AUS Tertiary Update

Legislation must recognise role of staff and students, says AUS
Representatives of the Association of University Staff appeared before Parliament’s Science and Education Select Committee yesterday morning to speak to the union’s submission on the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. They were among the first groups to give submissions on the Bill, with representatives of the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics, Weltec and Competenz NZ Industry Training also appearing before the Committee yesterday.
AUS Deputy Secretary Nanette Cormack and Policy Analyst Camilla Belich told the Committee that, while the union supported the general thrust of the Bill and the need for a long-term strategy in the sector, any legislation must ensure that students and staff and their representatives, including unions, are fully involved in decision-making processes in the sector. This came after AUS was earlier told by the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) that student and staff representatives are not considered stakeholders.
The AUS submission also argued that academic freedom must be specifically protected in any legislation, that the criteria for assessing university plans should explicitly state that the TEC is not permitted to make judgments on the content of academic courses and that TEC’s decisions should be made in the context of protecting and enhancing academic freedom. “The powers of the TEC to approve or decline funding must not compromise academic freedom, and this should be clarified in the legislation,” said Ms Belich.
Camilla Belich also told the Select Committee that tertiary-education strategies must reflect Māori developmental and advancement aspirations as Tiriti partners and provide for tertiary-education institutions to include statements around their commitments to fulfilling their responsibilities and obligations to tangata whenua, te reo Māori and te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill proposes widespread changes to the planning, funding and monitoring of tertiary education. The public-policy objective of the Bill is to ensure that the tertiary-education sector contributes towards education outcomes that are more closely aligned with the social, economic and environmental intentions of New Zealand.

Also in Tertiary Update this week
1. NZVCC sends feisty message to Select Committee
2. Auckland fails in bid to curb AUS case
3. ITPNZ warns of changes to risk criteria
4. Caucus gives Māori a voice in MIT’s future direction
5. University adopts Māori Strategic Framework
6. Universities pick up Science funding
7. Saving Iraq’s scholars
8. Go8 continues criticism of peak body
9. Proposed jump in Israeli tuition fees prompts strike threat
10. Lecturers lectured on Queen’s English

NZVCC sends feisty message to Select Committee
The New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee plans to tell Parliament’s Science and Education Select Committee that the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Act should not proceed unless it restores charters, eliminates opportunities for the Tertiary Education Commission or the Minister to undermine academic freedom and introduces more elements of negotiation, consultation and reasonableness into the Bill.
One week out from appearing before the Committee, NZVCC has released a strongly worded summary of its submission on the Bill, liberally peppered with bold type for added effect. Although saying that NZVCC supports the thrust of the proposed legislation, the summary says the Bill is directive and controlling, with the TEC’s powers increased at the expense of university councils. It also says that the Bill opens the door for direct ministerial intervention, providing a backdoor route for political direction.
Interestingly, the vice-chancellors have called for the retention of charters for universities, polytechnics and wānanga, saying that they were intended as a statement of the long-term distinctive contribution that an institution would make to the tertiary-education system. They say that charters are useful, practical and constructive documents which are light on compliance costs, take a long-term view, balance the interests of all stakeholders and require ministerial approval.
According to the vice-chancellors, the Bill conflicts with Parliament’s intention that autonomy and academic freedom should be protected by providing the potential for TEC control of all university activities. “University autonomy and academic freedom should be protected as vital concepts underpinning teaching, learning and enquiry in universities, and to ensure an open and democratic society,” the summary says.
The vice-chancellors’ submission will be presented to the Select Committee by NZVCC Chair, Professor Roy Sharp, next Wednesday. In an unusual show of solidarity, Professor Sharp will be accompanied by either the vice-chancellor or chancellor of each New Zealand university.

Auckland fails in bid to curb AUS case
The University of Auckland Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stuart McCutcheon, has failed in an attempt to have the Employment Relations Authority strike out certain aspects of a case being brought against him by the Association of University Staff. AUS is taking action against the University, saying that the Vice-Chancellor has again breached good faith requirements of the Employment Relations Act.
The case states that, after being criticised by the Employment Court for directly communicating with staff on bargaining issues in 2005, Professor McCutcheon immediately repeated the same actions, and then did the same again in 2006. The Vice-Chancellor wanted the Authority to strike out references to the earlier case but, in a recently issued decision, his application has been rejected.
The Authority has been asked by the AUS to rule that actions taken by the Vice-Chancellor in 2006 undermined the collective agreements and the bargaining of the agreements and were in breach of the earlier decision of the Employment Court which interpreted the good-faith provisions of the Act. The AUS also argues that an offer made by Professor McCutcheon on the eve of the 2006 collective-agreement negotiations to increase the salaries of non-union staff, and his saying he would offer the same salary increase to union members, not only contravened the previous Court ruling, but also breached the Umbrella Agreement reached between the union and vice-chancellors to work actively and constructively on a number of matters related to salaries and funding.
The lawyers acting for the Vice-Chancellor claimed that some matters being argued by AUS were identical to those which had been ruled on by the Court in the previous case and should therefore be struck out.
Rejecting the University’s position, Authority member Dzintra King said that, for AUS to be stopped from referring to the previous case, it had to be shown that it was seeking to re-litigate the same facts or law which had previously been ruled on. “While there are similarities in the behaviour, the circumstances are different,” she said.
The hearing on the substantive issues has been set down for 19 and 20 November.

