Razor Gang to Dawkins: a History of Victoria College, an Australian College of Advanced Education

Home , Australian studies, Barry Pullen, Deakin University, Education in Victoria, History of Victoria, John Hay (academic)

Razor Gang to Dawkins: A History of Victoria College, an Australian College of Advanced Education

Vivienne Carol Roche

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

September 2003

Faculty of Education The University of Melbourne Abstract

For ten years from 1982, Victoria College was a large multi-campus college of advanced education providing a diverse range of higher education programs to Australian and overseas students. This thesis outlines the history of Victoria College. It considers the circumstances that led to its creation through the forced amalgamation of four previously independent colleges of advanced education: the State Colleges of Victoria at Burwood, Rusden, and Toorak and the Prahran College of Advanced Education and examines the events which led to its merger with Deakin University in 1992.

Australia’s binary system of higher education was intended to enhance the diversity of tertiary education as well as to increase the number of students able to gain a tertiary qualification. This thesis describes the role of Victoria College within the binary system and argues that the College did increase student and programmatic diversity within Australia’s higher education system. It describes how the four colleges that formed Victoria College responded to the forced amalgamation that resulted from the Commonwealth Government’s “Razor Gang” Report and the merger process that followed it. It traces the College’s early years and the development of its academic vision. These events support the academic literature on amalgamations that identify staff anxiety and opposition as well as the emotional costs as important features of involuntary mergers between two or more institutions. The College’s approach to the management of a multi-campus institution as well as the financial crisis of its early years are documented. The history of Victoria College also provides a useful case study of the dynamic relationships that exist between higher education institutions and Commonwealth and State governments in a federal system.

The thesis contends that Victoria College was a successful college of advanced education (CAE). It suggests that it acted in accordance with the Government’s original intentions for the binary system by providing vocationally relevant higher education for students from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds. Victoria College also successfully achieved government policy imperatives that the institutions diversify their educational programs by reducing student load in teacher education courses and expanding into other discipline areas. It is argued that Victoria College resisted academic drift to a greater degree than other Australian CAEs as well as providing cost-effective higher education courses. It is concluded that the demise of the binary system and the introduction of the Unified National System under Minister Dawkins which led to the disappearance of Victoria College has created a less diverse higher education system.

i This is to certify that i. the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD, ii. due acknowledgment has been made in the text to all other material used, iii. the thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices.

ii Acknowledgments

Many people assisted me in this endeavour. The research draws heavily on the records of Victoria College and its predecessors, now under the control of the Deakin University Archivist. The courteous and extremely knowledgeable assistance of Antony Catrice, Senior Archivist at Deakin University, was particularly appreciated, as was the help of Catherine Herrick, the controller of the Education History Unit of the Victorian Department of Education and Training.

I learned much from the interviews conducted as part of this research and I am very grateful to those people who shared their reflections with me. I particularly wish to thank Dr Norman Curry and Michael Selway, who not only contributed their interpretations of events, but also made available to me relevant documents in their possession. The special contributions of Mr Des Taylor and Dr Graham Allen, both now deceased, are also gratefully acknowledged. Des Taylor’s dry humour and colourful turn of phrase have enlivened this narrative. Hopefully, some indication of Dr Allen’s significant contribution to higher education in Victoria can also be gleaned from the narrative. Valuable assistance was also provided by Dr Robin Matthews, Associate Professor Don Gibb, Dr Ian Allen, Mr John Scutt, Dr Geoff Beeson, Dr Nigel Smart and Mr Bill Griffiths.

I also wish to thank Professor Richard Teese, Outcomes Research Unit, University of Melbourne, for his supervision, encouragement and support throughout the research and preparation of this thesis.

