Published 8/12/2008
There has been a lot of talk this year from the Government about delivering an Education Revolution.
“Education Revolution” is one of those wonderful political phrases, like Wayne Swan’s “war on inflation”, or the Keating Government’s “new schools” policy.
To some people in politics, it’s all about the title – if you make sure that the title is what people want to hear then the substance is secondary. Never mind that Wayne Swan’s war on the inflation genie involved putting up taxes that have actually increased inflation. Never mind that Keating’s “New Schools” policy was to create so many hoops and hurdles that it became almost impossible by the mid nineties to open up a new school.
At the end of the day, to some people catchy titles are very important. They grab the headlines and leave an imprint on people’s minds that may well affect their vote.
Labor is better than the Liberal Party at coming up with these snappy lines. I’m not sure that too many people remember the “Schools Assistance (Learning Together — Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Bill” of 2004, or one of the election slogans of 1987, where we called on the Australian people to vote for “Incentivisation”!
But Education Revolution sticks in the mind – as a public relations exercise it was definitely a winner in the 2007 election.
So much for the title: what exactly has the education revolution delivered?
· Most famously, there is the Computers in Schools pledge. Every student in year 9-12 is due to receive a computer. Originally costed at $1 billion. Now being delivered for $2 billion. God alone knows what it will have cost by 2012 when the computers have finally been delivered, if we ever get that far.
· The second main revolutionary idea is the Government’s new “Trades Training Centres”. We were promised a new cathedral of vocational education in each high school. Unfortunately on a budget of less than $1 million per school we are finding that the only way schools can make this work is to band together with the 9 or 10 closest schools and pool their funds. So in reality every tenth school is going to get a Trades Training Centre. Eventually.
· And the third main plank to the overthrow of the old world order was a half billion dollar program to improve literacy and numeracy standards in schools. This half a billion dollar program replaces the previous government’s half a billion dollar program of providing vouchers to students with poor literacy and numeracy so they can get tuition. The new program is different though because now the money is being provided to the states so they can deliver whatever programs they want to deliver. To this point, the overwhelming evidence is that they are choosing to spend the money on providing vouchers to students with poor literacy and numeracy so they can get tuition!
The fact is that this Education Revolution is hardly on a scale of the French Revolution, or the American Revolution.
It is more along the lines of the Animal Farm revolution: entirely fictitious.
-----
One feature of the Education Revolution notable by its absence is any sense of interest or engagement in Higher Education.
Instead Minister Gillard has outsourced that engagement to Professor Denise Bradley – someone who I know and admire. However, by commissioning the Bradley Review as they did in March, the Government has written itself out of the game in relation to improving higher education for some time to come.
The Review is due to report in December, and the Government has promised to provide some kind of response in February, although I think it is fair to say that we will not see any firm new direction until next year’s May Budget, so we will not see any evidence of new arrangements on campus until 2010 at the earliest.
2010 is a long time away. Just consider this year’s May Budget, when the Government announced that the final Howard/Costello budget surplus had come in at $22 billion.
That was just over six months ago. We are now hurtling towards deficit again for the first time in a decade.
The surplus has been spent and there is no secret stash that has been put aside by the Deputy Prime Minister to implement any recommendations of the Bradley Review that might take the Government’s fancy. It is a real concern.
Just while I’m on the issue of the funding pool available for higher education, I should mention that last week the Parliament passed a Bill to set up the Government’s promised $11 billion Education Investment Fund.
I won’t dwell on the Fund for long – suffice to say the reality doesn’t quite match the headline, for several reasons.
First this is not new money – the first $6 billion in the fund is already there in the Higher Education Endowment Fund set up by Peter Costello 18 months ago.
The Higher Education Endowment Fund – or HEEF – was developed to revitalise the sector, not just through the building of bricks and mortar, but building the intellectual wealth of the nation.
While I’m mentioning the Howard Government’s record investment in Higher Education, I should also mention that in its last year of the Coalition Government a record 185,898 Australians were offered a university place. John Howard and Peter Costello believed in a strong higher education sector, and they led a Government that acted accordingly.
Julia Gillard has topped up the $6 billion HEEF with $2.5 billion from the last Howard/Costello surplus, changed the name, and made the funding available to the training and vocational education sector as well.
Oh, and we’ve now been told that the last 2 and a half billion dollars going into the fund is only going to happen in the event that there is sufficient Budget surplus next year, which there won’t be because we’ve also been told that we’re going into deficit. So actually the reality of the new $11 billion fund is that it is an $8.7 billion fund, paid for entirely by the previous Government.
But it, too, has a new name.
-----
Returning to the key topic: the Bradley review.
The Bradley review has been given the remit of advising the Government on how to develop a “diverse, globally focused and competitive higher education sector with quality, responsive institutions following clear distinctive missions to provide higher education opportunities to students throughout Australia”.[1]
Professor Bradley has been asked for advice on “improving funding arrangements”,[2] “widening access to higher education”,[3] and “building an integrated relationship with vocational education and training.”[4]
These are the Government’s worthy goals. Oh – but she’ll need to do it on the smell of an oily rag because as we’ve already established the Government has spent all of its money and their one and only expression of policy interest in relation to the structure of higher education funding this year has been to abolish the right of universities to provide full fee paying places for domestic students who miss out on a HECS supported place.
