that means many face funding cuts. Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt is already promising a vigorous campaign against an 18.5 per cent drop in payments for the Southern Institute of Technology.
Universities, for their part, have, among other things, been told to increase the proportion of postgraduate students, and to implement plans to increase the number of students studying science and engineering. The University of Auckland has reacted by restricting the numbers admitted to all undergraduate courses from 2009. Those opposed to "elitist" education have not been slow to voice their alarm.
According to the commission, students can now be more confident that when they invest time and money in their tertiary education, they are part of a system that is more responsive to the labour market, the economy and society's needs. It is, however, silent on the significant downside of this approach. Largely unfettered funding allowed students to attend their course of first choice. That, in some instances, will no longer be the case. Students have, in effect, been told their preference is no longer what matters. They are no longer free to develop what they consider their potential to the full as they would wish.
Undoubtedly, in some instances, the "bums on seats" model produced too much competition for students and too much duplication of courses. Quite correctly, the Tertiary Education Commission has called a halt to the delivery of lower-level courses outside their regions by institutes of technology and polytechnics. But it is reasonable to ask if the staunching of competition, and of students' ability to shape their own education, has been carried too far. Equally, it is fair to ask whether the shortfall in the number of science and engineering graduates should not be addressed by providing more stimulating introductions in secondary schools.
In sum, the instrument used to fashion this new approach appears far too blunt. Schemes designed to align education with specific economic goals are rarely fully effective. Worse, they demand sacrifices by students. A rapier-like approach, which puts faith in competing institutions quickly instigating succinct courses to address temporary skills shortages, would have been preferable to this broadsword. Students and taxpayers might then have enjoyed the best of all worlds.