ITPNZ warns of changes to risk criteria
Suggested changes to the risk criteria used to assess whether tertiary-education institutions are failing have been cricticised by the polytechnic sector as inappropriate, imprecise and with the potential to create unintended consequences, according to Education Review.
Under provisions in the Education Act, the Minister of Education may appoint a Crown observer or require councils to provide specific information about their operation, management or financial position if there are reasonable grounds to believe they are at risk, or that other processes or ways to reduce risk have failed.
A Ministry of Education discussion document says that changes to risk criteria will be needed because current tertiary-education reforms will place new requirements on institutions. There are currently three levels of risk criteria which are used by the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit “to enable an objective assessment to be made of whether an institution or the operation or long-term viability of an institution is at risk and, if so, the level of such risk”.
In a submission to the Ministry, the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand rejected a proposal for the establishment of a new risk criterioncovering the circumstance in which a council’s membership falls below the statutory minimum of twelve members for two months. In its submission, ITPNZ said there were many reasons an institution’s council might fall below that level that did not relate to the sustainability or long-term viability of an institution.
The ITPNZ submission also criticised a suggested change to the definition of “serious risk” which would allow a Crown observer or ministerial appointee to make an assessment about the long-term viability of an institution based on “pertinent” factors. ITPNZ says the definition is “imprecise and consequently inappropriate for use as a criterion that could result in the dissolution of an institution’s council”.
This story was sourced from Education Review and can be viewed free of charge during July at:
www.educationreview.co.nz

Caucus gives Māori a voice in MIT’s future direction
The Manukau Institute of Technology has become the first New Zealand tertiary-education institution to establish a formal Māori Caucus created to give Māori staff and students more of a voice in its strategic direction. The Māori Caucus comprises five sub-committees that correspond to similar areas in the Institute and focusing on Māori students, staff, iwi relationships, Māori research and Te Komiti Tangata Whenua, a sub-committee of MIT’s Academic Board.
Each portfolio of the Caucus will research the needs of Māori in its area of focus and present its findings to the Caucus as a whole where they will be discussed before final proposals are delivered to the MIT Executive.
MIT Te Amorangi, Wiremu Doherty, who represents Māori on the MIT Executive, says the Caucus is a unique body as it mirrors all mainstream structures within the Institute and will determine, support and promote the needs of Māori across the organisation. He said that, while other organisations often have a Māori representative on their council or executive committee, they do not have a formal structure that sits alongside all mainstream bodies within an institute.
“The establishment of the Caucus shows that MIT is serious about achieving and maintaining Māori participation and retention. It gives Māori a voice in the strategic direction of MIT as a whole,” said Mr Doherty. “The first task for the Caucus will be to determine the needs of Māori at MIT and in the community over the next five years and to put forward proposals to the MIT Executive and Council around meeting those needs. This will provide a snapshot of where Māori are now and will give the MIT Executive and Runanga a clear indication of where Māori want to be in the next five years.”

University adopts Māori Strategic Framework
The University of Otago this week adopted its Māori Strategic Framework. The Framework follows a Treaty of Waitangi Stocktake undertaken in 2005, and has been developed in consultation with stakeholders over the past two years. It is intended to provide a more cohesive approach to Māori strategy across all campuses of the University during the next five years.
The Framework has six specific goals. They include strong accountable leadership, growth and development of Māori staff and students across the University, developing quality research that contributes to Māori development aspirations and the knowledge economy and continuing commitment to partnerships with Ngai Tahu and other iwi.
Prominent Ngai Tahu member and University Council member, Edward Ellison, says the Framework provides a logical basis for the University to align Māori values and aspirations alongside its own values and aspirations. “There is a lot of good Māori-related activity within the University at various levels, and this provides a measure and benchmark for that,” he said.

