PARSING DR CULLEN: FROM NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
IN TERTIARY EDUCATION TO WHERE?
Dr Jonathan Barrett, School of Business and Computer Technology,
Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology
Abstract
The effects of New Public Management (NPM) doctrines on tertiary education in
New Zealand during the 1990s have been well documented. However, the
relevant policies of centre-left government in the new millennium have been
subject to less thorough analysis. Recent proposals by Dr Cullen, Tertiary
Education Minister, for a new tertiary education model enhance opportunities for
such analysis.
This paper critically analyses the proposed ‘Cullen model’ of tertiary education in
New Zealand, specifically considering business education in the polytechnic
sector. Comparing key principles and rhetorical features of NPM with Dr Cullen’s
statements, it identifies underpinning policy information to predict practical
consequences. At a fundamental level, the Cullen model is criticised for seeking to
instrumentalise education, diminishing the autonomy of participants in tertiary
education in a way comparable to neoliberalism. It is concluded, inter alia, that
NPM’s deleterious effects on institutional autonomy make a new pervasive
bureaucracy likely. Under these conditions, excellence in teaching will continue to
be challenged by government prescriptions, whilst remaining principally dependant
on autonomous professionalism in the classroom.
1. Introduction
During the period 1984-1996, the New Zealand public sector was transformed by
neoliberal ideology and the doctrines of new public management (NPM) (see, for
example, Norman, 2003). The ideas underpinning NPM – neoliberal economics,
agency theory, transaction-cost, and managerialism (Boston et al., 1996, pp. 1728) – imposed a market model on government, requiring it to be re-imagined in
corporate terms, as an agency performing only certain minimal functions, and
those more efficiently than it had done in the past (McKinnon, 2003, p. 363).
Generally, tertiary education institutes (TEIs) were expected to become
autonomous, competitive, market-responsive, and principally funded by student
fees (see Olssen, 2002). However, the project of commercialising education,
which could have led to full student fees and still greater competition (see Ministry
of Education, 1998, for proposed reforms), was interrupted by the election of a
centre-left coalition in 1999. The Labour-led government (eventually) reassumed
some of the economic risk of education that had been shifted on to students via its
forgiveness of interest on student loans, but did not radically restructure the
system. Notably, the equivalent full-time students (EFTS) funding scheme, which
financed TEIs on the basis of the number of students they could register, was
retained. In April 2006, Dr Cullen, Tertiary Education Minister, announced plans to
restructure the tertiary education system (see Cullen, 2006a). At the time of
writing, the details of his proposed model are not clear, and, given the triennial
electoral cycle, there is no guarantee that the proposed reforms will be
effectuated. Nevertheless, this paper seeks to critically analyse the principles
underpinning the ‘Cullen model’ for tertiary education, and speculates on the
possible consequences of the proposals for institutes of technology and
polytechnics (ITPs), with particular consideration of business education.
2. The market model of tertiary education
The market model for public institutions is broadly predicated on the following
premise: by minimising government intervention, the ‘invisible hand of the market’
can efficiently allocate scarce resources in a way that best satisfies consumers’
desires. Since, the consumer is ‘sovereign’, ‘the consumer’s choice must be
accepted’ (Baker, 1979, p. 233). Students’ consumption choices – education being
conceived as a commodity to be consumed – should principally determine which
TEIs and which courses will exist and flourish. On the supply side, TEIs should be
autonomous and competitive: for example, ITPs should face competition from
private training enterprises (PTEs) – and, in turn, ITPs may compete with
universities. In terms of this model, outputs are the key measure of performance.
EFTS represents an appropriate output for measuring TEI performance, since
TEIs are funded to the extent that they meet consumer demand.
Following the report of the Advisory Group (2001), the main drivers of public
management in New Zealand have been reformulated to: focus on results;
strengthen the integration of structures and processes; and demonstrate greater
citizen and community orientation (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2003, p. 28).
These changes indicate an emphasis on outcomes rather than outputs; fostering
of co-operation, rather than competition within the public sector; and privileging
democratic participation over purely technocratic decision-making (Norman, 2003,
p. 214). These developments in public management, the ‘pushing back of the
pendulum’ (Cullen, 2006a), are reflected in Dr Cullen’s proposals, but a tectonic
ideological shift away from the market is also intended.
3. The Cullen model
3.1 Aims
The essential goal of the Cullen model lies in ‘producing the quality graduates we
need to drive economic transformation’. This goal is broadly supported. For
example, Kerr (2006), representing a doctrinaire laissez faire viewpoint, observes
that ‘It is hard to disagree with the objectives of the government’s announced
changes. We all want a tertiary education system that is of a high quality, is
flexible, and delivers skills that are relevant’. The difference between the two
ideologies lies in how the goal should be achieved.