A special debt is owed to my son David Roche for his patient proof-reading and judicious editorial comment. Finally, to my husband Dr Colin Campbell, whose story this really is, my profound gratitude for his valuable support and insights, as well as his forbearance, during the long gestation of this work.

iii Table of Contents Abstract ...... i Acknowledgments ...... iii Table of Contents...... iv List of Tables and Figures...... vii Chapter 1 Introduction...... 1 Educational expansion and the Martin Report ...... 2 Commonwealth funding of teacher education...... 4 Methodology...... 7 Organisation of the thesis...... 8 Chapter 2 Literature Review ...... 10 Diversity in higher education...... 10 Academic drift and stratification in higher education...... 14 Mergers in higher education...... 16 The multi-campus institution ...... 19 Chapter 3 Historical Overview...... 21 The Binary System in Australia...... 21 Higher education in Victoria in the post-war period...... 25 Technical Institutes become Colleges of Advanced Education...... 26 Differentiating Victoria’s colleges of advanced education from universities...... 29 Teachers’ Colleges gain CAE status...... 30 Two coordinating authorities in Victoria...... 32 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission established ...... 34 Chapter 4 Creating Victoria College – the economic and fiscal context...... 37 Supply and demand issues in teacher education...... 38 Economic downturn and the education debate...... 39 Reductions in teacher education intakes: the Commonwealth versus Victoria...... 41 Proposals for structural change...... 44 Victoria’s plan for consolidating colleges ...... 47 Implications of events of 1977-1981 for higher education sector ...... 50 The Constituent Colleges ...... 51 Chapter 5 The Amalgamating Institutions and the Planning Process...... 54 Governance of higher education ...... 54 The Review of Commonwealth Functions ...... 56 The events of May 1981...... 57 Immediate Reactions ...... 58 The Principals strike back ...... 60

iv First meeting of the Planning Committee...... 61 Managing the Planning Committee – the Principals’ Committee ...... 62 Integrating TAFE in the new institution...... 64 Naming the new College...... 68 Working groups established by the Principals Committee ...... 69 Funding cuts at the time of the amalgamation...... 70 Legislative basis of Victoria College...... 72 The final tasks of the Planning Committee...... 74 Selecting a Chief Executive for Victoria College ...... 74 Chapter 6 Integrating and managing a merged institution ...... 79 Governance arrangements within higher education institutions...... 79 Victoria College Council and institutional governance ...... 80 Developing a structure for a multi-campus institution...... 83 Implementing the administrative structure ...... 86 Academic Structure ...... 88 Some early strategies to foster institutional integration...... 89 Campus consolidation ...... 90 Responding to the expectations and concerns of staff ...... 92 Communications Strategies...... 94 Institutional Image...... 96 A revised structure for a new higher education system ...... 98 Chapter 7: Coping with the funding cuts ...... 102 Impact of the 1981 funding reductions on the amalgamated institutions...... 102 Managing the funding cuts at Victoria College...... 104 Attempts to develop an equitable funding formula...... 105 Funding issues – Victoria, the Commonwealth, and RMIT ...... 108 Unsuccessful attempts to address Victoria College’s financial crisis...... 110 1986: Changing relationships with State and Commonwealth authorities...... 115 Financial outcomes of the merger...... 117 Chapter 8 Establishing an academic strategy for Victoria College ...... 119 The Government policy context 1982-1986...... 119 The development of an academic strategy for Victoria College - 1981...... 120 Victoria College Academic Strategy 1982 -1987...... 123 Submission on the 1985-1987 Triennium...... 125 New course developments 1982-1985...... 128 Credentialism and professional training - education and nursing...... 129 Corporate Plan - 1985...... 132

