Submission of the Tertiary Education Union on Te Haut? Kahurangi o Aotearoa
on the Tertiary?Education?Commission?s draft Framework for M?ori Learners?T? M?ia e te ?konga ?2013-2016
17 December 2012
For further information please contact:
Lee Cooper
Te Pou Tuar?
Jo Scott
Policy Analyst
FEEDBACK FORM
Do you have any feedback on the proposed TES M?ori Priority?
TES M?ori Priority: Accelerating the rates of M?ori learners enjoying tertiary success as M?ori at higher levels
The TEU supports strategies that assist TEOs in the work they do to lift M?ori learner participation and achievement.? Although disparities between tertiary education participation and achievement of M?ori and non-M?ori have reduced somewhat, the gap is still significant and means that M?ori are more likely to be negatively affected by downturns in the economy, and over-represented in negative socio-economic indicators.
We do however have concerns about how the goals of the framework will be achieved in the current environment.? The tertiary education sector is operating in not only a constrained funding environment, but a reduced funding environment.? Therefore our concern is that the framework?s goals may not be achieved, or if achieved will be at the expense of staff, particularly M?ori staff, within the tertiary sector ? through workload intensification, restructuring, and programme closures (to release funds from other parts of an institution so that the ?T? M?ia? goals can be met).
Therefore, whilst we are very supportive of the intent of this priority, we would be very concerned if its achievement was at the expense of the health and wellbeing of staff in the tertiary sector.? Our members report constant restructuring and redundancies, burgeoning workloads and a climate of uncertainty and disillusionment, as the sector attempts to mould itself to business models proven to be unsuitable for education settings.? This does not create an environment conducive to the kind of innovative thinking and leadership this framework needs to bring its goals to fruition.
Despite this, our members are committed to quality tertiary education experiences for their students, and no doubt will do everything they can to contribute to the success of the framework?s goals.? It would be gratifying if their contributions (and in many cases their sacrifices) were acknowledged and supported by the sector and by government policy decisions.
For the framework to succeed, it is vital that institutions seek input from M?ori staff and students at all levels of the organisation, from other staff, and from local iwi, in regards to how best to implement the framework.? Staff are the practitioners and experts who will be doing the work, and iwi are the supporters and benefactors of graduates; it therefore makes sense to seek their views about what they need to support the achievement of the framework?s goals.? Such an approach also ensures that there is a high degree of ownership of the framework?s goals, and the institution?s collective response (staff, students, management, and governance), rather than it being a ?top-down? approach which is less likely to get support.
We also note that it is essential that this framework clearly links with other TEC strategies, and with Ministry of Education and other agencies? policy and strategy.? For example, the framework needs to be very clear about how it connects with strategies for the compulsory sector.? This is particularly important when the tertiary sector is expected to address problems such as numeracy and literacy that should have been resolved in the compulsory sector.
The necessity for clear interconnections between the various agencies and strategies speaks also to the complexity of issues that some M?ori learners face when entering tertiary education.? Many of these issues sit well outside the realm of what the tertiary sector has responsibility for, and yet impact directly on a learner?s ability to engage with their chosen subject or discipline (for example, poverty, inadequate housing, poor health).? Aligning this framework with these strategies is crucial to its success, if tertiary education is to become more than just an impossible dream for those M?ori wh?nau living at the edges of society.
One concern we have with the draft framework (which we also noted in our response to consultation on the new Tertiary Education Strategy) is a greater emphasis on learners in the 18-25 years demographic, at the expense of mature learners.? The draft framework does make some reference to mature learners; however our view is that this needs to be much more explicit and integrated throughout the document, as data from the tertiary sector highlights that a significant proportion of M?ori learners enter tertiary education over the age of 25 years.[1].? An important point to note in relation to mature students is aside from the personal benefits they may gain from a tertiary education, the benefits to their wider wh?nau can also be significant ? as role models for tertiary study and in terms of the impact on the standard of living of wh?nau.
Finally, while broadly supportive of the draft framework as a proposal, we believe that a move to more competitive funding models for the tertiary sector (such as the current experiment with level one and two foundation learning funding) will cut across many of the goals set out in the framework.? We cannot see how competitive funding ? ?incentivising providers? ? will ensure performance improvements in the tertiary sector.? Past experience has shown that competition in the education sector often results in perverse and negative effects, which tend to significantly detract from any improvement in educational outcomes.? We are concerned therefore that achievement of the goals set out in the framework will be undermined by policy settings currently operating in the tertiary sector, which to a great extent contradict what the framework has set out to do.? Therefore an appropriately funded tertiary sector that is supported by sound policy settings would no doubt assist in the successful implementation of this framework.
