Dialogue: Merging of tertiary institutions has to be done without slashing and burning

Amalgamating tertiary education institutes, if done sensitively, would represent a win-win situation for all involved, writes JOHN HINCHCLIFF*.

There is a partial answer to the Government's inability to stretch the budget of our small country to cover the legitimate aspirations of the tertiary institutions. It is to encourage the reconfiguration of our institutions through mergers.

Thirty-five tertiary institutions is too much of a financial burden for our small population.

Each requires quality learning systems, progressive curriculums, libraries, enhanced student services, appropriate salaries, institutional accountability, the new technologies of communication, administration and so on and on.

We need to achieve economies of scale by integrating our institutions.

The Government advocates a greater sense of cooperation among institutions hoping to meet the crisis of resourcing. However, cooperation will not reduce the expensive administrative overheads or the competitive advertising.

Each institution has its genuine aspirations to provide a better-quality education and needs to strengthen its income. But a merger could yield eventually a significant saving of taxpayer dollars.

In a large institution, economies of scope and scale can be gained. Not only are the administrative overheads spread over a far greater number of students, but a greater depth and breadth is achieved in the curriculum.

This enables students to participate in more comprehensive learning opportunities, to have access to a greater range of qualifications to reach their educational potential. They are able to structure their own unique programmes with a greater range of options, and, if preferred, select from a greater range of double majors.

Teachers are able to focus on the specialties for which they were appointed. Belonging to a large, major, internationally respected tertiary institution widens and enhances the international connections and opportunities for staff.

Economies of scale should translate into holding stable the level of fees and providing better services to the students.

Unfortunately, there have been instances of significantly destructive mergers where the smaller institution has been devastated. As a consequence, there is apprehension. However, there are some principles which guide constructive reorganisation.

Cultural coherence rather than geographical proximity is the crucial glue to bind the parts into a new whole.

The ability to choose a partner rather than suffer a forced marriage motivates colleagues.

Partners coming together in a merger need to realise they are constructing a new institution to which they all belong on an equal footing.

Strong institutions merge to enhance their capabilities. The values of synergy pertain, with many more opportunities for innovative developments. So there is no need for a slash-and-burn policy with staff redundancies according to the practice of rationalisation.

The "non-compulsory redundancy" scheme required by the Australian Government during its round of mergers is worth emulating. Some positions would have to be reorganised to cope with the new opportunities created. But a policy of caring for the dignity of colleagues would mean their support through the rather complicated process of reorganisation.

The Government plans to differentiate between the types of institutions, both to enable students to select the most appropriate level and style of learning and to target funding according to their policies.

Any amalgamation involving a university and a polytechnic would have to ensure that there is a clear academic differentiation while maintaining a unified administrative infrastructure. This differentiation would be possible by having a clearly distinguishable sub-degree-level section within the university.

Each of the merging partners would contribute to each dimension. This occurs at significant institutions such as the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

We cannot underestimate the significant challenges that will occur. Historical practice and vested interest can mean loyal and dedicated service to the status quo. But goodwill and commitment to an exciting and involving new vision should obviate any difficulties.

That is generated by staff from the merging institutions being involved with the planning of the new institution, and by as many colleagues as possible having institution-wide roles.

Above all, the dignity of staff from each of the merging institutions must be respected entirely.

The achievement of mergers should mean a better and less expensive provision of tertiary education in New Zealand.

* Dr John Hinchcliff is vice-chancellor of the Auckland University of Technology.