1

Submission of the Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o

Aotearoa – Lincoln University branch

To Dr. Andrew West, Vice Chancellor, Lincoln University

On the

“Proposal for Qualification Reform”

26th February 2013

For further information please contact:

Stuart Larsen

TEU branch president

Email: stuart.larsen@lincoln.ac.nz

Mobile: 027 434 9533

Cindy Doull

TEU organiser

Email: cindy.doull@teu.ac.nz

Mobile: 021 655 322

2

Lincoln University Proposal for Qualifications Reform

A. INTRODUCTION

On Tuesday 29th

January 2013, the TEU organiser at Lincoln University and the TEU branch

president received a copy of a proposal for a major qualifications reform from Julie

Williamson, Human Resources Manager.

TEU members at Lincoln University branch have a number of concerns about the proposal

itself which will be expanded upon later in this submission. Members (and the national

union) are also extremely concerned about the haste in which this proposal has been drafted,

the lack of detail for much of the changes proposed, and the lack of transparency with regard

to consultation with stakeholders (including the provision of a very different “headline”

document to some stakeholders which bears little relation to the proposal).

Alongside these concerns, TEU members, staff and students have been faced with an

unreasonable deadline for submissions and a confusing parallel process whereby the detail

missing in the proposal is being worked on during the consultation phase, with no indication

how this information is to be fed in. To add to the stress on staff attempting to provide a

considered response to the proposal, requests for further information from the national union

have been provided in an ad hoc manner. Enormous volumes of material were eventually

forwarded which was then somehow meant to be analysed, critiqued and integrated into this

submission in a very short timeframe.

Our concerns about the process and timing of this review and the difficulties that have arisen

in regard to the provision of information are further elaborated on below.

B. RECOMMENDATION FROM TEU MEMBERS AT LINCOLN UNIVERSITY

For the following reasons, TEU members at Lincoln University recommend and urge the

university to cease work on the Proposal for Qualification Reform:

a. The lack of a strategic plan to guide and inform any future changes at the university.

b. Concerns about the extent of engagement with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.

c. The extremely short timeframe for consultation with staff and stakeholders.

d. The lack of detail (including crucial financial analysis) in the proposal and the

difficulty in obtaining full information to inform the submission process.

e. Lack of agreement on the overall model for qualification reform.

3

C. SPECIFIC ISSUES REGARDING THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

TIMING

The Tertiary Education Union has made its concerns known to senior university managers

with regard to the timing of both the initiation of this review, and the amount of time

provided for submissions to be prepared.

It seems that the university has been preparing this proposal for a considerable period of time.

The version provided to the TEU for comment was numbered Version 5, suggesting that the

preparation of this proposal had passed through a number of people for feedback by late

January. Further, despite reassurances that the consultation process was simply addressing a

“concept”, the consultation document sets out in detail a proposal that is well enough

developed for the university to believe it will be ready for the 1st May Committee on

University Academic Programmes (CUAP) meeting.

Initiating consultation over such a radical proposal at one of the busiest times of the academic

year means that that staff have not had adequate time to make considered submissions to the

proposal. The fact that no staff knew about the proposal prior to the end of January

demonstrates a lack of transparency on the part of the Executive Leadership Team and means

that the ELT’s thinking about the proposal, or indeed any alternatives, is so compromised that

it renders the consultation meaningless.

Added to this are concerns about the extent to which the university can claim that it has

obtained genuine and meaningful input from students (most of whom have not been at

Lincoln University for the bulk of the consultation period). We are also concerned that the

information provided to key stakeholders is extremely limited, and therefore calls into

question the extent that these stakeholders can provide informed feedback to the proposal.

In our view, meaningful input from staff, students and the community is so compromised by

the inadequacy of the consultation process that the university cannot possibly have a mandate

to continue with this proposal in the timeframe it has indicated. We are aware that overseas

universities who have successfully implemented radical qualification reforms have carried

out the consultation and implementation process over much longer timeframes. Generally

these universities have taken a minimum of two years and anything up to six years to research

and implement the changes. For example, the University of Aberdeen took six years from

developing the framework to implementation.

The timeline outlined in the proposal also notes that the Senior Management Group (SMG)

will review feedback from submitters and make decisions about the next steps for the

proposal by the end of February (i.e. 28th

February). How can SMG, with any due care,

consider feedback from submitters in two days, especially given the vice chancellor is off

campus until 1st March?

The timeline also notes that draft proposals and regulations are to be prepared for a possible

Academic Board meeting at the end of February. Again, how will this be achieved with the

required care in this timeframe?

With regard to submitting new programmes for approval at the 1st May CUAP meeting, the

TEU does not believe that there will be sufficient time for adequate detail to be obtained and

for further consultation around the detail of the proposed programmes to occur. We believe

4

that it is unrealistic, unprofessional and academically unsound to progress with this proposal

to CUAP with such indecent haste. It is also incumbent upon the university to ensure that the

proposed new programmes do not compromise its future reputation in the education and

research community and amongst its stakeholders.