3.2 Underpinning ideology
The Cullen model is founded on a communitarian conception of society, which is
sceptical of individuals’ independent existence (Mulhall & Swift, 1995, p. 10). It
seeks to reverse the individualist consumerism of neoliberalism. Thus, if
neoliberalism constitutes a distribution mechanism, for which a common goal is
D:\219552926.doc
2
absent (Barrett, 2006), the security state that the current government promotes is
a distributive mechanism with a particular shared goal (Foucault, 1996, p. 100).
The purpose lies in replacing the unplanned outcomes of the market with
community agreed goals; a strategy to achieve ‘broad goals that are based on
where we want our economy to develop, what social and cultural issues are
emerging, and what is important for our sense of national identity’ (Cullen, 2006b).
In theory, the community as a whole will decide which courses, and at which TEIs,
potential students ought to study in order to promote the common good, rather the
students themselves. Although Cullen (2006b) proposes ‘aiming for a better
balance between the subjective choices of students and the priorities that emerge
out of an objective analysis of where our economy and our society are heading’, it
is evident that the ‘better balance’ is one in which the student is no longer
considered the sovereign consumer. Indeed, given that ‘The needs of New
Zealand industry, in terms of a more skilled workforce with the broader
competencies that allow ongoing improvements in productivity, are a central
concern in the reform process’ (Cullen, 2006c), it seems that the balance has
radically shifted to the needs of the economy as identified by government.
4. Position of ITPs
4.1 Functions
Cullen (2006d) advises that ITPs will have three roles, specifically:
• To act as a regional facilitator;
• To provide skills for employment and productivity; and
• To provide foundation education - education rated levels 1 to 3 on the National
Qualifications Framework (Ministry of Education, 2005).
It is not obvious to what extent this represents a restatement of the status quo or a
radical change. For example, regional ITPs are already deeply embedded in their
communities and are bound by their charters to meet the needs of their particular
communities (see, for example, NMIT, 2005). Although Cullen (2006d) includes
questions and answers on what the proposals will mean for universities, wānanga,
PTEs and industry training organisations, no similar guidance is given in respect of
ITPs.
4.2 Funding
TEIs ‘will be funded on the basis of three year plans outlining how they will meet
the education and training needs of students, employers and communities’
(Cullen, 2006d). ITP managers are likely to embrace the concept of three-year
funding plans but face considerable uncertainty about funding levels (Nielsen,
2006).
4.3 Courses
Cullen (2006b) contends that one of the features of the ‘dark underbelly’ of the
market model is that ‘record numbers of graduates with middling degrees in law,
business and communication’ are being produced. Despite the likelihood that any
such surplus of graduates in certain fields is attributable to a policy of preferring
D:\219552926.doc
3
greater participation to elitist entry requirements, the statement implies a lack of
confidence in certain degrees currently being offered by ITPs. It seems unlikely
that ITPs will be denied the authority to confer degrees, but their degrees may no
longer be considered equal to a university-conferred degree. The question posed
in Cullen (2006d): “What about the idea of separating research from teaching?”
and its answer, “Officials have been asked to provide advice on what needs to
underpin high quality undergraduate degrees, offered by institutions other than
universities” indicate that it is envisaged that teachers on ITP degrees will not be
subject to similar research requirements as their peers teaching in universities.
This may indicate that a national body, such as the New Zealand Qualifications
Authority, will extend its quality assurance functions to a national bachelor of
commerce, as an extension to the New Zealand Diploma in Business. It may also
imply that ITPs will not be required or funded to conduct research. This would be
highly detrimental for regional economies.
5. Critical analysis
5.1 High road or low road
Adopting the ‘high road/low road’ model proposed by Sunter (1996), it is submitted
that the tertiary education system that could eventuate from the proposals include
a ‘high road’, which is broadly in line with Habermasian democratic discourse (see
Habermas, 1996), and a ‘low road’, which may lead to sclerotic neo-Muldoonism
(see Brash, 1996; Kerr, 2006). Under the high road scenario, government would
act as an honest broker between various interest groups (students, TEIs, local
communities, employers, as so forth), providing institutional and financial
resources to encourage what Habermas (1987) identifies as ‘communicative
action’. Each group would have a voice; interests, rights and reasonable
expectations would be respected; and consensus goals arrived at through
empathetic and rational argumentation. Consequently, students would participate
in courses of study that further consensus goals. Government would facilitate
communication amongst interested community members. Of course, it would also
be the principal source of funding; provide expert information to help decisionmaking; and ensure quality assurance.
