This achievement was largely brought about by the deregulation of the 1990s, the uncapping of places in universities and polytechnics, and the strong competition and marketing for students that ensued.
While the report says this has been achieved without deterioration in overall standards, there are residual concerns that standards in some areas have fallen as a result.
Thus, while there is little or no hard evidence to back the claim that entry to university has become easier or degrees softer, the report nevertheless addresses these concerns, real or imagined.
The entry standards for degrees will be raised, and universities will be asked to take a mentoring role in many cases for degrees offered in other institutions. Teachers of degrees will be expected to have relevant work experience.
The polytechnics look to be likely winners. Incentives will be provided for trade training to move back to them, and new foundation and bridging opportunities for second-chance learners will be given. Polytechnics, however, will at the same time be nervous about the signals that some of them will need to cede some autonomy through a series of Claytons mergers or alliances.
If they proceed, the sector might take the form of larger institutions becoming the hubs around which the smaller institutions will be attached as spokes. Those polytechnics that have degrees may also feel nervous at the declared intention to raise the entry standards required for degree entry. By and large, it is unlikely that the universities will suffer from the raising of degree entry standards, but anecdotal evidence suggests that degrees in teaching and nursing, which are mostly offered outside the university sector and which in many cases do provide fairly open admission, could be affected.
If this is so, it will produce a significant dilemma. The country needs more teachers and nurses, not fewer. And if further bridging courses will be needed for those aspiring to these professions, the training period will be lengthened.
Standards in research performance are addressed in the report. By separating the research and teaching funding available to universities, those who achieve the highest standards of research output can be expected to be rewarded.
This presents an immense challenge to university administration, for within every university there will be departments and schools that are high performers and others that are not. So will research funding within the university, therefore, be internally distributed to those who performed best in the past? How will up-and-comers be funded? How are centres of research excellence to be defined?
Against the theme of restructuring the sector in order to differentiate more clearly the universities from the polytechnics, raising the thresholds for degree entry, and making the research funding contestable, there will be the further lever for the Government to influence how the sector performs - the requirement for each institution to profile itself, stating clearly what its distinctive role and mission are in contributing to the national good.
They will not be funded only on the crude numbers of enrolments they achieve. This was signalled in earlier reports, but it is comforting to read that funding will also reflect the contributions they make to the national good, whether in research excellence, equity or general community development.
Moving from an environment of intense competition to one where institutions will be expected to identify their strengths and work to strengthen them will require internal cultural changes. This will be very challenging.
Clearly, little change is signalled for next year, which is also an election year. But what can we expect the tertiary sector to look like in two or three years? In many ways the issues of governance which have not yet been addressed will be critical.
If ways can be found for single governing bodies (councils) to be established, we could see significant and long-lasting change. The University of London model of a federal university with autonomous colleges focusing on defined areas has worked well. Some of the colleges, because they are so focused, are now world leaders in research and teaching.
Could Auckland, where so many tertiary providers now operate, benefit from such a model? And, again, could a single council governing both a university and a polytechnic successfully achieve the differentiation that the advisory commission and the Government envisage while also strengthening regional provision?
The fourth commission report offers ideas that deserve considered debate before the details of implementation are addressed. While the funding model proposed offers less predictability than the present formula, the ideas in the report pose challenges to tertiary administrators to change their ways of thinking and to assess seriously some of the more radical options that should be considered.
There is not much more to come before we will find solutions that can be practically and politically implemented.
* Dr David Brook is the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the Auckland University of Technology.
Herald features
Proud to be a Kiwi
Our turn
The jobs challenge
Common core values