If this proposal and the implementation timeframes the university has insisted upon (the 2014

academic year) remain, we believe that the disruption to teaching and learning and the impact

of the change process will have a serious and negative effect on the academic reputation of

Lincoln University.

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

As stated in a letter from Nanette Cormack, Deputy National Secretary of the TEU to Vice-

Chancellor Andrew West, dated 19th

February 2013, the TEU was forced to make numerous

requests for information cited by the university as informing the Proposal for Qualification

Reform. The TEU wrote on 4th

February, 8th

February, 12th

February and 19th

February

seeking compliance with our requests for information. At the time of preparing this

submission we still do not have all of the information that the university has relied on to

inform this proposal. The material that has been provided was received just over a week

before submissions closed and was so voluminous that it was impossible to thoroughly

review and analyse in the timeframe set by the university.

A further compounding problem has been the simultaneous detailed work taking place in

various faculty meetings, work-streams and steering groups. There has been no indication

from the university regarding how this additional information will be disseminated to

stakeholders and staff so that this can be included in submissions on the proposal.

OBLIGATIONS IN REGARD TO TE TIRITI O WAITANGI

Lincoln University’s Investment Plan 2011-2013 notes on page 11 that it has begun the

process to “outline the parameters for a unique form of partnership between an iwi and a

university”:

Developments to better align Lincoln University’s academic and research capability

with the social, cultural, environmental and commercial needs and aspirations of the

tribe...

And

Working together to address the more fundamental and intergenerational issues

around a treaty partnership between an iwi and a university, and to consider ways to

give effect to treaty partnership “’in practice’.

These are commendable developments. However the content of the Proposal for

Qualification Reform gives little indication of that partnership in practice.

We understand that the AVC Communities has begun work on the Māori strategy for Lincoln

University, which will include Ngāi Tahu (as mana whenua) and other iwi, with a first draft

to be presented in March and June being the date to begin implementation. Our

5

understanding is that the AVC Communities will also be completing the indigenous peoples’

strategy, with a first draft ready in October, and aiming for 2014 implementation.

However at this stage in the consultation on the Proposal for Qualification Reform, we are

left wondering the extent to which Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu has been explicitly involved in

shaping this document, and in what ways the proposal aligns to their education, economic

social and cultural development goals? The consultation proposal makes no mention of

engagement with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (either with the iwi body or through the council

representative) or how the changes proposed align with Ngāi Tahu education priorities and

development aspirations. Given that Ngāi Tahu has mana whenua status and Lincoln

University is a participant in Te Tapuae o Rehua, we would expect the draft proposal to be

very explicit about when and how such engagement has or will take place.

We understand meetings have taken place with Ngāi Tahu Group Holdings and with the

Chief Executive of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (verbal account from meeting with Dr. West

22nd

February 2013) about the proposed new direction for Lincoln University. What is not

clear to us is the level of information provided at these meetings and what discussions have

taken place to ensure that Ngāi Tahu goals and aspirations have been integrated into this

proposal.

ENGAGEMENT WITH MĀORI STAFF AT LINCOLN UNIVERSITY

Whilst some engagement with some Māori staff has taken place, given the magnitude of the

changes proposed, we would expect that regular hui with all Māori staff (academic and

general) be scheduled throughout this process, to give updates and to receive feedback.

SUPPORTING ALL STAFF THROUGH THIS PROCESS

The proposals contained in the draft document outline extensive changes for Lincoln

University. Reviews of this magnitude are inevitably stressful and can be divisive. TEU

members request that careful thought is given to supporting staff, and in particular how staff

unity can be maintained.

6

D. FEEDBACK ON THE PROPOSAL FOR QUALIFICATIONS REFORM DOCUMENT

(29TH

JANUARY 2013)

The Proposal for Qualification Reform sets a new direction for Lincoln University, a

direction that appears to be based on unproven assumptions about student satisfaction with

the university’s current programme and qualification structure, poorly-evidenced statements

about future industry requirements and an incorrect interpretation of recommendations from

the Minister for Tertiary Education in response to the University’s Business Case Proposal.

Importantly, with regard to the Minister’s response to the business case, the TEU has seen no

evidence of a request from government for Lincoln University to deal with the various

challenges it faces with the level of urgency outlined in the Proposal for Qualifications

Reform. This can only lead us to wonder what other agendas might be at play.

Additionally while we may understand the need to achieve financial sustainability we are not

aware of the issues around organisational sustainability. Surely the recent review and

appointment of the Executive Leadership Team would provide organisational sustainability?

Question: Please specify what the organisational sustainability issues are?

