The Current Policy Framework for Australia's Higher Education Sector is Beyond Patching and Must be Replaced -- So Says the Group of Eight. (June 6, 2007)

    In a far-reaching and audacious sixty-seven page discussion paper, Seizing the opportunities: Designing new policy architecture for higher education and university research the Group of Eight "offers for discussion a new policy design for higher education and university research in Australia". A two page summary is also available.

    To introduce the Go8's new policy design its chair, University of Melbourne vice-chancellor, Glyn Davis, today addressed the National Press Club in Canberra.

Aside from the journos some of those present were, Senator Kim Carr, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, the Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, Federal Departmental Secretaries David Borthwick, Ken Henry, Mark Patterson, Lisa Paul and Helen Williams, four Group of Eight vice-chancellors Professors Gavin Brown, Ian Chubb, Fred Hilmer and James McWha and a scattering of  other Vice-Chancellors,

National Tertiary Education Union President, Carolyn Allport, and NUS President, Michael Nguyen.

Julie Bishop in Canberra today at the School Business Dialogue forum convened by her, with, from left:- Allco MD Peter Yates, McDonald's vice president Frank McManus, Westpac chairman Ted Evans and Coles Group chairman Richard Allert. Credit: The Advertiser

Professor Davis also acknowledged a couple of apologies, the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, dispatched her higher education advisor, Darren Brown, to represent her while Steven Smith, Shadow Minister of Education and Training sent Ashley Wells. One might conclude there's a message there, one might.

Early in his address the Go8 Chair told his audience that while microeconomic reforms beginning with the Hawk-Keating governments had profound impacts on the nation's economy the "microeconomic reform left much of the campus untouched. Governments keen to create markets in gas and electricity, transport, retail banking and employment services nonetheless resisted applying the logic of deregulation to the university sector... Thus a central allocation system sees some universities struggling to fill student places while others are overwhelmed by demand. We have long accepted this as inevitable, rather than as the outcome of policy choices that can be challenged and changed."

Put simply the Go8 is arguing for far reaching deregulation of the tertiary education sector. Professor Davis told his audience: "So we find ourselves at an unusual juncture – though the major parties still disagree on many policy details, there is consensus on the big picture about the need for a new regulatory approach. One era is proclaimed dead, so the contest is to define its replacement."

So Carpe Diem : "This is the moment for the university sector to seize this unexpected outbreak of agreement. We cannot expect the major political parties to devise and advocate change without support, ideas and forthright proposals from the entire university sector. We too must make the case for reform."

And to this end "the Group of Eight launches a discussion paper that sets out eight systematic proposals for change. We recognise the Group of Eight is only one voice among many in the sector, but seek to encourage a lively debate about our shared future."

Of course whether either of the major political parties are really prepared to allow the universities to slip their choke collars is highly problematical but it's worth a try. The overreaching proposal Professor Davis describes as the "creation of a new Australian Tertiary Education Commission, ATEC [see chart], jointly supported and led by Commonwealth and State governments, to administer a reformed tertiary education system.

    ATEC would comprise a Board, a Higher Education Council, and a Vocational Education and Training Council. Accountable to the Board would be an Australian Student Financing Service administering scholarships, loans, and income support for students.
    ATEC should be asked to review the panoply of legislation and regulatory machinery affecting the sector. It should report to the Ministerial Council and the Council of Australian Governments with recommendations for rationalising arrangements as far as possible, in pursuit of a contemporary approach to industry regulation."

Just how independent of political pressure the ATEC would be allowed to be, and how much notice a government, Coalition or Labor, would take of such a Council is problematic, witness the ABC's scares and the current pressure the government is putting on the ACCC since high-speed broadband is seen to have attained political consequence.

To give the Go8 its due it lists a mass of supporting evidence as to why universities are a good thing, but we've been down that road many times in the past two decades without much success, particularly since the advent of the Howard years.

And on certain topics the discussion paper speaks bluntly, witness:

The Group of Eight universities support the introduction of a rigorous and internationally credible RQF capable of identifying and rewarding Australian university research of the highest quality and impact wherever it occurs.

 

However, the RQF, as proposed, is poor public policy. The Group of Eight has voiced its concerns about the unduly onerous process of assessment and the low height at which the quality bar has been set for funding purposes. A flawed RQF would damage Australia’s international reputation for research policy and possibly research. Further dilution of research funding, rather than concentration, will cause Australia to fall further behind the world’s leaders in research. Disincentives to undertake high quality basic research, in favour of lower quality research with indicative short-term impacts, will jeopardise Australia’s seat at the table in important fields of scientific research.

Of course to speak of a "flawed RQF" is to utter a tautology.

The Go8 is less blunt about Ms Bishop's takeover bid for overall control of the universities but it shows no liking for the move: "The Group of Eight suggests a persuasive case has not been made for a transfer of statutory powers over universities from the states directly to the Commonwealth. Diversity is more likely to flourish within a federated system of tertiary education institutional establishment than under a unified national system of universities."

In any event below we reprint the summary of the eight proposals listed by the Go8 for discussion. To what extent any discussion within the political parties or the media will occur remains to be seen.

Proposal 1: An Australian Tertiary Education Commission
We propose the establishment of an Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) under Commonwealth legislation, with joint Commonwealth-State/Territory appointments. ATEC would be responsible for planning,

 resource allocation and regulation in respect of post-school education throughout Australia.

ATEC would comprise a Board, a Higher Education Council and a Vocational Education and Training Council. Accountable to the Board would be an Australian Student Financing Service administering scholarships, loans and income support for students.
 