v Diversification of course profile- 1985-1991 ...... 135 Educational Innovations...... 135 Student progress ...... 139 Achievement against the 1982 academic strategy...... 140 Research...... 143 Chapter 9: Students at Victoria College...... 146 Socio-economic status of students...... 147 Mature Age and Part-time Students...... 149 School Leavers ...... 152 Women...... 155 Migrants...... 157 Isolated and outer urban students...... 157 Student Diversity...... 159 The destinations of students...... 160 Chapter 10 The End of an Era...... 163 Academic drift and the binary system ...... 163 The Labor Government and higher education 1983 -1987 ...... 166 The Dawkins’ Green Paper ...... 168 The College Response to the Green Paper ...... 171 The Dawkins’ White Paper ...... 173 The Victorian response to the White Paper...... 175 Negotiations with Swinburne 1988-1989 ...... 176 The Commonwealth Task Force on Amalgamations and the Walker Plan...... 177 Negotiations with Monash University ...... 180 Merger with Deakin...... 181 1991 – the final days of Victoria College...... 185 Chapter 11 Conclusion ...... 187 Higher education in Victoria post- 1982...... 190 The Victoria College legacy...... 193 Further reform of Australian universities - 2003...... 195 End Notes…………………………………………………………...………………………...199 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………..236 Appendix 1: Biographical details of persons interviewed …………………………………….254 Appendix 2: Chronology 1853-1991 ………………………………………………………….257 Appendix 3: Historical Overview of the Constituent Colleges ……………………………….262

vi List of Tables and Figures

Table 4.1 Student Load in Advanced Education in Victoria Estimated 1978 to 1981...... 43 Table 5.1 Proposed Student Load (EFTS) in Institution Number 1 1981 -1984...... 70 Table 5.2 Reductions in proposed student load and funding in Institution Number 1 1982-1984 ..... 70 Table 7.1. Funding reductions in merged colleges 1982-1986...... 103 Table 7.2: Reductions in Staff 1981-1984 ...... 110 Figure 7.1: Recurrent Grant per F.T.E. Student (December 1982 cost levels)...... 111 Table7.3: Victoria College Recurrent Grant Per Capita (Constant 1984 $) ...... 114 Figure 8.1: Student pressure (number of first preferences divided by the number of places in courses) for places within selected fields of study in all Victorian higher education institutions 1981...... 122 Table 8.1: Proposed Enrolments at Victoria College by field of study, 1982-1992...... 124 Table 8.2 Proposed changes in student load 1982-1987 ...... 126 Figure 8.2: Student Results by Faculty 1987-1989, Percentage of Enrolled EFTSU Successful....139 Table 8.3: Student Pressure for selected courses Victoria College 1981 and 1990 ...... 140 Figure 8.3 Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre (VTAC) Application levels – institutional percentage of total first preferences after change of preference...... 141 Figure 8.4: Percentage of student load in teacher education at Victoria College, Brisbane College of Advanced Education, South Australian College of Advanced Education 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1988...... 142 Figure 8.5: Planned versus actual student load by broad field of study 1982-1988...... 142 Figure 9.1: Occupational background of commencing students at SCV Rusden 1976, Victoria College 1990 and female university students 1976...... 147 Figure 9.2: Enrolments at SCV Rusden, Victoria College and Monash University by type of school attended 1976 and 1990...... 149 Figure 9.3: Age of students at Victoria College compared with all students in higher education in Victoria, 1990...... 150 Figure 9.4: Proportion of part-time enrolments at Victoria College and all Colleges of Advanced Education in Victoria, 1990...... 151 Figure 9.5 Age of all students in advanced education courses 1984-87 and in higher education courses 1991 in Victoria...... 153 Figure 9.6: Percentage of sub-degree load Victoria College and all Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education 1982-1987...... 154 Figure 9.7: Enrolments by course level Victoria College and all higher education institutions, 1990 (percentage)...... 154 Figure 9.8 Course Completions by Sector and Level of Course 1981 and 1987...... 155