THE FOUR DRIVERS FOR CHANGE

The proposal notes four main ‘drivers’ for the changes outlined – strategic, academic,

financial and political:

The strategic driver: It is difficult for us to accept strategic arguments for change, given that

the university does not have a current strategic plan. We note from the Vice Chancellors

update of 30/01/2013 the following:

From the VC: 30/1/2013 http://hub.lincoln.ac.nz/news/Pages/2013-Business-Plan.aspx

You may have noticed the missing element in all of this; Lincoln University’s

Strategic Plan. Developing the 2013 Business Plan didn’t need a lot of articulated

strategy – we are in a crisis and we have to get out of it within the context of our land-

based Mission. I shall personally craft up the first draft of the Strategic Plan by April

to take to Council’s Planning and Marketing Committee.

We note from the Business Plan 2013 that the intention is to have the Strategic Plan

completed by August. Perhaps this is information that should be shared with Professor

Matear who believes that there is a clear strategic direction:

“We have a new vice-chancellor. We have a clear strategic direction. We have to

make sure our qualifications portfolio falls in behind that direction."

Question: Is it intended that staff will be involved in developing the strategic direction of the

university? How can the Proposal for Qualification Reform fit within the strategic direction

when Lincoln University does not have a strategic plan?

7

The academic driver: The Proposal for Qualification Reform notes in regard to the current

qualifications portfolio:

Indicates a need to work on the extent to which existing graduate attributes reflect the

current and future priorities for the university. Academically, the qualifications

portfolio should be straightforward and simple for students (and their parents and

other advisors) to understand; and a qualification from Lincoln should prepare

graduates well for a range of career options, initially in their chosen area and then

over a lifetime of career and personal development.

Much has been said or made of the difficulty and complex nature in understanding the current

qualification portfolio, yet no evidence, other than very anecdotal feedback, has been

provided that supports this argument.

In fact, when the data from the Open-Ended Questions appendix of the Lincoln University

2011 Undergraduate and Post Graduate Student Satisfaction Surveys is analysed, numerous

responses referred to the ‘best aspects’ of the experience at the university being small classes,

staff accessibility, a wide variety of programme choices, a high level of flexibility in the

structure of programmes, the practical components of courses as they are currently structured,

and strong linkages to industry. The move to a smaller number of degrees with core courses

across programmes seems to be at odds with what students are saying they value. We believe

that implementing the proposal is likely to have a detrimental effect on student enrolments,

with the risk that students see programmes as being less directly relevant to their career

aspirations.

Question: Where do the complications in the current qualification structure lie? How will

graduates reflect future priorities when Lincoln University itself is not clear on them?

The financial driver: No evidence has been provided that the current qualifications portfolio

is an impediment to achieving greater returns from marketing and recruitment efforts.

Question: What analysis has been undertaken on the success of various marketing

campaigns? What are the impediments that have been identified?

Despite requesting the risk analysis, cost benefit analysis and due diligence information for

this proposal, no financial information has been provided. We remain extremely concerned

that the proposal is accelerating at a fast pace, and it appears that this crucial piece of

financial work may not have been done.

Question: What are the projected costs of reducing from 14 to three undergraduate degrees in

regard to:

a. Potential reduction in staffing levels – redundancy - redeployment costing;

b. Completion of existing degrees;

c. Re-marketing and re-branding;

d. Establishing a significantly larger practical work office;

e. Development of indigenous studies;

f. Expansion of space to provide for large group classes;

g. Resources to support the development of new courses and course materials?

8

Additionally, the proposal talks about economic savings. These are not quantified, either in

terms of what the university needs to reduce operating expenditure by or the anticipated

reduction from this proposal. If economic savings are possible, it is likely to take a number

of years before there are any financial gains to be made from this proposal.

Question: On what basis does the university assume that the new programme will be cost

effective to deliver?

We request with some urgency an update on the 2012 end of year financial returns.

Question: What is meant by the detailed work to establish a course- cost model will be

undertaken by Deloitte’s and will develop a framework for future course-cost decisions?

When is this work to take place?

The political driver: We have received a copy of a letter from the Vice Chancellor to Hon.

Steven Joyce, dated 26th

September 2012 re: Lincoln University Programme Business Case.

In that letter the VC notes that:

Lincoln University’s wishes to strengthen its position as New Zealand’s only

specialist, land based University. This will be achieved by securing an injection of

capital for the physical rebuild requirements and seeking endorsement to deliver

quality education to a greater volume of degree and vocational level students in order

to earn our way out of the current impacts of the 2010.2011 seismic activities…. And

that Lincoln University accepts that to achieve this optimal position, the university

also needs to deepen its relationships with the land-based industries, the relevant

Primary Industry Crown Research Institutes and Iwi Māori. Additionally, the

university proposes to help establish an Agri-Technology Innovation Park in the

Lincoln precinct.

