Skip to content

Month: March 2019

The essence of change is speed

There was always a problem in thinking that tertiary institutions could behave like oil companies and in the endless pursuit of selling their wares take each other on in the market place. On one side of the road there will a Shell service station, opposite that a Caltex and a little further down the road a BPO one. Market share is all.

The huge number of tertiary providers in Auckland – all the big players from throughout New Zealand seem to have a building in Queen St – seems to be evidence that something has gone well awry. The dollars spent marketing tertiary education as if it were a commodity raises doubts about the common sense of the directio in which things have gone. Perhaps the educations review had got rid of what the Treasury papers for the incoming Labour government in 1987 called “the slack in tertiary education” and simply replaced it with wastage of another kind. So it was inevitable that at some point someone had to take a look at tertiatry education and raise questions about much that was happening.

I should perhaps have said at the start of this post that I wrote the above in 2001 (NZ Education Review, “Last Page” Column). It was at that time that the Tertiary Education Advisory Group (TEAC) was busily reshaping the tertiary sector and were writing visionary reports – never mind the detail, sense the excitement. The reports, as I wrote at the time “were to tertiary education what Basil Spence’s table napkin was to public architecture!”

We were going to have “steering mechanisms,” and “improved policy instruments.” Institutions were to have “profiles” – an interesting word used in construction to mean the boundaries of a structure and to ensure all was fair and square. In general use it was akin perhaps to a “side-on view with not much detail” and “dark silhouettes, see the shape but not the detail. TEAC’s fourth report held for me the most important message.

Entitled “The Distictive Contributions of Tertiary Education Organisations” it spelt out out a range of options for Universities, Institutions of Technology and Polytechnics, Colleges of Education, Wananga, Private Tertiary Entities, Industry Training Organisations and Other Tertiary Proividers. Each was to have its place, contributing in a unique and complementary way to a rich and strong tertiary sector.

There need not be any surprise in the fact we in 2019 we are still trying to complete the design of the tertiary sector with the cutrent VET Sector review which grapples with the respective roles of the ITOs and ITPs made clear in 2004. Back then the role of ITOs was detailed as in the following way “ITOs set standards for, and fund, workplace-oriented industry training and development. They must not provide training themselves or through subsidiaries and joint ventures, but rather manage and fund the delivery for their industries by others and have responsibility for the monitoring of trainees.” TEC (2004), The Distinctive Contributions of Tertiary Organisations. Wellington, TEC.)

It is the underlined statement that seems to be the target of the proposals. This is another example of how difficult education when, faced with implementation of a reform, fails to complete the job. Tomorrow’s Schools was a flawed implementation with key elements. Service Centres and Community Education Forums were two of the clear examples of elements of reform simply ignored. The Tertiary Education Advisory Committee reforms of 200-2004 ended up being flawed in terms of both the distinctive contributions of different types of Tertiary Institutions and the funding system that failed quickly but limped along for another fifteen years or so.

Why does this happen? Over the years various theories have been put forward that have included the vast power of educational institutions to resist change. Charles Payne was led to lament in a book title – “So much reform, so little change.” Another commentator conluded that “it is not what reform does to educational institutions but rather what educational institutions do to reform.” And slow implementation is the enemy of change. The capacity of educators to socialise new ways of working into previous and comfortable old ways of doing things is robust and proven to have worked for them innumerable times.


If you are in a reforming mood, why stop short? Making space for Secondary / Tertiary Programmes.

The latest in a succession of reviews in NZ education, the Review of Vocational Education and Training, was released recently and one of the surprises was the realignment of the relationship between Institutes of Technology and Industry Training Organisations. In brief the report proposed that Industry Training Organisations cease to be training providers to focus on supporting a leadership role with industry. Their current roles of supporting workplace learning and assessment would transfer to the proposed New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (the working title!). These changes being debated and discussed through the current consultation period.

Such a proposal could enhance the pathways for those school students who benefit from an early exposure to vocational education and training. Currently this is possible through Trades Academies (at Levels 2 and 3), Youth Guarantee places at Level 3+, the MIT Tertiary High School model from level 1 through to Level 7. The Review might see that their proposala could lead to another destination for this group of secondary students more accessible from a single point of departure which would enrich the possibilities.

Since the introduction of Secondary / Tertiary Programmes (which is the heading under which they are clustered) almost 100,000 students have taken advantage of these pathways. Most of it is in collaboration with senior secondary school programmes. What is more, the results are very good and the quality of outcomes for students and for the participating schools are enhanced.

This raises two challenges to current reviews.

For the Review of NCEA the message is “Don’t tinker with NCEA.” It is working well for students at Level 1 and Level 2 and Level 3 in secondary / tertiary programmes because the credit-based achievement approach has an easly articulation with post-secondary vocational education and training. These are the students who are often left behind by conventional school approaches. NCEA crosses boundaries and transitions which so often are hurdles and handicaps for students who do not manage the transitions successfully.

A serious period of reform would find that the time is right for consideration to be given to replicating the Tertiary High School Programme (or at least using its principles for other instantiations), and spreading the success that it has had in Manukau to other parts of Auckland and New Zealand.

There are a number of factors that support this: the MIT Tertiary High School is proven in terms of bringing success to at-risk secondary students and Trades Academies are achieving very promising levels of progression into further education and training. Furthermore, there are no impediments to such developments – the policy settings are there, a funding model is available and schools have proven to themselves and the others that scheduling and managing delivery of programmes through collaboration between the school and a tertiary provider is possible.

The current Review of Vocational Education and Training should be including scrutiny of Secondary Tertiary Programmes as a successful creation of pathways from schooling into post-schooling education and training – it is a classic example of a managed pathway.

Also the Government might develop an appetite to introduce into the review mix a Review of Alternative Education. It should do so because New Zealand does struggle to find a successful model for Alternative Education which currently seems often to be little other than a holding pattern until the student’s entitlement (and/or patience) expires.

Think of the richness that would be introduced into our education at seondary and tertiary levels if the Secondary / Tertiary Pathway was built in as a normal pathway based on a set of worthy principles:  targetting students at risk of disengagement for one reason or another (Retention);  placing a clear focus on the creation of meaningful pathways and the management of transitions (Multiple Pathways and Managed Transitions);  built around a seamless progression from NCEA through to employment (Seamlessness); a new and exciting approach through the use of acceleration for students facing issues in a conventional school settings ( Early Access to CTE programmes and Acceleration rather than retardation and the withdrawal of opportunity).

These are educational initiatives which are as effective as they are simple, interventions which support the view that “every great advance replaces traditional complexities by a new simplicity.” That’s the trouble with reform proposals – they don’t go far enough and often miss the connections. Where is the whole of system approach in the current flurry?

Leave a Comment