On the low road, government would replace the student as the ‘sovereign
consumer’ whose choices must be satisfied by TEIs. In this schema, as the
principal source of funding for TEIs, government would behave as a monopsonist,
using its market power to shape the courses TEIs provide. In this regard, Cullen
(2006d) advises that TEIs ‘will not be funded’ unless certain conditions are met,
and ‘where agreement cannot be reached over the plan the TEC will have the final
say over the level of funding’. Community participation in formulating goals would
be superficial. While all those involved in tertiary education will hope that the
proposals will lead to the high road, there are reasons to be concerned that the
reforms will lead toward the low road.
D:\219552926.doc
4
5.2 The position of students
The market model for tertiary education has been subject to trenchant criticism
from pedagogical commentators. According to Brookfield (2005, p. 25) education
has become commodified, and changed from being thought of as a ‘transformative
adult learning experience’ to being viewed ‘as the pursuit of a qualification that can
be exchanged for higher salary and status’. Olssen (2002, p. 67) argues that the
market has detrimentally ‘colonised’ TEIs, and that neoliberalism ‘effects an
increase in control’, engendering docility rather than autonomy. Generally, the
market model is problematic when applied to teaching, and may lead to
‘unconscionable bargains’ being made with students, particularly international
students (Barrett, 2006). In this light, a model for tertiary education that moves
away from the market may be expected to be preferable from a pedagogical
perspective. But, whereas the market model focuses on the exchange, rather than
the use value of education (Brookfield, 2005, p. 24), the Cullen model comparably
seeks to instrumentalise tertiary education. The experience and ontological growth
inherent in education is not considered an end in itself; rather education is only
valuable when it clearly leads to an economically productive result. From a
classical pedagogical perspective, a model that conceives of education as a mere
instrument may be as equally undesirable as one that imagines education as a
commodity. Contemplating tertiary education under the conditions of
neoliberalism, Clear (2002, p. 19) observes that ‘Generating docile labour units to
participate in today’s jobs…will do little to address the broader needs of society.’
This observation may equally apply to instrumental education under the Cullen
model. In sum, whereas the role of neoliberalism in education may be
characterised as moulding students as uncritical entrepreneurs (Fitzsimons, 2002),
the Cullen model may be viewed as conceiving students as future factors of
production. And both systems may usurp the possibility of self-discovery and
growth toward autonomy that is traditionally expected of learning at a tertiary level
(see Hinchcliff, 1997, pp. 183 – 186 on the purposes of learning). For TEIs, which
will be funded in part on the basis of student success, students may become seen
as ‘cases’, analogous to subjects of health and correctional services, rather than
participants in their own development as autonomous citizens.
Many TEIs have relied on the contribution of international students to maintain
financial viability and, indeed, cultural richness. But engagement with international
students, which has been ethically fraught under the conditions of commercialised
tertiary education (Barrett, 2004), may become more problematic still under the
Cullen model. Under the market model, the essential difference between domestic
and international students was the source of funding i.e. all students could be
considered equal but some were subsidised by the New Zealand government.
Commercialised TEIs tend to be open and outward looking, consonant with an
individualist, globalised worldview. Conversely, communitarianism is inherently
inward looking and exclusionary (Waltzer, 1984, p. 200). Consequently, the
apparent absence of consideration of international students in the formulation of
the communitarian Cullen model is disturbing.
D:\219552926.doc
5
5.3 Potential for institutional resistance
While outcomes seem preferable to outputs as a subject of audit, they are difficult
to measure. Indeed, it is arguable that an outcome is simply an aggregate of
outputs requiring multiple measurements. It seems most likely that the Cullen
model will result in an expansion of the audit culture and compliance obligations.
In this regard, it is crucial to recognise that the structure of audits is not objective;
audits only measure what technical experts consider worthy of measurement
(Power & Laughlin, 1996). LaRocque (2006) notes the particular potential for
ideological bias in quality assurance under the Cullen model. Furthermore, the
structure of an audit establishes the terms for avoidance as much as it does the
grounds for compliance. If TEIs are funded, in part, on the basis of the number of
students they retain, the obvious response is to ensure that more students pass
courses by lowering standards. Of course, quality assurance will seek to ensure
this does not happen, but it is extremely difficult to prevent, say, coaching for
assessments. Generally, the forms of recalcitrance and resistance to neoliberalism
in education that Fitzsimons (2002) identifies, may apply mutatis mutandis to
instrumental education. Autonomous responsibility in institutional management
and teaching lies greatly beyond practicable audit yet is the key ingredient of
educational excellence.
6. Conclusion
It is trite that a modern tertiary education system must aspire to an efficient
allocation of scarce resources; be subject to the quality assurance performed by
trusted agencies; and meet society’s needs. Inevitably, government must play a
significant role but the characteristics of the role are ideologically determined.
