The Drivers for Widening Participation are Increasingly Economic

At the turn of the century the drivers for widening participation were social, cultural, and democratic as well as economic. The TEAC reports (2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c) highlight reducing inequality and educational disparities, transmitting culture, increasing social capital and social cohesion, democratic values, citizenship, and participation in society more than the needs of the labour market and supporting business and industry. The first Tertiary education strategies (Ministry of Education, 2002, p. 2007) retained objectives related to equitable access, active citizenship, social well-being, and broad participation in lifelong learning while signalling closer alignment with national goals and business, and being more relevant to the needs of the labour market, for example through the development of skills for the workforce and the achievement of advanced trades qualifications. In the third strategy (Ministry of Education, 2010), while the priorities are similar, there is no reference to equality, equity, disparity, or citizenship although there is one reference to social mobility and general well being. In many instances the economic benefits are stated before the social. For example, in the section on tertiary education’s contribution to New Zealand, improved chances of employment and higher earnings are stated before better general well-being and health, greater social mobility, its role in democracy and the transmission of culture (p. 24). In the fourth strategy (New Zealand Government, 2014b) widening participation is quite explicitly driven by economic goals. Indeed this focus was strengthened from the draft to the final version. For example, one statement was changed from “addressing changing skill needs” (New Zealand Government, 2014a, p. 7) to “addressing changing skill needs so that the skills gained in tertiary education link to employment opportunities in the labour market” (New Zealand Government, 2014b, p. 6). However, alongside economic outcomes environmental and social outcomes are explicit in the final version and, in places, the emphasis on the economic has been softened. A new diagram illustrates both the dominance of the economic and the recognition of environmental and social outcomes (p. 7). In the draft the text focuses only on economic outcomes (2014a); in the final version environmental and social outcomes are included (2014b). Nevertheless, economic drivers are still dominant.

The Major Focus of Widening Participation has been Ethnicity

Since 2000 tertiary education policies have identified a variety of groups to be targeted for increased participation. The TEAC reports identified Māori and Pacific peoples particularly, but also educationally disadvantaged learners, people with disabilities or low literacy levels, ESOL and new migrant learners (2001b). A key goal was to reduce disparity of achievement between ethnic groups (2001a). The focus on ethnicity is driven by the recognition that Māori, Pacific and Asian people’s contribution to New Zealand’s economic and social success will become critical as their numbers rise. These reports acknowledged that socio-economic factors were a barrier to Māori and Pacific peoples’ participation—one of the few references to socio-economic status.

The first tertiary strategy document (Ministry of Education, 2002) also recognized that Māori and Pacific peoples would become the predominant ethnic groups in New Zealand. Consequently two of the six strategies focus on building the capability, skills, development, and success of Māori and Pacific peoples. This strategy also introduces three goals for Māori educational advancement that have been influential: to live as Māori, actively participate as citizens of the world, and enjoy a high standard of living and good health” (p. 30). Māori and Pacific peoples are also identified as priority learner groups in the foundation skills strategy, along with disabled peoples, refugees and “those disadvantaged in the labour market” (2002, p. 38). No reference is made to socio-economic status or factors. This changes slightly in the 2007–2012 strategy (Ministry of Education, 2007) where it is stated that organizations need to address disparities that exist for: “Māori; Pasifika peoples; people with disabilities; migrants and refugees; students from lower socio-economic backgrounds; and people needing to upskill in order to re-enter the workforce” (p. 21). The focus of this strategy shifts to the educational organizations and the distinctive contribution made by each part of the sector. As a result, the emphasis on Māori and Pacific Peoples is lessened—although still evident.

By 2010 priority groups were being explicitly “targeted” for increased participation: young people under 25; Māori; Pasifika; young people moving from school into tertiary; literacy, language, and numeracy outcomes at levels one to three. Refugees, migrants, people with disabilities or from low socio-economic backgrounds are not targeted. Interestingly the vision for tertiary education includes “enable Māori to enjoy education success as Māori” (MoE, 2010, p. 6) which has some echoes from the 2002–2007 strategy. There is no reference to socio-economic background. In the 2014–2019 strategy (New Zealand Government, 2014a, 2014b) the importance of Māori and Pasifika to the future of New Zealand is again recognized. Boosting achievement of Māori and Pasifika is one of six strategic priorities, the target being success on a par with other students. There are some notable changes from the draft to the final version of the 2014–2019 strategy. In the draft document there is no reference to specific groups other than Māori and Pasifika; the final version identifies Māori and Pasifika as “two key groups” and includes “the achievement of particular groups such as learners from low socio-economic backgrounds, people with disabilities, and refugee and migrant learners” (2014b, p. 12). Despite the reference to these groups, the focus remains on Māori and Pasifika participation.