The letter goes onto state that

..the university is confident that the requested investment (detailed in the Programme

Business Case) will provide the country with an increased volume of land based

graduates….

The Hon Steven Joyce wrote to Tom Lambie - Chancellor on 28th

November 2012, advising

the result of Cabinet’s discussion of the Programme Business Case. In that letter the Minister

states:

That your immediate priority is to grow your student numbers and I can advise that

TEC has indicated support for growth in degree-level SAC funding at the Lincoln

campus as set out in your Programme Business Case, subject to student demand and

educational performance.

Hon Steven Joyce also stated:

…that a key enabler for growing student numbers, and potentially reducing your

costs, will be to progress the work underway to develop a world class education-

research –technology transfer hub at Lincoln…..

9

In the letter of 28th

November 2012, the Minister indicates that there is still work needed to

elaborate the hub concept and how it will function, further noting that:

…the original timeframe of mid-January 2013 for completion of your Project

Business Case appears unrealistic.

The letter concludes that:

…in the short term I think your efforts would be better directed towards

demonstrating the long term viability of the university. My understanding is that the

work underway to develop a Lincoln hub has the potential to lead to lower costs and

stronger educational outcomes.

Given that we have requested a copy of the letter from the Hon Steven Joyce to the Vice

Chancellor regarding the university’s requirements to return to financial and organisational

sustainability, we have assumed that the letters provided fulfil that request. There is nothing

in the letter from the Minister that requires the university to demonstrate that it is prepared to

address pre-earthquake weaknesses in student numbers and costs in order to present a strong

case for investment. The letter states that the priority is to grow student numbers, to progress

the Programme Business Case, and for the university to take the necessary time to do so.

Question: How will the Proposal for Qualification Reform meet the priorities noted by the

Minister? What are the added cost implications for Lincoln University in the development of

the Lincoln Hub?

It is obvious from Hon Steven Joyce’s letter that time should be taken to prepare a realistic

Programme Business Case. It is equally important that time should be made to prepare a

realistic considered response to the Proposal for Qualification Reform.

FEEDBACK AND INPUT FROM STAFF

We note that the process requires two sets of contribution from staff. We have encouraged

members to provide feedback on any or all aspects of the proposal.

We are however very concerned at the level of detail required in the second request for input

in examining the options in more depth, especially 4 (b).

This detailed contribution would include examining graduate profiles, programme

regulations and curricula and making recommendations on these aspects. That work-

streams are proposed to examine these and other programme design implications of

the proposal. The work-streams would be co-ordinated by a steering group.

It is evident from the work being undertaken by the work-streams and steering groups that in

depth feedback is at a far more advanced state than has been suggested by the proposal and

that these work-streams are developing the new degrees. That this work is happening in

tandem with consultation on the Proposal for Qualification Reform makes a farce of the

process. It is difficult for us to believe that the university has any genuine desire to consult in

a meaningful manner with its employees.

10

THE PROPOSED TIMELINE AND CUAP

The timeline provides a further round of consultation for July – August, on the assumption

that CUAP will have made a decision based on final Council and Academic Board approvals.

This consultation process will work through the detailed implementation plan. This will be

the practical aspects of making the changes work and will not provide an opportunity to

change the degrees offered.

As we noted earlier in this submission, the TEU has serious concerns about a proposal being

released for consultation and at the same time, much of the detail of the proposal being

developed, with no mechanism for submitters to evaluate this additional information. As we

also noted, the consultation is farcical when every appearance is given that the model will

proceed regardless of the concerns expressed by staff. It is a strange process indeed, when

staff are being asked to work on details of the proposal before there is agreement that it is the

right model for Lincoln University.

In relation to the very compressed timeline to meet CUAP deadlines, the TEU does not

believe that there has been sufficient time for the level of analysis required to develop a new

degree structure, to deliver a full and coherent proposal to CUAP (who expect detailed

analysis to justify proposals for new programmes or qualifications), and for further

consultation around the detail of the proposed programmes to occur. We are concerned that it

will be difficult for the university to meet expectations in regard to its obligations for

Academic Board compliance and CUAP regulations/compliance, and that this exposes the

university to risk of failure, and to damage of its reputation, and may call into question the

academic quality of the programmes being offered.

The Lincoln University Academic Board is responsible for maintaining an oversight of

academic programmes and advises the Council on academic matters.

Question: How will Academic Board and Council be able to give the necessary level of

scrutiny to all proposed course and programme changes and introductions in a period of 17

working days (i.e. the period 27th

March to 23rd

April – including days lost for the Easter

holiday)?

The CUAP Functions and Procedures Manual notes that:

Most universities have established formats for presentation of proposals for changes

to academic offerings, from the introduction of new qualifications to the amendment

of the wording of individual paper prescriptions.