These positions were the subject of some controversy when introduced, but the fact is that we have now returned to the situation where places are available to overseas students that are not available to Australian students. This was a significant growth market that was providing substantial income to universities, and that income has not been replaced by this government.
Further, while I am told that the global financial crisis has not hit international student enrolments yet, the main reason given as to why this is the case is because our dollar is so low. International students add a great deal to the intellectual and cultural make-up of our institutions – their value extends beyond the dollars they spend. But with the abolition of Australian full fee paying places, many of our institutions are now financially reliant on international students – a potentially precarious situation in the current global economic climate.
At this point I note that my speech seems to have taken a melancholy tone. I am happy to reassure you that not all is doom and gloom!
-----
The fact is that Denise Bradley and her expert panel have a wealth of information from which to make their recommendations, as the sector has responded with enthusiasm to the opportunity to have their say in this manner.
In all, the Bradley review received 353 submissions, from universities, associations, student groups, academics, and other interested individuals.
These submissions, or at least some of them, represent a significant body of knowledge about the situation of higher education in this country.
Of course, perhaps not surprisingly, the solutions to the question of what we need are many and varied.
Some solutions tend towards deregulation. Andrew Norton of the Centre for Independent Studies, begins his submission with a call to reform. He says:
(The current university system) “wasn’t designed to be responsive or to efficiently target student investment, and it doesn’t. It therefore needs to be redesigned, building responsiveness and efficiency mechanisms into its policy architecture. What policymakers need to do can be summarised in four points:
1. Treat all institutions and students consistently.
2. Abolish central distribution of student places, with public funding for tuition (where available) following the student.
3. Abolish controls on student fees.
4. Create a new student loan system.”[5]
Norton’s paper points out a concerning series of hypocrisies and inefficiencies in the current system that have arisen as a natural result of historical policy decisions, which may have made sense in isolation but which now need the most broad scale review of any area of public policy.
Indeed this institution’s (QUT’s) own submission colourfully describes the situation in relation to engagement with indigenous and low-SES students, but the description could be applied more broadly: “Higher education effort to date is bedevilled by patchy, disconnected, short-term, institution-specific, projects.”[6]
Norton’s conclusion identifies the significant problem that such a deregulatory approach, (as he proposes), will face. He writes: “the most difficult task is a political one: convincing the higher education sector and its constituencies that government regulation and control hasn’t, won’t and can’t fix their problems.”[7]
The Group of Eight provided another submission that preferred what they refer to as “student-driven financing”[8]. Their approach is to have government funding for studies – the money currently spent on the subsidies for HECS places – instead, “allocated directly to students in the form of scholarships, on a national order of merit basis.”[9]
Students would then be free to choose any program at any institution, and have access to income-contingent loans if they wish to access courses more expensive than their scholarship.
-----
While a number of submissions follow these and other similar market driven solutions, naturally others propose a different approach.
I recently met with Deakin University’s passionate and irrepressible Vice Chancellor Sally Walker, who has proposed one cut-through idea that may yet attract some attention. To increase the interest in university study among low SES students, and encourage more to focus on finishing school and taking up a place: “Deakin suggests that consideration be given to a bold new scholarship program which involves awarding scholarships to low SES students in mid secondary school, with funding available if and when the student starts university. These scholarships should be very generous, covering the real cost of going to university.”[10]
Some submissions focus on the funding priorities of institutions. Monash, for example, suggests “major increases in research and research training infrastructure funding ..., at least $4 billion per annum from Australia’s commodity export dividend should be invested in the EIF ..., additional support mechanisms for students ..., (and) broader support for the international activities carried out by Australian Universities.”[11]
-----
There are hundreds of submissions, thousands of recommendations. Many are good – many contradict each other. The Bradley team has a very big task indeed.
It is fair to say that if the Education Minister had a blank cheque book, a surplus budget, and a genuine interest in higher education policy, then the submissions to the Bradley review would provide a fruitful resource in how to spend public money quickly.
Unfortunately for Higher Education, the Government is fresh out of blank cheques, having instead prioritised the needs of local mayors and councils, through the new Australian Council of Local Government.
I believe the challenge ahead for Government, is to unshackle the Higher Education sector from what has become a noose of bureaucracy and deep dependence on the taxpayer.
The Liberal Party has always been the Party of small government and personal responsibility. I consider the previous Government could have gone much further in promoting this basic principle and philosophy.
Under this new Government the window for reform in this area may have already closed.
This new Government does not possess the courage and resolve to risk a hit in the polls but is instead taking government interference to even greater scales.
Their plans to censor the internet with a national firewall are reminiscent of our centralised and totalitarian regional neighbours. They are unnecessarily heavy handed.
There have been suggestions that they might pursue extreme reforms where tertiary entry would no longer be based on academic merit, but more weighted towards subjective ideals of social inclusion, that would potentially see students penalised in their tertiary entrance score if they are the children of university graduates or if they have attended a non-government school.