Do you have any feedback on the proposed Focus Areas?
Focus Area One: M?ori learners participate and achieve on par with other learners in tertiary education, particularly at higher levels
Transition: For learners coming to the tertiary sector directly from the compulsory sector, there is a joint responsibility shared by the sectors for this transition.? The compulsory sector should, to the best of its ability, prepare learners for further or higher education by assisting with course planning, and by ensuring that each learner is engaged in their schooling so that learners are ?study-ready?.? The tertiary sector has a role in providing clear information about requirements for different education pathways.? Therefore work needs to continue to ensure that good advice and support for learning pathways early in a learner?s school career is available, so that learners and their wh?nau can clearly see how the decisions they make can positively or negatively affect their learning and employment choices post-school.? At present, Focus Area One does not clearly highlight this important connection; our view is that it would be enhanced if this connection was included.
Access: Tertiary education must be accessible to any M?ori learner who wants to be there, whether they are a mature student, or a learner coming directly from the compulsory sector.? However significant inequities exist for many M?ori learners before they even begin tertiary education.? Rates of access for M?ori learners in tertiary education have improved, primarily at the lower levels e.g. 1-3.? Access must be at all levels, including in higher education.? The focus area would be enhanced if acknowledgement of this was included, particularly as funding policies and decisions will flow from the content of the framework.
A major barrier to access is cost of study; funding policies relating to student loans and allowances also need to be assessed as to their effectiveness in supporting M?ori learner access.? This evaluation of funding policies needs to acknowledge that for some M?ori, the pathway to higher levels of tertiary education will be longer because these learners have left the compulsory sector inadequately prepared for on-going tertiary education.? These learners should not be financially disadvantaged as a result.
Participation: The framework and this focus area need to very clearly emphasise that M?ori learners should be encouraged to aspire to broad higher-level tertiary education goals ?taking either an academic or vocational pathway. ?Education is much more than the skills required for a particular job ? it facilitates greater engagement in civil society, encourages the development of skills in critical thinking, and enables intergenerational acquisition and transference of knowledge.? Providing opportunities for M?ori learners to participate in tertiary education in the broadest possible range of subjects and disciplines contributes to individual, wh?nau and community success for the future.
TEO performance: As we noted previously, we support organisations being encouraged to reflect on their progress and make improvements and changes to ensure success for all M?ori learners.? However we are concerned that in this current political and funding environment, decisions about what is funded are heavily influenced by a narrow range of measures that do not necessarily reflect either the impact of the learning experience or the myriad other factors that may contribute to poor outcomes in regards to these measures.
Research has indicated that continued success at higher levels of study is dependent on a range of variables, including external factors that tertiary providers have little influence over.? However, the current funding model (predicated on measuring EPIs) provides no space for additional funding which can assist tertiary institutions to provide appropriate responses that may ameliorate the impact of these external variables.? Instead the model does the opposite and punishes institutions that have struggling students, because this generally impacts on EPI levels and thus the allocation of funding.
Focus Area Two: M?ori learners attain the qualifications needed to participate at all levels of the workforce
As we noted in the previous section, M?ori learners should have the opportunity to participate in a broad range of disciplines and professions through their study in the tertiary sector.? Therefore we have some concerns that this focus area has an over-emphasis on vocational pathways as being the primary route for M?ori learners entering the tertiary sector.? We certainly recognise the importance of vocational pathways as one option; however we would be more comfortable supporting this focus area if the breadth of tertiary education opportunities was highlighted.
We also have concerns in this focus area about the tendency to emphasise short-term skill development goals at the expense of a broader more long-term view of education.? This more holistic view sees the role of education as the means by which individuals become well-rounded, adaptable citizens who have the tools for life-long engagement in learning (be that in formal education, informal education, or on-the-job learning).? Foundation-level programmes that support M?ori learners to re-connect with their culture and language have a vital role in this context, as for many they are the first step on a journey to higher-level study.
While specific ?skill sets? will become outdated over a life-time, a full and well-rounded education (secondary and/or tertiary) will enable adaptation to new developments in a current workplace or to new fields of employment.? We would also argue that public tertiary education institutions ? institutes of technology/polytechnics, w?nanga, and universities ? provide the best and most appropriate setting for the well-rounded educational experiences that are needed in the 21st century.
We note and commend the focus on supporting M?ori already in the workforce to seek higher-skilled positions through further education and training.? For those already in the workforce, or seeking employment, these learning pathways are vital to ensure that individuals and their wh?nau can enjoy the benefits of higher-skilled and higher-paid employment, as well as contributing these skills to the community.
