Federal Government Releases Issues Paper on Higher Education Staff Data Review. (June 12, 2012)

On May 25, 2012 the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education "released an issues paper for the Higher Education Staff Data Collection Review". It wants to determine "how effectively the [current] collection meets the needs of key stakeholders, and to consider recent issues raised by the sector, including the data used for the student to staff ratio. The Review will also consider whether any data currently reported may no longer be required. The Staff Data Collection has not been formally reviewed since it was established in 1989. The issues paper seeks the sector’s views on a range of proposed changes, and has been developed in consultation with the Higher Education Data Reference Group".

RMIT tertiary education policy analyst Gavin Moodie told The Australian's Bernard Lane that he welcomed the "much delayed review" and he believes that the data on casual staff will assist in estimating the quality of Australia's education at the tertiary level. And Andrew Norton, from the Grattan Institute, told Mr Lane the departmental paper made "sensible points" but he hoped that de-identified raw data would be made public: "Releasing unit record files to researchers will allow greater value to be extracted from the data collection."

The issues paper poses 22 specific questions:

1. What do you or your organisation use the Staff Data Collection for?

2. Does the current collection meet your needs or the needs of your organisation?

3. What staff data is not collected but would be useful?

4. Are there any issues for providers if the Staff Data Collection is expanded to include information on the main campus location of each academic staff and to include offshore staff?

5. Are there any issues for providers to report additional information on staff qualifications?

6. What are the issues in extending staff data reporting requirements to all private higher education providers?

7. How can the university-specific data elements be revised to reflect the structures and practices in private higher education providers?

8. Is it possible for private higher education providers to report their staff under the current work level classifications3? If not, what are possible alternatives?

9. Are there any issues for providers to apportion and report FTE weight to each activity undertaken by staff working in one organisational unit?

10. What additional staff functions classifications would be most useful (in addition to teaching and research)?

11. Are there any issues for providers to report information (in line with reporting requirements for academic staff employed directly by the provider) on contract staff and staff employed by third party arrangements?

12. Should Honorary and unpaid staff be included in the Staff Data Collection?

13. If so, how should their teaching and research efforts be measured and recorded?

14. Should the data collection for both full-time and fractional full-time staff, and casual staff be consistent? If so, is there a preference for a ‘point in time’ or an annual total

15. Are there any issues for providers to implement the proposed change to the casual staff file by 2014?

16. Is the current method of converting casual hours to full-time equivalence accurate? If not, how can it be improved?

17. Is the proposed method of calculating FTE using actual earnings /annual salary feasible?

18. How does your institution or organisation use the SSR? Is there a better measure than the SSR that meets the needs of your organisation?

19. What should and should not be included in the calculation of SSR?

20. What other changes could be made to the Staff Data Collection for the purposes of the SSR?

21. What are the issues facing your institution in implementing the proposed changes from 2013 (for 2012 data) or 2014 (for 2013 data)?

22. What do you estimate would be the approximate cost for your institution of implementing the proposed changes?