This is a Government that promised to attempt to solve all of society’s problems and will use the blunt instrument of national government policy as a social engineering device in attempt to achieve this end. The result will be a nation addicted to big government.
-----
Australians deserve a ‘fair go’. But we need to earn a ‘fair go’ through our own efforts and determination. Our’s should be a country of enterprise and energy.
So it will not surprise you that in my opinion a stronger Higher Education sector is one that is more independent, not less.
Today, Australia’s 38 universities are competing not only against one another but against all other institutions of higher learning throughout the world to attract and then properly equip students with knowledge and skills to prepare them for productive life, be it in Newcastle or New York, Roma or Rome.
In such a truly open and global environment universities must be able to respond in a flexible way to ever-changing circumstances and needs. They must be free to specialise or diversify in a way that they feel will best build on their strengths and benefit their students.
Talking about building internationally competitive universities in Australia is one thing, but it seems like we’re asking universities to compete while preventing them from responding to student demand. It is not unlike asking Olympic swimmers to take on the world’s best in handcuffs.
There can be no clearer demonstration of this than the example of Australia’s shortage of doctors. In the mid-90s, governments of both complexions were complicit in implementing the advice of the bureaucracy that the number of commencing medical places should be cut back.
The rationale for this cut was a belief in the bureaucracy that growing medical costs were the result of over-servicing, prompted by an excess of graduating doctors. Canberra’s enlightened central planners certainly managed to solve that problem, as demonstrated by the current crisis!
Yet even in the face of reality, the myth persists that the allocation of student places between courses and institutions can be better handled by central control.
It seems counter-intuitive that the number of places in specific disciplines at specific institutions is still determined by bureaucrats in Canberra, based on historical allocations. Some of the Bradley submissions talk about how such allocation of places would more effectively be determined by the individual institutions based on current student demand.
-----
The debate over university funding is a complex one, but it boils down to a very simple question. Should we force our higher education system to meet the needs of our students in a competitive global environment? Or should we force our students to meet the needs of our centrally-controlled higher education system? Sadly, in many ways, we have chosen the latter.
True reform of Australia’s higher education system would involve unchaining our universities and allowing them to respond to the needs of today’s students. We need to consider the uncoupling of government funding from centralised allocation of places, and providing grant funding to universities to educate all students of sufficient academic merit in the course of their choice, subject to an institution’s willingness to offer it.
There continues to be significant speculation on what the Bradley Review will contain. It is of crucial importance that any changes to the Higher Education sector ensure that the taxpayers’ enormous investment in the sector is fully realised, while at the same time universities be granted the much needed freedom and flexibility that will enable them to meet the needs of students and also compete effectively against the rest of the world.
-----
The Review of course is just one of 25 such reviews the Rudd Government has initiated into the Higher Education Sector. It seems sometimes that these reviews and summits are a not a means to end, but an end in themselves: grabbing headlines, floating ‘big’ ideas that go nowhere, but push an embarrassing issue for the Government from page one. Clearly what is far more important than the review itself is the response of the Rudd Government.
The Rudd Government has a track record of avoiding tough decisions and only doing things that will grab the headlines. Any avid viewer of the Howard Years will tell you that the previous Government did not shy away from tough decisions. I can tell you now that this new Labor Government doesn’t have the stomach for tough decisions. Nor do they have the experience for the implementation of complex programs and policy as can be seen in the $800 million bailout of the failed “computers in schools” policy I mentioned earlier. The second such bailout, the first valued at $200 million occurred in the May Budget.
The tough decisions that arise out of the Bradley Review cannot be put off or the report buried in further committees and reviews, in working groups or inquiries. A ‘revolution’ is meant to be swift and radical reform, therefore I will be calling on the Government to ensure that any action demanded by sensible recommendations of the Bradley Review be carefully considered, yes, but swiftly costed and implemented.
Of course the Coalition will also carefully analyse the outcomes of the Bradley Review and will similarly provide a detailed response. It will inform our policies for the next election, as have the submissions that have been received. Malcolm Turnbull made his mark as a bold and decisive leader in business, and I am certain this will be reflected in the policies that we take to the election with him as the Leader of the Opposition. While we cannot pre-empt this response at this stage, I have given you a flavour of what you might expect.
Rest assured that the Coalition’s proposals will always have at heart the best interest of students and universities in Australia.
[1] “Review of Australian Higher Education Discussion Paper”, June 2008, Appendix A (Terms of Reference) p69
[2] Ibid, p69
[3] Ibid, p69
[4] Ibid, p70
[5] “Review of Higher Education Submission”, July 2008, Andrew Norton, Research Fellow, Centre for Independent Studies, p2
[6] “Submission in response to the National Higher Education Review Discussion Paper”, Queensland University of Technology, July 2008, p4
[7] Norton, op cit, p14
[8] “Investing in all our People: Submission to the Review of Australian Higher Education”, July 2008, Group of Eight Ltd, p7
[9] Ibid, p7
[10] “Submission to the Review of Australian Higher Education”, July 2008, Deakin University, p15
[11] “Submission to the Review of Australian Higher Education”, July 2008, The Office of the Vice-Chancellor, Monash University, pp3-4