|
EvaluationReportStageOne How Has the TES Influenced Change ← Executive Summary | Home Page | An Effective Strategy → 3 Approaches to Change: (hide) The TES document sets out the way in which the TES was intended to influence change in the tertiary education sector. However, the way it has actually influenced change has been quite different. This section discusses the intended and actual ways in which the TES has influenced change. It presents these as “theory of change” models, which track the steps by which change is achieved. While these models are presented as direct and linear, in reality change is more complex. For example, in the process of using the TES to justify an existing strategy, an organisation may well end up reviewing some aspects of that strategy in light of the TES. 1. A framework for thinkingThe government’s view of the TES’s purpose was that it would:
It was intended to provide a framework for thinking about improved tertiary education outcomes and a set of signals to be interpreted in different ways in different parts of the system. The overall approach was to provide a vision for the contribution of tertiary education to the nation that would inspire the sector to work with government and stakeholders to achieve change. The TES was intended to drive change in two ways: first by highlighting the need for change in specific areas; second by encouraging the tertiary education sector to respond to the need. This is captured in the following section from the Minister’s foreword: The intention here is to identify the key aspects of our tertiary education system that must change in order to make a real and substantial difference to New Zealand’s future development, and to outline strategies in six key areas which we will need to lift our performance over the next five years.
This Strategy is not about prescribing a ‘top down’ approach in a detailed manner, nor is it about a rigid plan which will describe everything the system does in the next five years. Instead, the Strategy is intended as a framework for thinking about improved tertiary education outcomes and a set of signals that will need to be interpreted in different ways in different parts of the system.
The theory of change underpinning the Strategy can be described as the following figure:  Theory of change: A framework for thinking However, there have been three areas where this approach has been less than effective.
In the interviews on use of the TES, this approach was summed up by one respondent as follows: The TES has nothing to do with community views, having been developed by the Ministry and officials, who imagined that writing a tertiary education strategy would make it happen.
TEOs have seen the implementation of the TES as largely mechanistic, through profiles and charters, rather than influencing thinking about change. This has led to two predominant responses as outlined below. 2. A framework for advocacyA general pattern of response to the TES from TEOs has been to use it as a framework for justifying and advocating their own strategy and direction. The interviews on use of the TES found that: Established organisations tend to use the TES to check that their existing policies comply, and that current requirements for funding can be justified under the TES. They look to their own strategic and other plans for the rationale for decisions.
A number of organisations which were undergoing changes found the TES particularly useful in plotting new directions, in redirecting activities and in speeding up processes of change which had been initiated under other circumstances.
Some organisations which have previously felt that their efforts were marginalised now feel that their work is recognised. Chief amongst these are the organisations offering foundation skills.
Māori and Pasifika interviewees had distinctive views. They tended to agree with other organisations about the influence of the TES via profiles and funding. However, they strongly support the TES because they see it as greatly assisting Māori and Pasifika capacity and capability building and they believe that the TES shows the direction for New Zealand’s future.
The education sector review also noted the lack of opportunity for strategic dialogue within the charters and profiles process: The view of many stakeholders was that charters and profiles have not been effective instruments for engaging with institutions or ensuring their activities were aligned with the TES and STEP. While a few TEIs [tertiary education institutions] commented that the process of developing charters and profiles had been useful for their own internal planning purposes, a frequent (and sometime quite cynical) view was that they were a costly compliance exercise. A number of stakeholders said they had expected more “push-back” from the TEC.
The review noted a number of reasons for this situation. The broad nature of the TES and STEP made it difficult for the TEC to assess strategic relevance of provision. Also the short timeframes for the first round of charters and profiles limited opportunities for discussion and coincided with the development of the TEC itself as a new organisation. The approach to the Strategy as a way of advocating existing directions is the following figure.  Theory of change: A framework for advocacy This response provides the appearance of the TES driving decisions. However, in many cases decisions about priorities are made by TEOs independent of the TES and are then fitted to the framework. This raises a question about whether it is the TES priorities or the TEO priorities that are being achieved. 3. A framework through fundingHowever, the main way in which TEOs view government-driven change to come about is through the funding mechanisms. The report on the interviews on use noted that “the underlying change logic was recognised by most interviewees as using funding to influence decision making”. The interviewees saw funding as a strong driver of their behaviour: Interviewees overwhelmingly stated that the primary driver of change was through the funding mechanism — that their organisations were instrumentally driven and would react to whatever signals increases and decreases in the funding sent.
The analysis of profiles found that the areas with greater increase in change-focus from the 2005/07 to the 2006/08 profiles were all related to actual or proposed changes in funding. For example, the area of greatest shift was in developing quality research programmes, which coincided with preparation for the second round of the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF). The research on stakeholder engagement also found a link between adequate funding and successful engagement. Comments were also made that perverse incentives in the funding system could present a barrier to successful and relevant engagement. Companies that supplied students and funding were clearly sought after by institutions and here channels of communication were regular and successful.
Some [organisations] thought that the barriers are something to do with funding. As one participant said, “when you go to TEPs for something, they also speak of which pool of funding will this be funded from?”
Another issue that was raised a number of times was education funding. The feeling was that while the ITO brokered or provided a large number of useful and relevant courses, it was funded poorly, while the tertiary sector, which was seen as unresponsive to the needs of the industry, had its courses funded at double the rate through the Student Component Fund.
The funding-based approach to the Strategy is set out in the following figure.  Theory of change: A framework through funding The issue with this approach is that there was no clear and consistent link between the TES and the funding system. In some cases, for example, the PBRF, funding changes did reinforce the TES. On other cases, funding opportunities ran contrary to the intent of the TES. For example, some institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) and wānanga took advantage of open-ended student funding to expand provision in areas the government considers to be of low relevance. In some cases this was done to subsidise financial short falls in areas of core provision. Page last modified on 26 November 2006, at 06:29 PM |
Inform:
Contribute:Participate:$CopyrightPolicy
 |