vii Figure 9.9: Female enrolments in Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education and at Victoria College in 1983, 1987 and 1990...... 156 Figure 9.10: Proportion of female students in advanced education in Australia and Victoria College by selected fields of study 1986 ...... 156 Figure 9.11: Percentage of students attending selected institutions by home address of outer eastern region, 1990...... 159 Figure 9.12: Proportion of students attending Victoria College by region of home address 1990...... 159 Figure 9.13: First degree university and college graduates in full-time employment 1982-1998. ...161 Figure 9.14: Destinations of 1990 Bachelor degree and 3-year Diploma graduates of selected institutions in April 1991...... 161 Figure 9.15: Percentage of Graduates in Business and Applied Science in full-time employment 1978-1989 Victoria College and Australia ...... 162 Figure 11.1. Total Student Load in Victorian Universities 1992...... 191 Table 11.1 Actual Student Load (EFTSU) for all Students by Victorian Institution, 2001...... 191 Figure 11.2 Proportion of Postgraduate Load (EFTSU) by Victorian Institution, 2001...... 192 Figure 11.3: Commencing Student load by broad field of study Deakin University, Victoria College 1991 and Deakin University 2001...... 193 Figure 11.4: Student load by course level, Deakin University 2001 ...... 194

viii Chapter 1 Introduction

For more than 25 years colleges of advanced education (CAEs) made a unique contribution to Australian higher education. After the introduction of the unified national system in the late 1980s the CAE sector disappeared. The important role that CAEs played in providing access to vocationally oriented higher education for hundreds of thousands of Australians who might otherwise have been denied these opportunities, has been largely unrecorded.1

This thesis is about one college of advanced education – Victoria College. When Victoria College came into existence on the 23 December 1981 as Victoria’s largest multi-campus College of Advanced Education it did so as a direct result of government fiat. Nearly a decade later, its disappearance through a “voluntary” merger with Deakin University resulted from further Commonwealth Government policy changes.

This thesis traces the history of Victoria College. It describes the events that led to its creation, the forces that influenced it, and the actions that it took in response to these. It attempts to suggest the nature of the tensions and interactions of the various players within the institution – members of the College management, the academic community, the College Council, and state and federal bodies responsible for coordinating and funding Victoria College. It is not a history of the binary system of higher education in Australia, although tensions within the system also affected Victoria College and influenced institutional behaviour.

Although this history does provide some insight into how one College perceived its role within Australia’s binary system of higher education during the ten years between 1981 and 1991, Victoria College was not a typical “college”. Its origins through an involuntary merger process profoundly influenced the first years of its existence. The amalgamation process itself consumed the energies and emotions of institutional staff. From 1981 until around 1985, the College was primarily inward looking. It was focused on staffing and policy issues along with its major financial difficulties. After 1985 the College began to emerge from this all-consuming experience. Staff members began to develop embryonic loyalties to the new institution and educational innovations began to emerge. Alas, this brief flowering was abruptly interrupted and energies were once more redirected to responding to further Government policy changes canvassed by the Commonwealth Minister for Education, John Dawkins in 1987.

1 The thesis attempts to illustrate how one institution responded to a series of government policy initiatives, beginning with the forced amalgamations that created Victoria College. Although the Dawkins’ reforms certainly changed the landscape of higher education in Australia and dealt the final deathblow to the binary system, the origins of most of these reforms can be seen emerging in the preceding decade.

The years between 1981 and 1991 saw major changes in Australia’s higher education sector. The most obvious indication of the radical nature of this transformation is to be found by looking at its composition. In the two years between 1980 and 1982 the number of Australian colleges of advanced education was reduced from 68 to 35 by government decree. In Victoria, Australia’s second most populous state, there were 26 higher education institutions in 1980 – four universities and 22 colleges of advanced education. Structural diversity was maintained through a government-sponsored binary system. 2 Two years later these numbers had been reduced to 20 (four universities and 16 colleges of advanced education) through mandated consolidation of colleges of advanced education. By 1992 only eight institutions of higher education remained in Victoria – all but one were multi-campus universities within a ‘unified national system’.

Victoria College was itself the product of the compulsory merger of three former teachers’ colleges (Burwood, Toorak and Rusden) with Prahran College of Advanced Education to form a “new multi-campus multi-disciplinary college of advanced education to be eventually located on three campuses”.3 Although the major focus of the thesis is on the events that shaped Victoria College, these events also highlight how the funding and management of Australia’s system of tertiary education more generally changed over this period.