Where new qualifications or programmes are involved, typically the originators are

required to describe each component of the proposed new offering in considerable

detail, to specify contact hours and modes of assessment, to provide drafts of

regulations and any other Calendar entries, to identify who will teach any new

material, and to estimate needs for additional resources.

That documentation is then sent to representatives of the teaching staff of the division

for wider debate on the merits of the proposal. Page 3

11

Question: Within the timeframes that Lincoln University has outlined in the proposal

document, when will detailed information about programme changes be made available to

staff, so that this can be properly considered?

The CUAP manual also notes:

Acceptability

Evidence of consultation in the preparation of the proposal and acceptability to

relevant academic, industrial, professional and other communities. If there is a

professional registration or licensing body relevant to this area of study, it must be

named and written evidence from that body of the university’s consultation with it

provided. Page 20

Given the extent of the changes proposed, we urge Council and senior management to take

particular regard of this guidance from CUAP. TEU members are not opposed to change at

Lincoln University. However the extent of change indicated by this proposal and the speed at

which the university intends to progress it, raise serious concerns for members. There is

insufficient time at this crucial stage of the process to adequately evaluate the proposals, and

a lack of detail in key areas (For example, what will constitute the ‘common, core papers’ and

how will these be decided? What constitutes practicum and how will this be resourced?).

MARKET AND CONCEPT TESTING

Market testing: Page 10 of the draft proposal notes that market testing will take place in

February.

Question: How will market testing be undertaken and who will be responsible for it? How

will the information then be circulated to allow submitters to assess it and incorporate the

results into their final submissions?

Concept testing: As we noted earlier in this submission, there is an inherent difficulty in

asking for feedback on a ‘concept’ at the same time as asking for detailed contributions on

this ‘concept’.

12

E. DETAILED RESPONSE TO PROPOSED MODEL 4(B)

PRACTICUM ISSUES

Lincoln has had a proud history of offering hands-on learning which in some cases involves

practical work at an outside organisation. However, this has mostly been summer work (not

credited or assessed as a paper) or short field trips/tours within a course. A few years ago

there was a trial of more formally assessed placements (Work Integrated Learning) but this

was not a great success (academically or financially). While work experience can be a useful

adjunct to coursework, the proposal for every student in a degree to complete a practicum is

problematic.

Questions

1. How will the university guarantee that the large numbers doing practicums at the one

time will be able to find placements? (It is unlikely that small companies or even the

Crown Research Institutes will be prepared to take on large numbers of students at the

same time).

2. With potentially large and reoccurring numbers, it is likely that external partners will

expect payment for handling practicums. What has the university budgeted for this

and how will it be funded? What supervision and reporting requirements will be

expected of the organisations taking on practicums?

3. How will the university deal with a student who fails a core course before the practicum?

How will a student be able to make up the course in time to start their practicum? What

other options will be available to a student who has not passed the requisite courses before

the practicum?

4. How will the university ensure that academically weak students do not end up

embarrassing Lincoln while on their practicum (and potentially causing external

partners to stop taking more students)?

5. Other institutions with a “practicum-like” component (e.g. Waterloo’s sandwich

degrees) operate with a generous staff/student ratio to ensure the success of the

placements. How much has the university budgeted to run practicums (in terms of

academic and support staff)? Where will the required funding come from, especially

if additional staff are required?

6. The model shows the practicum in semester two of the second year. How will the

university deal with the “lop sided” distribution of work throughout the year (e.g. on

teaching staff, staff administrating the practicums, halls of residences, etc.)?

7. If the practicum is in semester two (mostly during winter), how will this impact on

students who must undertake farm or other seasonal activity that does not occur at this

time of the year?

8. The model shows that students will not have taken any 300 level courses before their

practicum. How will the university ensure that students will be sufficiently prepared in

their specialist areas to be able to fully participate in their practicum?

13

9. It is likely that some students will need to travel or live elsewhere for their practicum.

How will the university mitigate the additional costs and effort that students may have

to undertake, especially international students?

10. What impact will the practicum have on the existing use of field trips and tours?

11. A 60 credit practicum is the equivalent of four undergraduate courses. What learning

objectives are envisaged that would justify this level of credit for the practicum?

12. As the practicum will be worth 60 credits, rigorous assessment will be essential.

What assessment requirements are envisioned for the practicum? What role will the

external organisation play in assessment? How will the university guarantee

assessment comparability between different disciplines, supervisors and external

organisations?

ACADEMIC QUALITY ISSUES

Replacing (most) of the existing qualifications with a completely new set is a daunting task,

especially at the pace required in the proposed timetable. An important consideration is how

discontinuing many of the current Lincoln University degrees and majors could impact on the

quality of our academic offerings and on research activities (including postgraduate

teaching).