There has been a Shift from Increasing Participation to Increasing Achievement

While the agenda internationally seems to have focused on increasing and widening participation (Leach, 2013), in New Zealand there has been a growing emphasis on achievement. While TEAC policies promoted the broadening and deepening of participation, achievement, completion, and progression for underrepresented groups (TEAC, 2001b), the emphasis was on “equitable and affordable access to tertiary education” (TEAC, 2000, p. 12), “reducing the current disparities between ethnic groups” (TEAC, 2001a, p. 16) and overcoming educational disadvantage. The intent was both social and economic enhancement, including the development of “actively participating citizens” (TEAC, 2001b, p. 33) and “reducing inequality” (TEAC, 2000, p. 6). Broad-based participation and affordable access continued into the first two tertiary education strategies (Ministry of Education, 2002, 2007). However, by 2007 a focus on increased achievement is also evident—higher level qualifications by age 25, increased literacy and numeracy levels, more students achieving advanced trade qualifications, Māori and Pasifika achievement and progression.

In the third strategy (Ministry of Education, 2010) there is more focus on students’ achievement and success, fewer references to access and none to equality or equity. Completion rates are introduced as a form of achievement, and performance-based funding was announced: a proportion of institutions’ funding would be based on students’ course completion, retention, qualification completion, and progression (TEC, 2010). Further evidence of the shift away from access to achievement is the statement of Chief Executive of the TEC: “Now we want good performance and good results in the tertiary sector, rather than increasing access to it” (Sharp, cited by Peters, 2010, p. 1). By 2014 the emphasis is on economic outcomes, participation in the labour market, skills for industry and careers. Equality, equity, and citizenship goals are absent. While access is mentioned, it sometimes refers to business needs for access to skilled employees. For learners, access concerns “relevant qualifications that will support them into sustainable employment” (NZ Government, 2014a, p. 11), a narrower view of access than at the turn of the century. On the other hand, achievement, particularly for Māori and Pasifika, is frequently mentioned, signalling a policy shift from access to achievement.

Some Policies Imply a Deficit Ideology

The TEAC reports (2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c) adopt access, equity, and citizenship as aspirations for tertiary education. The tertiary system has multiple functions, for example: enabling individuals to achieve their potential—intellectually, in the labour market, in their contribution to society, and personally; building an inclusive, democratic society; and reducing social and ethnic inequalities (2000, p. 4). Every person is valued as having “a contribution to make and a right to participate” (2000, p. 14). Differences in educational outcomes for ethnic groups are seen as disparities and inequalities which need to be addressed. Socio-economic factors are seen as barriers for Māori and Pasifika. However, by 2010 the Government priority for tertiary education has narrowed to improved economic performance with people completing qualifications and finding employment (Ministry of Education, 2010). Māori and Pasifka students are targeted priority groups because they participate primarily in low level qualifications and their completion rates are low, particularly at bachelor degree level. By 2014 tertiary education is even more strongly linked to employment and the labour market; Māori and Pasifika are expected to contribute to a productive and competitive economy (New Zealand Government, 2014a, 2014b). There is no mention of inequality or citizenship. Indeed, citizens are now “good,” “successful and productive” (2014b, p. 7). There is no recognition that social conditions impact on Māori and Pasifika participation and achievement. The right to participate in tertiary education has become a responsibility to participate and achieve.

