John Turner is a Senior Lecturer in Photography, at the Elam School of Fine
Arts, The University of Auckland. He is the Director and Managing Editor of
PhotoForum Inc, and is a council member of the Society for Photographic
Education in New Zealand (SPENZ).
The `Tertiary Education Review Green Paper'
Is it a sham?
Although couched in terms of "improving" the "quality" and "delivery" of
tertiary education, there is widespread suspicion among teachers that the
Coalition Government's green paper, "A Future Tertiary Education Policy for
New Zealand: Tertiary Education Review," is a sham. That Government has
already made up its mind to turn right, but needs some kind of rubber stamp
to make the decision appear to be democratic.
Inadequate response time - Why?
Why else, the sceptics say, was the Green Paper issued on 11 September 1997,
with submissions invited on the paper until 15 December? (Or for that
matter, why was the companion Green Paper on Teacher Training treated
entirely separately, and teachers given even less time to respond?) The
timing of these Green Papers alone could hardly have been worse for teachers
involved with the practicalities of the examination process. Cynics see this
as a deliberate political ploy to prevent fuller discussion of the issues
and implications of any reforms.
Is it genuine?
Based on the way earlier Health and Education reforms were carried out,
there is some justification for the argument that we are witnessing and
participating in a sham engineered by extreme Right wing thinkers to
undermine publicly funded liberal education.
The impact on educators
There is no doubt that many educators who want to have their institutions
correct their own faults, are reluctant to say so, because they fear that
any healthy, normal self-criticism will be used against their schools or
departments, rather than helping to improve them.
They do not want education to go the same way as Health through disastrous
reforms, when unsettled, potentially more successful ("profitable")
components can more easily yield to the argument that they could make more
profit if they were sold off to private business interests. This suspicion
is reinforced by the underlying tone of the Green Paper which espouses
"competition" rather than the traditional "cooperation" as the right way to go.
Comments by Roger Kerr and Hugh Fletcher
In this respect it exactly echoes the words of Roger Kerr, the Executive
Director of the Business Round Table, who was recently criticised by the
liberal business leader, Hugh Fletcher, of Fletcher Holdings, who
characterised the Business Round Table as being too extreme and out of touch
with mainstream business philosophy.
"If we are serious about upgrading our human resources," Mr Kerr said (`The
Independent", 23 May 1997) "we must expose schools and tertiary institutions
to the types of disciplines prevailing elsewhere in the economy. Above all,
we need to introduce more competition."
Then he expresses his underlying and undermining attitude to public
education: "Not only do state primary, secondary and tertiary institutions
need to compete amongst themselves much more. We must also remove the
funding discrimination against the private sector preventing private
institutions from competing on an equal basis with state institutions."
The buzz words of the new Right applied to education
In other words, "competition" and "privatisation", which along with "market
forces" and "the economy" are the buzz words of the new Right, are seen to
be the answer for education, as they were for Health. Look out for new
definitions of "quality," and "student driven" "choices" as well.
Education surely an exception to market place rules
It does not seem to enter the minds of Mr Kerr and his followers in the
Treasury, the Ministry of Education, nor our Universities and Polytechs,
that perhaps Education, like Health, might be an exception to the dog eat
dog rules of the market place. Or that our public education system, once
recognised as among the best in the world, is exhibiting signs of dumbing
down precisely because his followers in education circles have set in motion
policies and priorities that work against sound educational principles.
Or, to use a metaphor which the Minister of Education, as an ex sheep
farmer, will understand, setting the wrong dog among the sheep will surely
lead to disaster.
Liberal education must resist "commodification".
Many teachers like myself are sick of the rhetoric of the Right. While some
of their favourite strategies might work for some businesses, they
should listen to those who disagree when it comes to the fine print. But,
fundamentally, liberal education does not share the philosophy or purpose of
capitalism, and must resist commodification if it is to survive.
Education, in so far as it can work alongside any decently humane political
system, must continue the practice of constant vigilance to be, and be seen
to be, at the forefront of our liberal democratic system.
Crucial need for a good education system
Even after the traumatic circumstances of the birth of our MMP system, with
the gross private and public confusion over the paternity of the infant
Coalition, there has to be some hope that the infant will gain in health and
grow up to make us proud. MMP needs every cent of publicly funded education
to teach it wisdom and humility. For the crucial message is that people are
more important than money, and good mental health care is something not even
money can buy.
Worried teachers tried to improve NZQA standards.
Many teachers, like my colleagues in the Society for Photographic Education
in New Zealand (SPENZ), were tricked into trying to improve the dubiously
conceived and ineptly written New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA)
standards for secondary education because they are so obviously
misrepresentative of the teaching/learning process.
As I wrote for a SPENZ newsletter (June 1997), Derek Olphert, the Society's
most experienced art educationist, felt compelled to spend what amounted to
an inordinate amount of unpaid time, just responding on our behalf to "the
weird and not-so-wonderful machinations of the New Zealand Qualifications
Authority...just to counter the "excesses and folly of NZQA initiatives."
Olphert's painstaking work, based on his exhaustive knowledge of art
education in particular, and governmental politics in general, came with a
cost. It sapped most of the energy and good spirit of our Council. SPENZ got
involved in this dubious Government initiative, not because it made any
sense, educationally - because it did not - but because if we hadn't, an
even uglier monster would have been unleashed on the secondary art sector.
Teachers, parents and students must study the proposed reforms NOW.
Whether the Government's reforms are based on ignorance or a premeditated
secret agenda, one cannot tell. But each time one appears there is an urgent
need for concerned teachers, parents and students, to try to come to grips
with the explicit and implicit ramifications of any proposed reforms.
For this reason, when I can ill afford the time, I have burned the midnight
oil reading and thinking and writing about what I understand are the
fundamental principles at stake and the inherent contradictions in the
arguments that have been put forward.
I am a teacher of photography, not an accountant or economist or politician.
But I learnt from a brilliant teacher, Tom Hutchins, more than I can say,
and more than many with "higher" qualifications. I have practised primary
research to seek answers and new questions about the areas in which I am
fortunately not an expert.
To participate in this battle, I recommend that you arm yourself with a good
dictionary, a book of quotations, a thesaurus, an encyclopaedia, a book on
the fundamentals of education, accountancy, and starting a business. You
will need to bring your own history and philosophy to the task, and don't
forget to dip into the enemy's operational handbooks and read between the
lines of their public pronouncements. That said, Good Reading and a Writing
new year!
More on this topic from John Turner in part two.