Questions

1. How will the university guarantee that the new qualifications will be “academically

rigorous” and “fit for purpose” given the very tight timelines? How will the university

guarantee that the Faculty Teaching Committee, Academic Programme Committee,

Academic Board, etc. have enough time to make considered appraisals of the overall

concepts and detailed regulations? What will happen to the proposals if the milestones

cannot be met or if CUAP (or other considerations) require major reworking?

2. Staff have already put in a huge amount of time for just the consultation phase for the

proposal and can see a massive amount of additional work ahead. How will the

university assist staff to be able to maintain their current teaching, research and

administrative commitments as well as do the necessary work on implementation of the

reform? How will the university deal with the inevitable productivity (and morale) drop

for staff activities? How will this work impact on staff aspirations through PD&As and

promotion applications?

3. It has been stated that reform will lead to some reduction in staff. How will the

university compensate for losses in research or postgraduate teaching if staffing

capability and expertise are reduced? How does the university propose to handle the

research and postgraduate teaching done in areas no longer supported by

undergraduate programmes?

4. The proposed practicum and ‘common core’ together would take up at least a year of

study which would normally be allocated to preparing for advancing study. How will

this impact on the “preparedness” of students to undertake 300 level courses? How

does the university suggest that material supplanted by the core/practicum be included

to maintain the rigour of our offerings?

14

5. Following on from the previous point, what will be the “knock-on” impact on Lincoln

graduates for preparedness for postgraduate study? Will the university need to

consider running bridging courses to get graduates up to speed for postgraduate

study?

6. Many of Lincoln University’s degree programmes are well known and understood

(and respected!) by industry. How will the university deal with any loss of industry

confidence if these degrees are phased out? What evidence does the university have

that the new degrees will find acceptance with employers?

7. The ‘common core’ courses would presumably have to be designed for students with

little background (e.g. those who did not take specific preparatory courses in high

school). How will the university ensure that the level of achievement in these courses

is at tertiary level? What will be the impact of lower level common core courses on

those pursuing further study in these areas as 200 or 300 level?

8. The AVC Academic was reported in the Press as saying that “fewer courses would be

offered, but they would be more in-depth and intense than those already available”.

Please explain how this is possible, given that the common core (and practicum)

means that students will likely do fewer degree specific courses as part of their study?

9. There would need to be new graduate profiles for the new degrees. How will the

university devise these profiles and when will this occur in the design process? What

impact will the changes have on the graduate profiles for existing degrees to be

retained?

10. The proposed changes to core (university, degree, major) imply a substantial change

to prerequisites for higher level courses. How will prerequisites be determined for the

courses in the new degrees? How will the university guarantee academic rigour in the

progression through a course hierarchy?

INDIGENOUS MAJORS

Māori TEU members have concerns about the lack of detail in the consultation document

regarding the indigenous majors concept, and the potential for this new qualification pathway

to shift focus away from work being done to support Māori students and Māori development.

We would support an approach that sees much greater integration of Māori dimensions of

knowledge across all programmes, as part of a comprehensive, university-wide strategy for

Māori development. This needs to happen regardless of whether this current proposal or

another model is implemented. However in regards to the indigenous majors concept

because there is so little detail, it is difficult to assess the possible merits of such an approach.

Of particular concern is the absence of reference to Māori in the indigenous majors concept.

Does this indicate that a seperate strategy for Māori aspirations and development will sit

alongside the indigenous majors concept? Or will Māori dimensions of knowledge be

subsumed into this new stream?

Improving Māori learner outcomes is a university-wide responsibility and does not simply

rest with Māori staff. Additionally, the development of knowledge and understanding of

15

Māori world views and iwi/Māori development aspirations is a vital element of the learning

experience for all students. The introduction of a model such as the proposed indigenous

majors, whilst potentially positive, in many respects seems premature. This is because in our

view, critical elements of an overarching framework for Māori development such as the

integration of Māori dimensions of knowledge and the development of tangible relationships

with mana whenua and Māori organisations across all programmes within the university are

at an embryonic stage. It is this level of institutional committment that we see as being vital

to the success of Māori learners, and should take precedence over the indigenous majors

concept.

We hope that the development work being undertaken by the AVC Communities will address

these concerns, however as we noted earlier in the submission, it is difficult to understand

how this work will link with the Proposal for Qualifications Reform as little mention has

been made in the consultation document.

Other TEU members are also concerned about the overall lack of detail in this part of the

proposal, given that it would be a significant new direction for the university. In addition to

the specific issues noted by Māori members are the following:

Questions

1. What exactly does the university mean by “indigenous studies” and how does it relate to

current offering such as the MAST courses? Is there an intention to continue with the

MAST courses or would these be supplanted by new indigenous studies courses?

2. The enrolments of Māori and Pasifika students at Lincoln have historically been low. In

addition, relatively few domestic or international students enrol in the MAST courses

(or the previously offered degrees in Māori Planning and Development). In what ways

will the offering of indigenous studies improve enrolments by students (and is there any

evidence for this)?