Educational expansion and the Martin Report For more than twenty years after the end of World War II Australia experienced unprecedented economic prosperity and population growth.4 During this prolonged period of affluence the aspirations of Australian parents for their children increased markedly with the result that there was a dramatic growth in the number of young people staying on at secondary schools. Whereas the participation rate for 15-year-old boys in secondary schooling in 1954 was 20.6; by 1963 the rate had almost doubled to 39.8.5 This placed great pressure on higher education institutions as well as on schools, as young people sought to obtain the qualifications that had “become both a symbol of status and the sine qua non of a well-paid and interesting career”. 6 Consequently, by the mid-sixties universal secondary education and greatly expanded systems of tertiary education had become central factors in Australian life.7

2 Early in the post-war period increasing demand for places in universities and the financial problems identified by Vice-Chancellors initially led to a review by Sir Keith Murray and the establishment of the Australian Universities Commission (AUC) in 1959.8 This marked the beginning of large scale Commonwealth financial support for university development, although the States continued to retain legislative control. Despite the establishment of new universities, the pressure for access to higher education places, together with the associated costs to government, continued to increase. This led the then Prime Minister (R G Menzies) to establish a second and more far-reaching inquiry into tertiary education in Australia. In a private memorandum to the Chairman of the Australian Universities Commission, Sir Leslie Martin, the Prime Minister wrote: ...the Cabinet takes the view that, beginning now and over the next 12 to 18 months, the most vital task of the Commission will be to address itself, and find solutions, to the problem of providing the necessary amount of tertiary education within financial limits which are relatively very much more modest than under our present university system.9

In August 1964, after several years of exhaustive deliberations, the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia (the Martin Committee) tendered its Report on Tertiary Education in Australia. The report based its support for increased expansion in higher education on the twin grounds of individual social advancement and investment in human capital.10 The Committee’s view that “…education should be regarded as an investment which yields direct and significant economic benefits” continues to this day to be a central pre-occupation of government policy in relation to higher education development. 11

The Martin Report led to the establishment of the binary system of institutions that would guide the structure and development of higher education for the next twenty-five years. The government was able to fund the substantial increase in higher education enrolments that took place during the 1960s and 1970s primarily because most of this expansion took place in institutions that were cheaper to operate than universities.

According to the Martin Committee, universities had “…grown up according to a uniform and traditional pattern” and it was therefore unrealistic to imagine that they alone could provide the variety of education needed by young people with “…a broad array of individual objectives”.12 However, as this thesis will show, although the Committee’s recommendations were aimed at widening the range of post-secondary educational opportunities, the Committee was extremely prescient in its warning of the “…danger of higher education becoming identified in the minds of the community with university education”.13

3 The Martin Committee proposed a system which it hoped would promote greater diversity through the “…development of three distinct categories of major tertiary institutions: Universities; Institutes of Colleges; and Boards of Teacher Education”.14 The focus of the specific recommendations was on improving the educational quality of the existing institutions and in enhancing the educational status of technical colleges, teachers’ colleges and other tertiary institutions.

Responding to the Martin Committee’s recommendations in March 1965, Senator John Gorton, Minister for Education and Science, announced that Australia would “…develop advanced education in virtually new types of colleges which would provide a wide range of courses, including technical subjects as well as business studies and administration”.15 The Commonwealth agreed that it should contribute with the States to the cost of technical education at diploma standard in the new colleges according to the established ratio of 1:1.85 for recurrent expenditure and 1:1 for capital expenditure. The Martin Committee’s recommendation that teachers’ colleges should also form part of the new higher education system was rejected and it was not until 1974 that they became eligible for Commonwealth support on a similar basis to the universities and colleges of advanced education.

