Review of Higher Education Financing and
Policy Committee

 

Mary Callaway
Secretary
CSU Branch NTEU

4 April, 1997

 

Charles Sturt University (CSU) Branch of the NTEU Submission

Attached is a submission made on behalf of the Charles Sturt University (CSU) Branch of the NTEU for your consideration in preparing your Committee's report for the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

We appreciate the opportunity to highlight our major concerns with you in our meeting today.

The key points raised in our submission are:

 

SUBMISSION

On behalf of the Charles Sturt University (CSU) Branch of the NTEU we respectfully submit the following to the Committee for their consideration. The Branch is prepared to provide further supplementary information on the points which it specifically raises in regard to CSU

Key Points for Submission:

(i) This submission needs to be read in the context that CSU is a regional/rural university and therefore suffers from academic isolation (even with new technology support) and an inability to link with people and resources in the same way as metropolitan universities. This should be especially recognised with the current emphasis on self funding of Universities. Should the same funding terms and conditions be applied to regional universities as those to metropolitan areas then we would foresee two possible outcomes: one would be the closure of regional universities and the other would be the development of a second and inferior tier of universities. Both these possibilities would seriously disadvantage the regional and rural communities such as Albury- Wodonga, Bathurst and Wagga Wagga, but even more importantly would be detrimental to the reasonable aspirations of both school leavers and mature age students living in these areas.

(ii) It has to be stated, however, that CSU despite these difficulties has proved to be a successful university. This success is due largely to the efforts and sacrifice of its staff over the past six years. Staff have made it clear to us that they cannot continue to be taken for granted, especially if they can receive higher rewards and more opportunities elsewhere in the higher education system. Nor can they be expected to continue to carry the workloads of recent years (see below).

(A) Nationally

Part 1 Australia wide issues: We understand that our NTEU National Office will be responding to the issues listed below on behalf of their membership:

Our branch sees these matters as issues that are properly dealt with as a National submission. We shall be submitting our branch and member views on those issues for inclusion into that submission.

(B) Charles Sturt University NTEU Branch Specific Issues

 

Para 2 Workloads:

Para 2a Quantum - ever expanding!

On average workloads have increased by about 25% since 1991. For example, tutorial class sizes have increased significantly over the past five years, many now averaging 25 to 30 students. Staff have to date tried to ensure that they have minimised the impact on the

face to face and distance education students but this extra burden on the staff member's health, their ability to fulfil responsibilities as a citizen in the community, (a factor more significant in regional communities where University staff are looked to for leadership), as well as the reduction in their ability to participate as an active member of their family means that the generosity of the staff to their students and their University must be rationalised in the interests of personal long term survival and credibility of their commitment to the maintenance of academic standards. We met with individuals and groups of academic staff on all three main campus sites in November/December 1996 and in February/March of this year and the issue of workloads was spontaneously raised at each and every meeting as an issue of major concern.

 

Para 2b Diversity of duties expected:

The change in the Higher Education environment which resulted from the Dawkins reforms and the funding regime of the present Federal government has created significant changes in the expectations of duties performed by academic staff. CSU staff were also required to participate in the development of the new institution and the governance structure changes resulting from that change.

A large number of staff had been initially selected and valued for their industry experience and involvement and or their teaching skills and expertise. Research had not been a matter of great importance in their original spectrum of duties.

Research has now become dominant. This new and constant demand for research outcomes has meant that there is a necessity to increase the qualifications of staff. This has meant that many staff have had to either re-skill and or gain initial training in research.

Further, the increasing expectation on staff of the University to identify and develop courses for niche markets has meant an increase in the variety of courses offered especially in the distance education mode at post graduate level.

Again, staff have been very co-operative in responding to the changes by enrolling in higher degrees, undertaking research training and re-skilling as the University has required.

 

Para 3 Salaries:

Staff have expressed their anger and frustration at the steady decline in their real incomes over the past six years. To date, CSU staff have only received in total 5% since 1991. They would need an immediate wage increase of 10% to return to the 1991 position.

If you go back to 1983 the position is even worse. The real wage has declined by almost 40% over the period 1983 - 1997. These figures should be read in the context that academic staff are now also expected to have higher qualifications, with a much increased workload (see above).

CSU academic staff do suffer a further disadvantage in that distance to metropolitan centres precludes efficient and effective interchange of ideas not only with other academics but with the leaders of professions, industry, commerce and government.

To put it simply, academic staff see themselves as being squeezed.

 

Para 4 Promotion Opportunities:

CSU's track record for internal promotions is regarded by current staff as being poor. For example, for the past two years there has not been a single promotion to the Associate Professor level or above. This does little to encourage a positive morale amongst CSU staff nor is it an encouragement for staff to spend time preparing submissions for promotion.

The need for interaction with other peer professionals and the contribution required for staff-student interface through teaching, course administration and student consultation is not perceived by University to have the same weighting and value as the research quantum and higher degree qualifications.

 

Para 5 EEO and AA:

The Branch supports the implementation of EEO and AA policies. The University through its requirement to have in place EEO procedures and EEO/AA representation on all committees means that the few female academics at the senior lecturer and above have to undertake a disproportionate load of responsibilities compared to their equivalent male colleagues. This puts even more pressure on those already overworked academic staff and in the competition for promotion positions denies them the use of their time for the more highly regarded research quantum criteria

Para 6 Resources:

Because of the reduction in funding and the consequent pressures to reduce costs the University has expected staff to increase their responsibilities both in teaching, administration and community involvement rather than increasing the number of staff appointed to cover the increased workloads.

Lack of monetary resources has impacted upon the staff in both terms of inadequate library resources, especially serials and in the lack of funds to enable staff to attend professional development courses, conferences and the like.

Because CSU operates mainly in regional Australia staff are unable to compensate for the lack of 'in-house' resources unlike their metropolitan counterparts. For example, access to a pool of part time staff.

The smaller populations of regional towns and the restricted diversity of specialist staff therefore available means that the University is restricted in its choices in the employment of part time staff to support the fluctuations and short term needs of academic units.

We believe that higher education is facing a crisis and CSU is perhaps under more pressure than metropolitan universities. Unless more resources are provided and open access to higher education for all socio-economic groups improved there is a real danger of universities like CSU becoming second rate institutions relying heavily on fee paying overseas students to survive. This we believe would happen irrespective of the efforts and quality of the university staff and its management.