According to Gorski (2010), deficit ideology blames the victim—often a group of people identified by a single dimension of identity, such as ethnicity or socio-economic status. Embedded within deficit ideology is a view that deficiencies within individuals and communities, rather than unjust social conditions, produce social inequalities. Consequently, deficit ideology serves to “justify existing conditions, such as the socioeconomic achievement gap, by identifying the problem of inequality as located within, rather than pressing upon, poor people” (Gorski, 2012, p. 313). Implied in some tertiary education policies, are deficiencies within Māori and Pasifika which result in their lack of participation and achievement. Little account is taken of the unjust social conditions within which they live or the impact these have on participation and achievement. For example, since the TEAC reports there has been little recognition of the impact of socio-economic status for Māori and Pasifika; explicit targeting of Māori and Pasifika suggests they are deficit; new trades training for Māori and Pasifika (New Zealand Government, 2014b) suggests this is appropriate level of training for them; getting “at-risk young people into a career” (p. 11) implies these people are not only “at risk” but a risk to the economy as they are not in employment or training. Stereotypes of Māori and Pasifika appear in tertiary education policy: they are underachieving, not completing, not contributing to the economy as they should. According to Gorksi (2012, p. 314) such stereotypes risk “redressing inequalities by ‘fixing’ poor people rather than the conditions that disenfranchise them.” Arguably a deficit ideology is evident; one that locates the problem of inequality within Māori and Pasifika rather than the “sociopolitical context of economic injustice” (Gorski, 2010, p. 3).

Policies have been Influenced by the Ideologies of the Political Party in Government

It is widely accepted that neoliberal ideas have dominated economic and social policy in many countries for the last 30 years (Saunders, 2010). In New Zealand several commentators highlight links between tertiary education policy and neoliberalism (Olssen, 2001; Roberts, 2005; Zepke, 2009). 1984 saw the end of a social democratic consensus and the beginning of the dominance of free market economics, albeit with different versions under centre-right and centre-left governments (Zepke, 2001). Centre-right governments espouse a stronger form of neoliberalism; centre-left governments adopt Third Way politics, which try to avoid the extremes of both the welfare state and neoliberalism by focusing on “social inclusion, pluralism and democratic involvement within an active civil society that supports a market economy” (Codd, 2002, p. 32). These differences are evident in the tertiary education policies outlined above. Centre-left governments elected in 1999, 2002, and 2005 promoted policies which placed greater emphasis on social inclusion and democratic involvement than later centre-right governments. In the TEAC reports (2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c) tertiary education contributed to personal well-being, reducing inequality, preserving and renewing culture and social cohesion, as well as responding to labour market needs, business, and industry development. The 2002 strategy (Ministry of Education, 2002) retains references to equity of access to tertiary education, the development of skills for active citizenship, and the maintenance of cultural identity alongside economic transformation and stronger linkages with business. In 2007 (Ministry of Education, 2007) there is no mention of active citizenship although affordable, equitable access is retained and social and cultural development are important areas for focus. Economic transformation is the first of six national goals that include social development, Māori development, and environmental sustainability. Disparity in access and achievement is recognized.

The 2010 strategy reveals a shift of emphasis with the change to centre-right government. The overarching education vision is to equip people to be “successful citizens” in a “productive and growing economy”; for tertiary education to enrich people’s lives, increase employment opportunities, and provide a skills base for economic growth (Ministry of Education, 2010, p. 6)—which emphasize economic goals. Equitable and affordable access is replaced by access for targeted groups. National goals include economic, social, cultural and environmental, although economic goals are emphasized in expectations for the system, with some reference to social needs and challenges. The need to develop Māori language and culture is acknowledged. Analysis of the latest strategy (New Zealand Government, 2014a, 2014b) reveals some interesting changes. On one hand, neoliberal ideas are strengthened through greater emphasis on tertiary education’s role in the economy—to develop skills for employment in the labour market as well as skills and knowledge for business growth, to focus on career development, achievement, and increased participation in higher level study. The priorities reflect this, for example, delivering skills for industry; getting at-risk young people into a career; boosting achievement of Māori and Pasifika, improving adult literacy and numeracy—all emphasizing jobs, employment, the workforce, and the economy. This is closely aligned with Biesta’s (2005) learning for earning—education that produces human capital, serves instrumental purposes, and focuses on economic growth and competitiveness. On the other hand, as outlined above, some significant changes were made to the draft strategy. For example, while economic outcomes dominate, environmental and social outcomes were added. Economic outcomes are now seen to support broader social and individual benefits. Social outcomes include social cohesion and democratic values. This is reminiscent of the TEAC reports and centre-left Third Way politics. It will be interesting to see whether this continues in the next strategy, particularly as the 2014 election returned another centre-right government.