Submission to the Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy
Australasian Institute of Tertiary Education Administrators
The Institute was founded in 1975, in an era when the professional development and training of staff in tertiary education was generally viewed as a personal matter by their Institutions. A group of senior and middle managers in Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education foresaw the need for general and specialist training programs, together with the benefits of professional networking. They established a non-profit association to provide innovative, targeted and relevant courses which complemented and extended the scant in-house training then provided by tertiary institutions.
AITEA is a federated body, with an Australasian Council and Executive, and Branches in New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and each Australian State and Territory. For over twenty years, with a membership base varying between 2,500 and 3,500, our programs have made a significant contribution to the skills and knowledge base of middle and senior administrators and managers. In 1996, some 60 one-day seminars, workshops, three-day orientation / middle management programs, State and Australasian Conferences were mounted throughout Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, involving over 2,600 participants. Institutions have recognised the value of these activities by sponsoring and funding their staff, as have many companies and government departments. We also have continuing links with the Association of University Administrators in Britain and the American Association of University Administrators, reinforcing our international standing through the Journal for Higher Education Policy and Management.
In our 21st year, recognising the need to respond to change in the nineties and beyond, we have streamlined and updated our Constitution, established a permanent Secretariat, and propose (by referendum to all members) a change of name to "Association for Tertiary Education Management". As an apolitical organisation eschewing involvement in industrial issues, we are ideally positioned to offer objective professional advice in our area of expertise - management and administration in tertiary education.
We believe that the current and future challenges facing the University and TAFE sectors will continue to require independent and well-informed contributions from our organisation. This submission forms part of our contribution.
2.1 In an era of competition, pressure on resources, restructuring and "downsizing", it is crucial to maintain and enhance management and administrative skills in the tertiary sector.
2.2 The relatively recent introduction of corporate business philosophies and managerialism to universities and colleges has not resolved the longstanding divergence between "academic" and "administrative" managers. The demands of the new tertiary environment require a convergence in the qualifications, experience and skills of middle and senior managers, irrespective of their academic or professional background.
2.3 Despite a highly qualified and experienced middle and senior management group in the tertiary sector, and the availability of extensive training programs, there are significant gaps in management skills in areas identified by the Review, such as competition, contestability and competitive neutrality.
2.4 Each of the Review’s major themes, and their underlying objectives, call for management and professional skills (both general and specialist) of the highest order if the explicit and implied outcomes are to be achieved. This requirement is a compelling argument for a coordinated approach to the training and skills development of tertiary managers in the education "industry", as a distinctive professional group.
2.5 The Institute’s direct experience of cross-sectoral training at both entry and middle management levels confirms that University and TAFE staff have needs that are more common than divergent. Apart from the already significant number of combined institutions, there are multifarious joint ventures and agreements. The Review should examine the option of an integrated national training program in tertiary management.
2.6 The Institute’s Victorian Branch has already made a submission to the Review, addressing funding options. The views and options contained in the submission have now been considered and endorsed by the Institute Executive . In addition, the Executive suggests that the Review consider whether the Commonwealth should now assume responsibility for the funding of the tertiary sector as a whole, or at least rationalise funding of joint TAFE/University programs and initiatives.
3.1 There is clear evidence that effective human resource management is a critical factor in the management of organisational change. In the 1990’s, restructuring in business and government has involved:-
Successful organisations focus on a number of key success factors. One of these is the implementation of policy, which can be just as important as the conceptual and planning function. A recent (February 1997) review carried out by the OECD Directorate for Education, Employment, Labour and Social Affairs in collaboration with DEETYA under the title "Thematic Review of the First Years of Tertiary Education Australia" concluded that:
"It is evident that there has been a major effort by staff to change and adjust, to renew and revitalise their departments, faculties and institutions......it must be recognised that staff have been under unrelenting pressure.
"The continued commitment, strong motivation and continuing education and training of the staffs of the institutions are essential if the ambitious policy goals that continue to be set are to be met."
3.2 Since the early 1970’s, there has been a recurring debate over the respective roles and consequential training of academic staff in management positions and those of administrative/professional staff in departmental, faculty and central management/administrative positions. Both the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AV-CC) and the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) (through its National Staff Development Committee) have attempted to address this question in their funding of staff development and training programs.
