Editorial: Funding root of problem

Worthless polytechnic courses such as twilight golf have, quite justifiably, proved a considerable embarrassment to the Government. Belatedly, and with an election looming, it has moved to address the issue. Cash for low-quality courses will be slashed to the tune of $160 million, and more emphasis placed on apprenticeships and adult literacy programmes. If the decision is clearly right, it is difficult to be confident that it will signal an end to the squandering of taxpayer funding in this arena.

As much as some things will change under the new policy, some will stay the same. The Government has tinkered with but not overhauled the funding formula at the root of the problem. The equivalent full-time students (EFTS) system of state payments rewards institutions for the number of students they enrol. It has worked well in delivering students. But it has also encouraged some polytechnics to come up with dubious courses and outright scams to get their hands on state funding.

The effects have rippled throughout the tertiary education sector. With the ballooning cost of funding outstripping the Government's ability to pay, students have had to dig into their own pockets for course fees. In effect, those training to be doctors and scientists have had to increase their student loans because of funding supplied for the likes of Maori singalong lessons.

Such courses should never, of course, have been approved for funding. That they were reflects badly on the Tertiary Education Commission and the Qualifications Authority. The commission distributes funding based on profiles provided by institutions. The authority accredits the courses. Clearly, in more than one or two cases, both organisations have performed ineptly.

There is no reflection of that, however, in this response. A State Services Commission review initiated by the Government skated over the two bodies' responsibilities. And now they are to have what Education Minister Trevor Mallard tried to dress up as heightened monitoring roles. The Tertiary Education Commission would, he said, ensure courses were relevant, and the authority would beef up its standards for approving them. In effect, they have been told to do what they should have been doing over the past few years.

The shortcomings in the new policy do not end there. The Government has allotted $177.8 million over five years to help the country's 20 polytechnics and institutes of technology and three Maori wananga adjust to offering courses of higher quality. Again, there is no censure for those executives who played fast and loose with low-quality courses. Instead, there are words of comfort, and help to overcome difficulties arising from their own chicanery.

If institutions had to devise dubious courses to ensure their survival, their viability must be questioned. In an ideal world, there would be a polytechnic in every provincial centre. But, in practice, each one must be measured against the yardstick of regional industry and commerce. In some places, that, quite simply, might not warrant a polytechnic. When such is the case, there must be no artificial succour from the $177.8 million adjustment fund.

Students should, as the Government suggests, have greater access to high-quality courses. Yet there is an air of denial about its whole approach. This is summed up by Mr Mallard's contention that the present system has produced not fat but "muscle that is not being used very well". Far more flab needs to be removed before students receive a much better deal.