Universities pick up Science funding
Universities have picked up around $73 million in new Science funding with the announcement yesterday of $628 million of new money from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology for research contracts that will help New Zealand develop its economy, manage its resources sustainably and respond to climate change.
The contracts are with more than thirty organisations including Crown research institutes, universities and other research organisations, and the lengths of the contracts range up to eight years. The investment totals about NZ$113 million in the first full financial year.
Foundation Chief Executive Murray Bain says the research being invested in will make a difference for New Zealanders in a number of ways. “Our biggest area of research investment in this round is the primary-production sector, accounting for about half of the total investment. This reflects the innate importance of this sector to New Zealand’s economy and the need for us to be innovative if we’re to remain globally competitive,” he said. “We are also increasing the amount we’re investing in research to help us understand and respond to climate change.”
The Foundation for Research, Science and Technology is the funding agency that invests over NZ$460 million a year on behalf of the New Zealand Government in public-good research, science and technology and in assisting firms with research and development initiatives. These investments are made to enhance the wealth and well-being of New Zealanders.

Worldwatch
Saving Iraq’s scholars
In an urgent effort to save a critical mass of scholars, the Scholar Rescue Fund of the Institute of International Education’s (IIE) is finalising plans to rescue hundreds of Iraqi professors. Beginning in the coming months, it is aiming to award two-year fellowships to 200 senior scholars, most of whom are professors, to teach and conduct research at institutions in Jordan and other countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Through the use of distance-learning technologies, the professors will be able to connect with their students back in Iraq while working with students from the respective host countries and displaced Iraqis living throughout the region.
IIE President, Allan E. Goodman, said that the Institute has been in communication with the Iraqi Minister of Higher Education, who has identified hundreds of scholars with specific death threats against them. He said that such cooperation from the Minister is part of what is unusual about this initiative, such efforts often focusing on helping professors in conflict with their governments.
Iraq is obviously facing a unique and more urgent predicament, with some estimates putting the number of Iraqi professors killed since 2003 at around 300, although Goodman said that number is likely to be deflated as hundreds more are missing or kidnapped. “The terrorist groups seem to be trying to wipe out the intellectual capital of what was once Iraq,” he said.
From Inside Higher Education

Go8 continues criticism of peak body
The Group of Eight universities has continued its criticism of the Australian vice-chancellors’ national body, with a report this week of University of New South Wales Chief Executive Officer, Professor Fred Hilmer, saying that Universities Australia was preoccupied with “trivia”, and that governments are too politically timid to confront poor quality on regional campuses. He was responding to criticisms of Australia’s export-education industry, saying that the elite Go8 would have to step into the breach and sell the untold story of the successful export of quality education.
Despite its financial success, Australia's higher-education-export industry has been unable to shake off concerns about standards that are attributed to an emphasis on revenue over educational outcomes, with quality issues prompting a recent wave of closures of international operations by Australian universities.
Professor Hilmer said the Group of Eight should do more to promote itself as a brand of quality, adding that Universities Australia and its predecessor, the Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee, had not served the $10 billion education-export industry well. “We have this body that seems to deal with trivia - that is what the AVCC dealt with rather than the fundamentals that we have a strong industry. UA makes a lot of claims about ’we need more money’ - which we do - but not about why,” he said.
From The Australian

Proposed jump in Israeli tuition fees prompts strike threat
Student leaders in Israel are threatening a nationwide undergraduate strike if the Government imposes a 70 percent jump in tuition fees and carries out other recommendations of a committee that on Monday published a wide-ranging report on reforms in higher education.
The committee, comprising Education and Finance Ministry officials, academics and a former university president, recommended “unprecedented aid systems for increasing accessibility.” That goal would be attained through increased scholarships for students from poorer families and from sections of society where university attendance is not strongly encouraged. The most controversial aspect of the proposals, however, was the recommendation to raise undergraduate tuition fees from about $2,000 to $3,500 a year.
Students declined an invitation to sit on the committee, but ended a forty-one-day strike in May after a promise from the Government that they would be consulted before any of the proposals were adopted. On Monday, they appeared to be poised to reject the reform programme. “We will not accept loans. We will not allow this farcical reform to go ahead,” said Itai Shonshein, Chair of the National Union of Israeli Students.
The Chronicle of Higher Education

Lecturers lectured on Queen’s English
Academics are not renowned for their clear use of the English language, but managers at Queen’s University Belfast say they have become so concerned at the clumsy and impenetrable language of their staff that they have issued a language guidebook. The booklet, A Way with Words, will help to ensure that staff say what they mean, according to Vice-Chancellor Peter Gregson.
Staff must distinguish between “may” and “can”, especially when writing to students, it stresses. “Can applies to what is possible and may to what is permissible .... Therefore students can miss every tutorial on their course, but may not if tutorial attendance is a prerequisite for passing.”
In minding one’s Ps and Qs, the booklet suggests, extra care should be paid to the latter: “Queen’s in Queen’s University Belfast takes an apostrophe before the s. Making a mistake in the institution’s name is not acceptable," the booklet says.
The Times Higher Education Supplement

© Scoop Media