3. What sort of content would be part of an indigenous studies major? How would the

Science, Commerce and Environment, Society and Design versions of the major be

different? What market research has been done to determine how attractive the

majors in indigenous studies might be?

4. There are currently few Māori/Pasifika staff at Lincoln. If offering indigenous studies

did bring in significant new enrolments, how will the university fund and fill the new

staffing positions that would be required?

16

IMPACT ON THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

The wholesale nature of the proposed reforms will vastly alter student experiences and is

likely to raise important issues for them. It is unfortunate that the tight timelines for this

consultation mean that students remain largely excluded from the process. TEU assumes

they would be concerned about several aspects of the proposal including: transition

arrangements; the on-going quality of courses and degrees; and the quality of student life at

Lincoln. Concerns TEU members have include:

Questions

1. If new degrees supplant existing ones, many students will need to complete the “old

degrees” while others may want to transfer to one of the new degrees. How will the

university facilitate these options, especially mapping of old to new courses?

2. With respect to current students who wish to complete a superseded degree, how will

the university handle offerings of the old courses, ie how long will these be retained

and what options will be available to students who fail an old course needed to

complete their degree? How will the university support those students studying the

old degrees part-time?

3. What research has the university undertaken on the preferences of high school leavers

and other potential students that support the inclusion of university-wide ‘common

cores’ which may act to restrict student course choice, particularly in the first year of

study?

4. What implications are there from the relevant Lincoln University student satisfaction

survey data (eg for the FESD common courses) about the impact of a limited

‘common core’?

5. The proposal is silent on the role of the current additional majors and minors. What is

the university’s intention in relation to these?

6. How will the university convince potential students (and their parents) that the new

degrees will lead to similar or better employment outcomes than our current degrees?

How will the university minimise the loss of “visibility” for disciplines/areas of

application that could occur with the discontinuation of any of specially named

degrees (e.g. BSRM or BTM)?

7. Similar to the above, how will the university avoid the reforms being seen as cost-

cutting or as evidence of an uncertain future for Lincoln (possibly leading to lower

enrolments)?

8. To quote from the official website: “Don't get lost in the crowd… You're not just a

number, here students come first… Our lecturers have an 'open door policy'.” How

does the university propose to maintain these qualities when the ‘common core’ and

overall reduction in offerings will result in a number of courses with very large

enrolments?

17

IMPLEMENTATION

While it proposed that the exact details for the revised qualifications (regulations, core and

course content, etc.) will be worked on throughout the year, there are some important

implementation issues that demand more immediate answers. These include how the

development will be managed; the impacts on staff, plant, equipment; and how the changes

will be carried out in a way that will ensure Lincoln a sustainable future.

Questions

1. It seems likely that some academic staff will have to shift into areas that do not reflect

their expertise. How will the university support those required to change their

teaching and research focus (e.g. will they be offered appropriate retraining)?

2. There may also be staff redundancies. How will the university handle this in a way

that will not involve drawn out negotiations (or even litigation) and without damaging

the morale of remaining staff?

3. The proposal suggests that displaced staff may be refocused on research (including

postgraduate supervision). How does the university intend to support this, e.g. to help

staff obtain public funding (which is very over-subscribed)? If the university intends

to increase post graduate numbers, what additional support (funding and otherwise)

will be provided?

4. Given the previous points, what is the university’s intention towards support staff

involved in disestablished areas? What sort of options for redeployment/retraining

will be made available?

5. Staff will need to continue teaching the old qualifications for at least another three

years (as well as meet their other responsibilities such as publication and supervision).

Given that many staff are carrying more than a full work load, how will the university

support staff to carry out the development work for the new degrees and courses?

Will additional staff be employed to assist in current teaching or planning work?

6. Some of the degrees to be retained (e.g. BAgSc, BV&O) rely on courses used in other

degrees that may be removed or heavily modified. How will the university handle

changes to key courses that are required in the retained degrees? What will the

impact be of any course changes in these degrees on graduate profiles, CUAP

approvals and industry accreditation?

7. The number of students to be accommodated within a reduced number of courses will

mean increased class sizes, especially for the proposed ‘common core’. While

‘blended learning’ provides some capacity to deal with large classes, there will be

times when the entire class cohort will need to come together. How does the

university intend to provide the physical capacity required by very large classes? Will

a new 600-800 seat lecture theatres be required or lectures be streamed into multiple

theatres? If multiple streams for large classes are used, what impact will this have on

the cost savings envisaged?

8. Following on from the above, there will still be a need for tutorial (or laboratory

sessions) as well as assessment assistance. What level and type of tutorial support

18

does the university propose for large classes? What impact will the reforms have on

the number of tutors required and will this impact on the projected cost savings?