An Australian Universities Funding Act of the Commonwealth would empower the Higher Education Council to allocate grants to universities for activities that fit their varying missions.

Proposal 2: Student-driven higher education
Student access to undergraduate and graduate courses should be aided via a universal entitlement to an income-contingent loan and, for meritorious and needy students, via national tuition scholarships.
 

Universal entitlement to tertiary education loans
For higher education the current provisions of FEE-HELP would be available to students accepted into an accredited higher education course. HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP loans would be combined into a Tertiary Education Loan Scheme (TELS).

National scholarships for higher education courses
Australian Higher Education Scholarships, absorbing Commonwealth Grants Scheme payments and other funds, would be awarded to individual students on merit. Payments would be made to the institution at which the student enrols.
 

Two national order of merit lists would be produced each year, one for school leavers and the other for non-school leavers. The number of scholarships to be awarded each year would be determined by the Commonwealth Minister, on advice from ATEC about the division of scholarships between the two lists.
 

Higher education institutions would set their prices for courses. They may include service packages as well as tuition in their offerings. ATEC would set tuition price caps by field of education. We envisage that these upper price points would represent a margin of some 25 per cent on the indicative cost of a course, determined on advice from the Productivity Commission.
 

Australian Higher Education Scholarships would carry a value according to the indicative cost by field as advised by ATEC each year. The value of a scholarship for an individual would vary according to the course into which they are accepted. Where the scholarship value is lower than the course price the student would be able to borrow all or part of the gap through the Tertiary Education Loans Scheme.

The Government may determine to put higher value weightings on some scholarships to meet skill shortages, or to encourage participation of certain groups. Enhanced student income support ATEC would review student income support arrangements to identify anomalies and offer policy options to government for improving access to higher education by students from low socio-economic backgrounds.

Proposal 3: Mission-based block funding of universities
A major policy challenge is to recognise differences of mission and capability among universities and encourage each to focus on what it can do best.

We propose that a variant of the “community service” and “innovative activities” components of the Opposition’s compacts be developed as a broad block funding line for public universities. ATEC would be the negotiating agency for government in relation to this new funding line, which we suggest be known as University-Community Partnerships.

ATEC would be able to provide places for designated ‘public interest’ courses for which the Government pays a community service obligation retainer when student numbers are insufficient to sustain worthwhile scholarship.

Proposal 4: National investment in university research

National competitive peer-reviewed grants for research
Increased funding is needed in the out-years beyond Backing Australia’s Ability 2 for competitive grants through the Australian Research Council (ARC) and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). By 2012 the amount of annual funding should be double its present value and all major national competitive grants schemes should cover the full costs of sponsored research.

Adequate investment in research infrastructure
Research Infrastructure Block Grants (RIBG) should rise progressively over five years to 50 cents in the dollar from their current level of just over 25 cents.

National research hub & spokes arrangements
A flexible program to provide Australian academics with access to research universities combined with support for the host universities would build a series of hub and spokes networks around Australia.

International engagement of Australian university research
Australian researchers must be able to participate in international research platforms and networks.
 

The Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council should build on its investigations of the potential for Australian R&D collaboration with other countries. This would help inform national investment and international co-investment strategies for research infrastructure and guide priorities for expenditure of the Higher Education Endowment Fund.
 

The ARC should establish International Centres of Excellence. ARC postdoctoral fellowships should be extended to four years with one year spent overseas.

Proposal 5: Performance-based block funding for research
A new research funding program would allocate block funds to universities. Funding would be tightly targeted, reflecting a mix of national priorities and institutional strengths, with funding agreements subject to rigorous seven year cyclical evaluations.

Proposal 6: Research quality evaluation
The Group of Eight supports a cost-effective research quality assessment mechanism for identifying and rewarding the best publicly funded research, wherever it occurs.
 

A validated metrics-based approach to the assessment of research quality and its broader societal benefits should be adopted.

Proposal 7: A dual system of assistance for research students
A gradual expansion of research training places should be funded with the goal of raising the total number of domestic research degree students from some 22,000 to around 30,000 over five years. The length of funding support for PhD students should be extended to 4.5 years.
 

Students undertaking higher degree programs by research should be able to choose among the highest quality research training environments. Institutions should have greater capacity to attract the brightest international research students. Nationally portable research scholarships should complement the allocation of research training places to universities.
 

Allocation of research training places to universities
The Research Training Scheme formula should be replaced, over time, with a formula based on institutional performance in the national competitive grant schemes and in winning research contracts from industry.
 

Allocation of research training scholarships to students
Some 1500 new research training scholarships with stipends would be awarded to individual students either through a national merit ranking or through additional scholarships under the Australian Postgraduate Awards Scheme, for students new to an institution. The individual value of a scholarship will vary according to research field weightings.
 

Some 500 scholarships would be available for attracting international students. The scholarships would be allocated to universities on a competitive basis, with universities selecting the students.

Proposal 8: Managing the transitions
We envisage universities retaining core funding for teaching related purposes over the transition in order to continue providing services to enrolled students and for making adjustments to changing functions. The Government’s recent Budget initiatives provide such a funding guarantee for university teaching activities. During the transition period we envisage each university retaining its research funding at close to present levels through performance-based block grants. They should be able to use those funds as required to develop new activities to advance their missions.
 

Taken together these eight initiatives would modernise Australian higher education and university research, widen student choice, promote diversity and underpin international competitiveness.