My thoughts on this are in response to the recently released Tertiary Education Commission’s (TEC) “Plan Guidance” which sets out the context and framing” for providers submitting Investment plans for funding from 1 January 2026.”
It’s a 54 page document causing a great deal of concern across the tertiary sector because in it TEC states it is responding to the government’s focus “on economic growth and boosting productivity” at the same time as the increase of a demand for “value for money from its investment in this sector” and a redirection and reduction in spending. As highlighted in bold in the documents:
When planning for 2026, you should not assume your funding will be increased or maintained. We expect you to reprioritise your funding, where relevant, to respond to our priorities.
And
We recommend you plan on the basis that additional funding will not be available to your organisation.
There are 3 “key focus areas” set out as priorities from 2026:
It’s a 54 page document causing a great deal of concern across the tertiary sector because in it TEC states it is responding to the government’s focus “on economic growth and boosting productivity” at the same time as the increase of a demand for “value for money from its investment in this sector” and a redirection and reduction in spending. As highlighted in bold in the documents:
When planning for 2026, you should not assume your funding will be increased or maintained. We expect you to reprioritise your funding, where relevant, to respond to our priorities.
And
We recommend you plan on the basis that additional funding will not be available to your organisation.
There are 3 “key focus areas” set out as priorities from 2026:
1: an increased focus on investing in high performing and high priority provision to support economic growth.
2: a continued approach to improved educational outcomes.
3: supporting the vocational education and training (VET) sector as it transitions towards a stronger regional focus.
None of this should come as any surprise to the tertiary sector, because what we see here is what anyone who follows politics could have deduced.
This is followed by the expected statement about reducing or disinvesting areas that are lower performing or underdelivering, but with a new and important set of additions; also in the gun are areas determined as “non-priority” and “not meeting wider stakeholder needs”.
The demand throughout the document is on tertiary providers to reprioritize provision to respond to new investment priorities; in effect we could say the expectation is that tertiary providers will make the cuts in provision that the government wants, and it is using threats of redirected and reduced funding as the levers for doing so.
Of course, a government is within its rights and role to do so. A government has a set of national and economic priorities and will pull various levers, use sticks and carrots to hopefully achieve what it wants to. These decisions are always ideologically driven, no matter what a government or its apologists, on any side of the political spectrum, might say. To expect otherwise is to exist in a world of political and societal naïveté.
The government has identified these areas to pursue and prioritize:
- Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM)
- Health (a range of qualifications and approaches to growth based on needs outlined in the Health Workforce Plan and profession-specific analyses)
- Teacher education (specifically in STEM and te reo Māori subject areas)
- Food and Fibre
- Construction and Infrastructure.
Again, many might think this is a sensible list of priorities as we struggle to claw out way back up the OECD ladder.
So, what’s the problem? It’s the mix of ‘sticks and no carrots’ employed to achieve this.
The alarm bells are ringing very loudly in a number of areas across universities as there is a fear that because funding will either be stalled at current levels, reduced, or cut completely, universities will have to decide if and how they will or can make up the shortfall.
This is the issue of Student Achievement Component (SAC) funding for tertiary providers, which the government provides as a “contribution to the direct costs of learning, teaching and other costs driven by student numbers”.
In short, if SAC funding is cut or withdrawn in certain areas, then the university has to respond in some way. It may be able to increase student fees but this will see course fees increases by thousands of dollars. Or it may decide not to offer courses, subjects and disciplines or even degrees.
If fees are substantially increased, then this could see a significant reduction in student enrolments and in particular, certain courses or degrees becoming the preserve of students from wealthy backgrounds able to meet the fees increase. Or, it may see certain students deciding to significantly invest in their own future by taking out greatly increased student loans – if this is possible. However, having undertaken such a personal investment (one could in fact say, risk), what incentive would there be for such students to stay in New Zealand and seek to see a return on such a risky investment? Might this just see an increased brain drain for the foreseeable future?
The other option is that of a university cutting courses, disciplines, and degrees and redirecting and reallocating what it currently spends to match the new government priorities and funding decisions.
This too carries significant institutional risk because there is never any guarantee that a current government will remain in power past its current term. Even if the government has a second term there is no guarantee that it will be composed of the same political breakdown as the current one and priorities may again change and which involves more costs and reallocations, and movements of students, staff, and resources.
But also, cutting areas is an expensive business because students already in a major or a degree need to be grandfathered through to completion. That is, those already in the tertiary system need to be able to complete their studies that they began in good faith. Say for instance, the humanities and social sciences get brutally cut and reduced as is widely feared, with universities acting as the government hit men. All those already in the system need to be able to complete their degree somehow and even if areas within arts are cut, if students then switch their studies to areas not cut, there are significant resourcing issues involved, including staffing, to meet increased needs of areas that have ‘survived’. But a cut in offering subjects or degrees or a significant increase in fees could see many decide to not complete their studies and leave not only university but also the country. What return does the nation then get on the investment in their education, from pre-primary onwards?
If we look more closely at the list of priorities we also need to be aware that there are significant areas of the current university system that are not identified and could in fact also face reduced funding: law, commerce, many areas of science.
Currently, according to Universities New Zealand, there are about 43,000 graduates of the NZ tertiary system each year, almost all at them at undergraduate degree level.
If funding is reduced or removed, tens of thousands of potential graduates are going to have to do something else. But the announced funding priority areas only attract and are suitable for a certain number of school leavers and young adults seeking tertiary study. So this is why I state, it might be clear what the government does not want young people to do or study, but what is offered as a viable alternative?