We are supportive of the emphasis on aligning tertiary provision to iwi and M?ori development plans, although again we would note that this alignment needs to encompass more than just economic development goals.? Iwi and M?ori organisations also work at the forefront of social, environmental and cultural development, and as such need graduates from the tertiary sector who can contribute to and advance this work.? To achieve this alignment, we would urge institutions to apply the same kind of innovative thinking that ensures the needs of international fee-paying students are met to their provision for M?ori learners.
Focus Area Three: Grow research and development of M?tauranga M?ori
We support the identification of the key role of Article 2 from Te Tiriti o Waitangi in terms of the responsibilities of the Crown through its agencies to protect m?tauranga M?ori.
We note that whilst w?nanga may have a distinct focus in creating and advancing m?tauranga M?ori, it is the responsibility of all providers to integrate this into their planning for research development and teaching programmes.
Focus Area Four: Improve the quality of te reo M?ori teaching and provision to ensure better outcomes for te reo learners at higher levels
The strategy identifies lifting te reo M?ori competency levels as a priority area which will also link to the Tau M?i te Reo ? M?oriLanguage in Education Strategy currently being drafted.? Without seeing the draft strategy, we cannot make specific comments on its direction, however our general comments in relation to this focus area are outlined below.
Te reo M?ori is intrinsically interrelated to tikanga and m?tauranga M?ori; the M?ori world view, M?ori knowledge systems ? ways of thinking, doing, and being.? Therefore all these elements also need to be holistically connected in a strategy. ?Unfortunately in the tertiary sector this goal is undermined by government policy decisions such as those for level one and two funding which has seen te reo programmes being forced to shut down as funding is prioritised to other disciplines and institutions. ?For example, Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki will no longer be able to run a programme focused on retaining Taranaki dialect because of a loss of this funding. ?The programme links directly to the revitalisation strategy created and being implemented by Te Kupenga M?tauranga o Taranaki to develop Te Reo o Taranaki, its tikanga, histories, and culture.
This highlights again the need for all education strategies and policies for M?ori education and te reo M?ori to be clearly connected to each other and to communities, so that policy decisions are not made in isolation.
Do you have any feedback on the proposed Key Actions?
Key Actions for Focus Area One (Participation and Achievement)
In regards to 1.1 we note again our concern about the risk of educating only for specified skill development needs and the focus on economic priorities rather than a broader more long-term view of the contribution tertiary education makes to a region or nationally.? We support the focus on interagency connectedness and working with iwi and M?ori organisations to align tertiary provision with their development plans, whether these are educational, cultural, social, environmental, or economic.
In regards to disseminating information about the tertiary sector to M?ori learners, there are existing examples of good tertiary liaison programmes working in secondary schools however the present funding environment places many of these programmes in jeopardy.
Regarding 1.2, we note again our concern with the use of performance measures, particularly when these are linked to funding.? Past experience (for example with the Performance-Based Research Fund) has shown that competition in the education sector often results in perverse and negative effects, which tend to significantly detract from any improvement in educational outcomes. ?We are concerned therefore that achievement of the goals set out in the framework will be undermined by policy settings currently operating in the tertiary sector, which to a great extent contradict what the framework has set out to do.
No specific comments about 1.3
We support the intent of 1.4.
Key Actions for Focus Area Two (Workforce)
Our concerns about the narrow parameters of this focus area (previously noted in regards to an emphasis on vocational pathways) should be taken as read for this section also.
Regarding 2.1 ? we support encouraging TEOs to increase the numbers of M?ori learners achieving qualifications however we note again our concerns about linking this to funding decisions.? As M?ori learner numbers increase, what provision has government and its agencies made to meet the increased demand, in terms of staffing and other resources?
In 2.2, the role of kaitakawaenga M?ori as the liaison between the compulsory and tertiary sectors has been and will continue to be critical in the success of this focus area.? We understand some work already takes place in relation to mentoring systems from professions and industries.? We would support expansion of these systems if they are proven to be a useful contribution to the information available to learners.
Key Actions for Focus Area Three (M?tauranga M?ori)
We support the intent of 3.1 and note a broader emphasis on contributions to social and wh?nau wellbeing.
We support the intent of 3.2 and commend the focus on interagency responses.
Key Actions for Focus Area Four (Te Reo M?ori)
A general comment about this section is that consideration needs to be given about how to address the ?lag? between a shortage of proficient teachers now and the time it may take to increase these numbers.? We also note the need to increase the numbers of teachers with proficiency in te reo, coupled with specialist subject expertise, as learners progress through immersion compulsory education and on to tertiary education.