9. In addition to staff, there is the issue of space for laboratories and tutorials. How will

the university ensure that there will be sufficient smaller rooms with appropriate

equipment available to support labs and tutorials? What will the impact of scheduling

large classes have on the room allocation and availability?

10. The proposals are predicated on increasing student numbers but the university is

already close to its government cap for domestic students, and international student

numbers have been adversely affected by the earthquake. How does the university

intend to deal with these issues? In what ways will students be “enticed” to come to

Lincoln University?

HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

The Proposal for Qualification Reform has raised some concerns for the TEU in terms of

health and safety for both staff and students.

If the proposal is approved in its current format, we will have much larger class sizes in the

core subjects and we are concerned about how this will be managed. The university currently

does not have any lecture rooms or laboratories that are capable of containing such large

classes, so we expect there will have to be duplicated lectures and laboratory classes. Even

so, it seems likely that there will be many more situations where rooms are at their capacity in

terms of safe numbers, as detailed in our building codes and fire service recommendations.

While this is not ideal even in a lecture situation, the potential for accidents and injuries is

greatly enhanced with larger groups of students in a laboratory setting. Not only does this put

students at risk, it increases the risk to staff and the university in terms of managing these

risks and/or dealing with the repercussions of increased injury rates.

Question: What plans are being considered to cope with larger groups in lecture rooms and

laboratories?

We also have very serious concerns about the practicum component of the proposal. The

preferred option in the proposal, (option 4b) is recommending that students complete 60

credits of practical assessments in the second year. With very little detail of how this will be

achieved, it can only be assumed that in some cases, this will involve putting our students

into a ‘working’ situation to earn practical credits. This raises the issue of who will be

responsible for the health and safety of that student with respect to the Health and Safety in

Employment Act 1992. In a situation where the university has entered into a contract with

another person or organisation to provide education/credits for the student, the university is

bound by the regulations specified in the Act. Both parties of the contract will have

responsibility for providing a safe working environment.

In some situations, there may be little risk, but TEU members are very concerned about how

this will impact on staff and the university if the student is placed into one of the more

hazardous environments such as agriculture. The risk factor will be increased because the

student will be placed into this environment in only their second year of study, with the first

year being very generic and not contributing significantly to the skills and knowledge that

19

will be needed in such an environment. The risk will be enhanced further if that student is an

international student with English as a second language.

Questions

1. Where will lectures for larger groups be held? Is it practical or possible to arrange the

multitude of larger classes in the 1st core year in the limited number of large lecture

theatres on campus?

2. Where will the laboratory classes for larger groups be held? Has the safety aspect for

larger classes been considered, and what will be the process for managing this risk?

Has it been considered that many more laboratory demonstrators will be needed to

manage these classes?

3. Where is Lincoln University going to place students for the practicum component and

are the “practicum employers” aware of the health and safety obligations associated

with this?

4. Has Lincoln University considered our own obligations to students and practicum

employers in terms of the HSE Act 1992?

5. Has Lincoln University considered that this places increased risk and therefore

increased responsibility on our staff in terms of managing health and safety in

laboratories and in the practicum environment?

6. Has Lincoln University considered (in the wake of two years of earthquakes and

associated problems with EQC etc.), the extent to which this proposal has added yet

another layer of stress and concern for the future of our staff, and that many of them

feel like this is “a kick in the guts when we’re already down”? Did Lincoln

University consider that it would have been far less troublesome to have specified at

the outset that this was a concept idea and that some serious and critical thinking was

required to remedy the situation the university in?

F. CONCLUSION

As we noted earlier in this submission, the Proposal for Qualification Reform appears to be

based on unproven assumptions about student satisfaction with the university’s current

programme and qualification structure, and poorly-evidenced statements about future

industry requirements.

TEU members are not opposed to change at Lincoln University. However the extent of

change indicated by this proposal and the speed at which the university intends to progress it,

raises serious concerns for members. We hold grave concerns that the proposal will not meet

the required standard for CUAP, and will expose Lincoln University and its staff to the risk

of failure, to negative impacts on current programmes, and to the university’s overall

reputation. We have seen no evidence that the Minister requires the university to act in this

way, and with such urgency. We have seen no evidence that the proposal will produce

economic savings. These assertions are not quantified, either in terms of what the university

20

needs to reduce operating expenditure by, or the anticipated reduction that will be achieved

with this proposal. If economic savings are possible, it is likely to take a number of years

before there are any financial gains to be made.

TEU members want to engage in a genuine process of consultation that ensures academic

rigour for any final qualifications structure, and that takes into account the many operational

issues that should be considered and addressed before implementation of a new model. We

therefore look forward to working with the Lincoln University Vice Chancellor and senior

management on a carefully considered, thoroughly researched and widely accepted model for

any future changes to the current qualifications structure.