If they cannot do a BA or a similar degree what will they do? If fees are increased for Commerce and Law degrees, for certain science subjects, what will those who can’t or won’t pay increased fees do? There are also already capacity issues regarding teaching, tutoring, and resourcing in commerce, law and science faculties across New Zealand (as indeed there are across all faculties).
We also need to ask if there are there sufficient full time jobs to soak up and gainfully employ all these non-tertiary study young people, especially in the regions? Is the real issue that increased tertiary education numbers are what we have to ensure we do not have increased youth unemployment and underemployment numbers?
So, we need to ask where are the school leaver employment carrots?
What we are seeing is education and ideological policy made in isolation from social and economic impact; is the government making an ass of itself?
Mike Grimshaw (PhD Otago) is associate professor in sociology at the University of Canterbury. This article was first published HERE
So, what’s the problem? It’s the mix of ‘sticks and no carrots’ employed to achieve this.
The alarm bells are ringing very loudly in a number of areas across universities as there is a fear that because funding will either be stalled at current levels, reduced, or cut completely, universities will have to decide if and how they will or can make up the shortfall.
This is the issue of Student Achievement Component (SAC) funding for tertiary providers, which the government provides as a “contribution to the direct costs of learning, teaching and other costs driven by student numbers”.
In short, if SAC funding is cut or withdrawn in certain areas, then the university has to respond in some way. It may be able to increase student fees but this will see course fees increases by thousands of dollars. Or it may decide not to offer courses, subjects and disciplines or even degrees.
If fees are substantially increased, then this could see a significant reduction in student enrolments and in particular, certain courses or degrees becoming the preserve of students from wealthy backgrounds able to meet the fees increase. Or, it may see certain students deciding to significantly invest in their own future by taking out greatly increased student loans – if this is possible. However, having undertaken such a personal investment (one could in fact say, risk), what incentive would there be for such students to stay in New Zealand and seek to see a return on such a risky investment? Might this just see an increased brain drain for the foreseeable future?
The other option is that of a university cutting courses, disciplines, and degrees and redirecting and reallocating what it currently spends to match the new government priorities and funding decisions.
This too carries significant institutional risk because there is never any guarantee that a current government will remain in power past its current term. Even if the government has a second term there is no guarantee that it will be composed of the same political breakdown as the current one and priorities may again change and which involves more costs and reallocations, and movements of students, staff, and resources.
But also, cutting areas is an expensive business because students already in a major or a degree need to be grandfathered through to completion. That is, those already in the tertiary system need to be able to complete their studies that they began in good faith. Say for instance, the humanities and social sciences get brutally cut and reduced as is widely feared, with universities acting as the government hit men. All those already in the system need to be able to complete their degree somehow and even if areas within arts are cut, if students then switch their studies to areas not cut, there are significant resourcing issues involved, including staffing, to meet increased needs of areas that have ‘survived’. But a cut in offering subjects or degrees or a significant increase in fees could see many decide to not complete their studies and leave not only university but also the country. What return does the nation then get on the investment in their education, from pre-primary onwards?
If we look more closely at the list of priorities we also need to be aware that there are significant areas of the current university system that are not identified and could in fact also face reduced funding: law, commerce, many areas of science.
Currently, according to Universities New Zealand, there are about 43,000 graduates of the NZ tertiary system each year, almost all at them at undergraduate degree level.
If funding is reduced or removed, tens of thousands of potential graduates are going to have to do something else. But the announced funding priority areas only attract and are suitable for a certain number of school leavers and young adults seeking tertiary study. So this is why I state, it might be clear what the government does not want young people to do or study, but what is offered as a viable alternative?
If they cannot do a BA or a similar degree what will they do? If fees are increased for Commerce and Law degrees, for certain science subjects, what will those who can’t or won’t pay increased fees do? There are also already capacity issues regarding teaching, tutoring, and resourcing in commerce, law and science faculties across New Zealand (as indeed there are across all faculties).
We also need to ask if there are there sufficient full time jobs to soak up and gainfully employ all these non-tertiary study young people, especially in the regions? Is the real issue that increased tertiary education numbers are what we have to ensure we do not have increased youth unemployment and underemployment numbers?
So, we need to ask where are the school leaver employment carrots?
What we are seeing is education and ideological policy made in isolation from social and economic impact; is the government making an ass of itself?
Mike Grimshaw (PhD Otago) is associate professor in sociology at the University of Canterbury. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
I notice the professor of sociology doesn't once mention the option of running the university more efficiently!
Nor does he mention the cost of universities wasting tax payer money on causes and degrees which provide very little benefit to NZ, and in many cases act against NZer's best interests.
As long as the back office staff and any Maori based courses are untouched is there really a problem.
Aren't there other independent government organisations that can give guidance to young people as to what areas are lacking qualified people.
For example when as a tutor of secondary students in maths , too many believed 'Fashion and Design ' university courses would lead to a job when there they are as rare as hens 'teeth . The parents foolishly believed their child's creativity needed to be satisfied.
Progressive education has dominated our education for far too long . This ideology needs examining and reviewing. Among it's main facets is the failure to teach the basics effectively , constructivism ( child centered learning) , lack of work ethic and learning was to be 'fun' .
STEM subjects , an area where there are too few students are frequently damn hard work and this is at odds with progressivist beliefs.
What I am trying to say is we need an overhaul of the foundations of our education not just carrots and sticks to have the graduates that society needs to grow economically and culturally.
If you haven't succeeded in maths because you have been taught ineffectively you have no chance of doing the hard sciences regardless of carrots to tempt you. Similarly if you have not been taught thoroughly how to write an essay or read a text easily you are barred from advancing in the arts,
Post a Comment