Higher education: it's time ... (to change the policy framework)

At an address to the Australian and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG), Vice-Chancellor Ian Chubb suggested some fundamental reforms to the nation’s tertiary education policy framework.

It is time to put in place enlightened policies that will reinvigorate and advance the Australian higher education sector in a way that is coherent, intelligent and supportive. 

If policies meet these criteria, inevitably, they will reveal that universities perform differently. 
I argue, naturally, that we should not hold back the best performing universities in the pious hope that some of the others will join them at some high level if we deflect resources, or spread them thinly, for long enough.  And enlightened policies will reveal that we do different things and do them variably well.  Both need to be exposed if we are to fund quality work wherever it is performed and wherever it can be validated.

Holding back is a recipe for levelling down.  And to continue that, I would argue, is in nobody’s interest.

We simply must come to terms with what we want to be, and our place in the world – as a nation, as a community, as universities. And submerging our strengths or diminishing them to make people feel good is no more acceptable for our universities than it would be for our cricket team. Our best cricket players set the standard and are resourced to do so: why not with universities?

It will take real courage if we are to maintain at least some of our universities in the upper reaches of the world league – but the alternative is unthinkable.

Australia’s policies for education and research have been built around national and sub-national orientations, politics and ambitions. So, if at the sharp end, national ambitions will not be realised if Australia fails to sustain a cluster of globally networked research universities, we will fail as a nation to achieve an inclusive well-functioning society if we do not provide equitable access to quality education and training.  

It is clear that the sector will get no additional funding simply because it asks for it - again. This ‘tactic’ hasn’t worked for much of the last 20 years – and is usually greeted with ignore.  It is possible, however, that if we are willing to offer real reform in exchange for additional resources we might be heard.  The Minister has made it clear that she knows what has happened over the years and is aware of the attrition that has occurred. 

The Government took an excellent and comprehensive policy to the last election.  A central part of that policy included a compacts approach to resourcing that should drive much-needed reform – and add resources.  But it will need a lot of work and will need to be implemented carefully.  Every university will have strengths: some will have more than others, and the cost of operating some universities will be greater than others - differences that have not been captured by common funding rates per student.

Compacts will provide opportunities for university repositioning, new incentives for mission differentiation, and funding envelope flexibility. 

We must also modernise the structure to accommodate more effectively an enlarged body of students with varying characteristics.  This in turn has implications for institutional structures and financing mechanisms, for student access and income support.

The student income support system has not been the subject of a proper review since 1992 and there is an urgent need for a reform. It becomes particularly important if there is real differentiation in our sector: it could be a perverse outcome if we expect students to move to the university offering the course of their choice as long as they alone meet all the additional costs.  

In this wider context, we need to consider the rationale for the education component of compacts. Matters requiring attention include: student-driven models and the allocation of funding; the balance between private and public costs; the continuity of scholarship in areas that are not sustained by student demand alone, as well as the balance between graduate output and labour market requirements; and the principles and operations of a more appropriate regulatory framework for a competitive services sector. 

We must also address the actual costs of teaching at acceptable standards.  A better understanding of actual costs will be needed for a more deregulated system. Truer signals about quality will be needed to inform student choice and safeguard educational standards.
Much of this comes down to standards: the quality of what we actually do. We should not continue to baulk at the question ‘how good are you?’ 

It is time, for example, to establish a minimum acceptable standard for a degree and to develop benchmarks for differences in performance standards achieved by graduates.  We have responsibilities to our graduates to safeguard the reputation of Australian qualifications in the international market. 

It is time to seize this rare opportunity for rethinking, renewal and reinvigoration – and support. 

(This is an edited version of the speech, published Monday 25 February in The Sydney Morning Herald)

^^

Home