This issue is discussed in a recent DEETYA Evaluations and Investigations Program report (Meek and Wood, February 1997), Higher Education Governance and Management: an Australian Study. AITEA concurs with the view expressed in the report that the dilemma of reconciling managerial and collegial models has not yet been resolved. We also concur with the statement that "the current circumstances demand that managers of higher education institutions, particularly executive officers, deans of faculty, and heads of department, lead, direct and manage a great number of things." Leading, directing and managing these "things" now requires a planned convergence of training and skill levels for all managers in tertiary education.
3.3 The report mentioned above also identifies impediments to effective management in higher education. Apart from a strong response from respondents on lack of finance and effective information systems, the survey demonstrated significant elements of resistance to change and lack of expertise at each level of management. It should be noted that these findings reflected the situation in 1994/95, and did not necessarily address the critical developments in competition, contestability and competitive neutrality which are to be considered by the Review. Despite substantial experience in competing for funds within the sector, in areas such as research, evaluation and staff development, institutions have relatively limited exposure to competitive tendering with private providers, project management and supervising companies who manage external services on their behalf. We believe that these gaps will need to be filled by appropriate training programs for middle and senior managers.
3.4 As with the debate over the management roles of academics and administrators, the question of tertiary education administration as a distinct professional activity has not been resolved. AITEA has consistently supported progression towards this goal, but has had to face the dilemma that erecting academic and skills barriers between its more senior members and those entering tertiary education management would limit our professional objectives. For the same reasons, we have always declined to make a finite distinction between the professional and training needs of staff in the higher education, advanced education and TAFE sectors. We agree with Meek and Wood op cit that "the field of higher education administration in Australia has yet to achieve the same professional standing as it has in some other countries, such as the United States......But there may be some direct policy implications for institutions, such as better provision of appropriate staff development programs for administrators, more clearly defined career paths and more proactive recruitment policies to attract the best possible staff to these positions."
Given the themes of the Review, we conclude that it is now essential for these issues to be resolved. There are compelling reasons to set relevant entry level qualifications, identify staged skills development programs and performance management benchmarks for tertiary managers. These should build on the existing training programs offered through ANTA, the AV-CC and AITEA.
3.5 Given the Institute’s commitment to cross-sectoral training, its membership and training programs are open to both the higher education and vocational educational sectors. Participation by university and TAFE staff in our Orientation and Middle Management programs confirms that the management issues, skills and problems faced by each group have a high degree of commonality. In 1995/96, we approached the AV-CC and ANTA with a proposal to establish a joint working party which would examine coordinated training programs across the sectors. ANTA accepted, but the AV-CC declined. Subsequently, the latter raised no objection to the participation of individual universities in the working party. We are now in the process of setting up the group, as a first step in determining the cost/benefits of a coordinated middle and senior management training program in tertiary management. We would be prepared to assist the Review Committee if it wished to examine this issue.
3.6 We do not wish to add to the submission on funding options prepared by our Victorian Branch, other than to endorse its contents and to invite the Committee to discuss it with us. Further, the dismantling of the binary system and the establishment/continuation of tertiary institutions which incorporate higher education and TAFE, as well as joint campuses (such as Ourimbah, Nirimba and Coffs Harbour) raise critical issues in the funding of national training objectives. This blurring of the lines between the sectors has been reinforced by the availability of ANTA funds for research and training being open to competitive tendering by universities. The two sectors have already recognised the need to reconcile competition and cooperation in a number of areas, the most significant being the international effort to recruit overseas students. It is assumed that the Committee will revisit the question of Commonwealth funding for the tertiary sector as a whole. Failing that, an examination of funding issues for vocational education and training in cross-sectoral activities is essential.
Finally, we seek the Committee’s recognition that skills and professional development programs are an integral part of learning organisations. They should be supported within core funding, and extended by the participation and contribution of professional bodies such as AITEA.
We have refrained from making specific recommendations in this submission since the issues we raise cut across all aspects of the Committee’s themes and terms of reference. Indeed, the latter make no specific mention of training issues, other than general references to effective management and vocational education and training. We believe that continual upgrading of management expertise is the key to finding the efficiencies and quality improvements which government demands from the tertiary system. Our submission seeks to convince the Committee that the issues we have raised are not peripheral to its work and require full investigation. We request the opportunity to discuss these matters with the Committee during its consultation process.