We note in 4.1 that the New Zealand Teachers? Council, in consultation with practitioners, has developed criteria around skill and proficiency in te reo and M?ori medium education.? It would be worthwhile (if this has not recently occurred) to commission an evaluation that assesses the extent to which schools are ensuring all teachers are meeting the relevant criteria.? If gaps in proficiency are identified, schools and teachers should be supported to address this.
In regards to teacher education providers, our members report that changes such as an increased emphasis on lecture-style provision at the expense of classroom practicum and condensing of programmes, leaving less time for critical reflection on practice, are likely to impact on the quality of our teacher graduates.
We support the intent of 4.2.
We support the intent of 4.3.
We support the intent of 4.4 and note the role that w?nanga, ITPs, and universities should take in extending this provision.? We note however that tertiary education providers must work closely with local iwi and hap? to contextualise their programmes to the specific dialects of the regions in which they are operating.
Do you have any feedback on the proposed Key Outputs?
Key Outputs for Focus Area One (Participation and Achievement)
Overall we have concerns about how providers might meet these expectations in a constrained and reduced funding environment, particularly where they risk losing funding annually if expectations are not met.
A moratorium on reviews and restructuring in the tertiary sector would go a long way towards supporting institutions and staff to be able to focus on supporting quality teaching and learning rather than having to focus on job losses and budget cuts.
Key Outputs for Focus Area Two (Workforce)
Our previous comment on the need to retain a broad-based and holistic view of education provision again applies in this section.? Therefore whilst we recognise that numbers have dropped in terms of participation levels in STEM subjects, we would caution an over-emphasis on any one subject area over others.? A balance must be found between meeting skill and knowledge need in areas that indicate strong current or future growth, with ensuring that a broad range of other skills and knowledge are also prioritised.? If we over-emphasise any one particular subject area, once again we will be left with major skills shortages in the future in other critical areas.? Ideally, learners would leave the compulsory sector with a solid foundation in STEM subjects and a broad enough range of other subjects to ensure they have a wide range of study options in the tertiary sector.
The current focus on STEM subjects and industry as the primary source for future innovation is also limited.? This focus does not accurately reflect other areas that national and international research has indicated will be crucial for sustainable social and economic development in the future.? As we noted above, what is important for young people as they transition to further education or employment is that they leave the compulsory sector ?study-ready? with a broad-based education that includes a solid understanding of STEM subjects as well as other subject areas.
We would also question what workforce planning has been undertaken to ensure that the secondary school system has trained and qualified teachers available to teach STEM subjects, given the likely increase in student numbers?
Key Outputs for Focus Area Three (M?tauranga M?ori)
We support the intent of this section, and in particular commend the emphasis on using new knowledge and innovation to support teaching and learning, and to contribute to improving social and wh?nau wellbeing.
Key Outputs for Focus Area Four (Te Reo M?ori)
We note again our reservations about the linking of funding to EPIs.
We support the intent of the other outputs, however so much of this focus area and the other parts of the framework rely on an appropriately funding tertiary education system.? The present system in our view is likely to hinder achievement of the goals of this framework, because of its over-focus on pure economic outputs for the sector
Are there other higher priorities for focus areas, key actions or outputs than those proposed? If so, what would you like included instead?
?
Do you have any other comments about T? M?ia, TEC?s framework for M?ori learners?
If there are to be prompt and positive results for M?ori leaners as a result of this framework and other work taking place in other sectors, the link between the establishment and the implementation of policy needs to be strong, clear and seamless.? This applies to general policy as well as that associated with funding.
The success of this framework also relies on the effectiveness of work taking place in the secondary sector (and in other sectors such as health and housing).? At present, there is not a seamless transition for M?ori learners, with many leaving secondary schooling with no qualifications and no direction.? Until these issues in the compulsory sector are fully addressed, this framework will not have achieved its goals, because many young M?ori will never have a real opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a tertiary education.
Foot note
[1] M?ori tertiary education students participation 2010 by age shows actual enrolments in 18-25 years demographic at 28,308; in the 25+ demographic, the numbers are 51,294 http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/maori_education/tertiary-education
?
?
Tags: academic, access, funding, Government, literacy, Ministry of Education, policy, research, restructuring, reviews, student loans, submission, te reo M?ori, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Teacher Education, Tertiary Education Commission, workforce planning, workloadSource: http://teu.ac.nz/2012/12/submission-on-tu-maia-e-te-akonga-2013-2016-tec-framework-for-maori-learners/
narcolepsy narcolepsy weather st louis faceoff kings island red hot chili peppers tour orange juice