Contemplating a pre-commercialised education system, Habermas (1987, p. 371)
observed, ‘a judicialization and bureaucratization that penetrates deep into the
teaching and learning process’. Theoretically, commercialisation could have
liberated tertiary education from such bureaucratic control. But, as Olssen (2002)
has shown, neoliberal influence on tertiary education has been synonymous with
conformity and docility, rather than autonomy. Conversely, it is plausible to predict
that the Cullen model may lead from NPM to NPB – a new pervasive bureaucracy.
Perhaps when a future review of tertiary education is proposed it will be informed
by the goal of fostering the autonomous responsibility of all participants, not the
commodification or instrumentalisation of education. In the meantime, as
LaRocque (2006) observes, those involved in tertiary education ‘need more
autonomy, not more form filling or centralised plans and strategies’.
D:\219552926.doc
6
References
Advisory Group. (2001). Report of the Advisory Group on the review of the Centre.
Wellington: State Services Commission.
Baker, C.E. (1979). The ideology of the economic analysis of law. In A.T. Kronman & R.A.
Posner (Eds.) The economics of contract law (pp. 233–239).
Barrett, J. (2004). Respecting human dignity, rejecting “New Orientalism”. Paper
presented at the 13th annual conference of the Australia New Zealand Education
Law Association, Wellington.
Barrett, J. (2006). Does neoliberal contractualism in tertiary education compromise
professional ethics and personal integrity? Paper presented at the conference of
the International Society for Legal Ethics, Auckland.
Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. (Eds.). (1996). Public management: the New
Zealand model. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Brash, D. (1996). New Zealand's remarkable reforms. The Fifth Hayek Memorial Lecture,
Institute of International Affairs, London, June 4, 1996. Retrieved: December 20,
2005 from
http://www.donbrash.com/Speeches/NZs_remarkable_reform.htm
Brookfield, S.D. (2005). The power of critical theory for adult learning and teaching.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Clear, T. (2002). E-learning: A vehicle for e-transformation or Trojan horse for enterprise?
International Journal on E-learning. October-December 2002.
Commonwealth Secretariat. (2003). A profile of the public service of New Zealand:
Current good practices and new developments in public service management.
London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Cullen, M. (2006a). Ensuring quality and relevance in tertiary education. Press release.
April 4, 2006.
Cullen, M. (2006b). Speech to chancellors/Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit workshop.
April 11, 2006.
Cullen, M. (2006c). Speech to UCOL Faculty of Health, Science and Technology
graduation ceremony. April 21, 2006.
Cullen, M. (2006d). Key decisions to improve tertiary performance. Press release. July 27,
2006.
Fitzsimons, P. (2002). Neoliberalism and education: the autonomous chooser. Radical
pedagogy (4) Retrieved: October 16, 2005 from
http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue4_2/04_fitzsimons.html
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.) The
Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality: with two lectures and an interview with
Michel Foucault (pp. 87–104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, volume two, lifeworld and
system: Critique of functionalist reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law
and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hinchcliff, J. (1997). Values integrating education: an exploration of learning in New
Zealand. Pukekohe: Mirilea Press.
LaRocque, N. (2006, August 9). Bums on seats approach flawed. Dominion Post, p. B7.
McKinnon, M. (2003). Treasury: the New Zealand Treasury 1840–2000. Auckland:
Auckland University Press.
Kerr, R. (2006). Tertiary education: Who knows best? OpEd 99 May 2006. Retrieved: July
31, 2006 from
http://www.educationforum.org.nz/documents/articles/issue99.pdf
Ministry of Education. (1998). A future tertiary education policy for New Zealand: Tertiary
education review green paper. Retrieved: July 31, 2006 from
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=4710&CFID=24521
58&CFTOKEN=29197376
D:\219552926.doc
7
Ministry of Education. (2005). Profiles and trends 2004: New Zealand’s tertiary education
sector. Wellington: Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis and Reporting, Ministry
of Education.
Mulhall, S., & Swift, A. (1995). Liberals and communitarians. Oxford: Blackwell.
Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT). (2005). NMIT charter and profile
2003-2006, reviewed 2005. Nelson: Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology.
Nielsen, D. (2006, August 2). Funding reforms put NMIT under pressure. Nelson Mail.
Norman, R. (2003). Obedient public servants? Management freedoms and
accountabilities in the New Zealand public sector. Wellington: Victoria University
Press.
Olssen, M. (2002). The restructuring of tertiary education in New Zealand:
Governmentality, neo-liberalism, democracy. McGill Journal of Education 37 (1),
57–87.
Power, M., & Laughlin, R. (1996). Habermas, law and accounting. Accounting
Organizations and Society 21 (5), 441–465.
Sunter, C. 1996. The high road: Where are we now? Cape Town: Tafelberg.
Waltzer, M. (1984). Welfare, membership and need. In M.J. Sandel (Ed.) Liberalism and
its critics (pp. 200–218). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
D:\219552926.doc
8