Although higher education had been expanding since World War II, the Martin report ushered in a period of sustained and unparalleled growth. Described by some as the “golden age” of tertiary education the number and size of institutions expanded rapidly.16 Enrolments in Australia’s universities increased nearly five-fold in the twenty years between 1955 and 1975, growing from 31,000 to 148,000 students. In colleges, the growth was equally spectacular with student enrolments increasing from 49,000 to 126,000 students between 1968 and 1974 - a two and a half-fold increase in just eight years.17 The golden age ended in the mid-1970s, a time of economic downturn, rising unemployment and inflation.

Commonwealth funding of teacher education In 1973 teachers’ colleges became part of the advanced education sector. The Government’s decision that “…the former teachers’ colleges would be financed on the same basis and in the same manner as colleges of advanced education” had a profound impact on advanced education. 18 At a stroke it increased the number of Australia’s advanced education institutions from 39 to 78 and, according to the Commission of Advanced Education, caused enrolments in teacher education to: … now form the largest group in advanced education. In 1973 teacher education enrolments were approximately 42 per cent of total enrolments; the next largest groups were in

4 commercial and business studies (20 per cent) and in engineering and technology (11 per cent). Although by 1978 the proportion in teacher education is expected to fall to 39 per cent of enrolments, it will continue to have a critical influence on the total funding of advanced education.19

From the mid 1970s the Government began to express its concern about “…the implications of the serious imbalance between supply and demand for teachers that at present appears to be in prospect over the next decade”.20 These concerns had their genesis in the sharp decline in the birthrate, which meant that fewer children would be entering schools in the foreseeable future, as well as in the apparent reduction in teacher turnover. In any event, the Government requested that the Tertiary Education Commission “…explore with State and other authorities the scope for a reduction in pre-service teacher education intakes”.21 As this thesis will show, Victoria was considerably slower in reducing its overall teaching intakes than other States.

Finally, in 1981 the Commonwealth Government announced its requirement for consolidation “…into larger units of thirty colleges of advanced education for which teacher education is the main activity by their incorporation into … multi-campus colleges with a single governing body”.22 Moreover, the Government made clear its intention that these consolidations “…should result in genuine amalgamations and a real saving of resources” and that resources should be redirected “…from teacher education to the technologies and business studies”.23

Victoria College was one of the new multi-campus Colleges of Advanced Education formed in late 1981 through the consolidation of the State College of Victoria at Burwood, the State College of Victoria at Rusden, the State College of Victoria at Toorak and the Prahran College of Advanced Education. This thesis examines how management at Victoria College went about the task of creating a distinctive identity for the “new” institution, based as it was on four pre-existing institutions, each with its unique history and culture.

This history of Victoria College will support the findings about the long-term difficulties associated with institutional merger, but it will also highlight several other major policy issues which emerged during that period. These issues include the increasingly centralised policy- making role of the Commonwealth Government in the period 1981 to 1991 and the diminishing capacity of the States to determine policy. It will also show how ‘academic drift’ in the colleges towards the pattern and values of the universities, led to declining differentiation of tertiary education institutions and finally to the demise of the binary system.

5 No doubt there will be those who question the value of studying an institution that no longer exists. If justification were needed it could argued that the history of Victoria College is important in its own right. Equally, this study will be of value if it contributes to the public debate generated by the major review of the role, organisation and funding of higher education initiated by the Commonwealth Government in 2002 (Education at the Crossroads). As a consequence of this review, the Commonwealth Government proposes to further deregulate the funding and management of higher education, and to require even greater financial contributions from all students. The government will continue to subsidise a specific number of subsidised places that will be available to Australian students based on academic merit or according to the specific entry requirements of the university. However, in addition to accepting full-fee paying students from overseas, universities will now have the option to offer places in high demand courses to local students on a user-pays basis. No doubt one of the driving forces behind the current changes is precisely the problem that Menzies foresaw when he established the Martin Committee: The Government is by no means sure that this state of things – more and more students requiring proportionately more and more outlay - can proceed indefinitely. On the contrary, it is our view that the money which would be required is very likely to be completely out of reach.24

It is also ironic that one of the concerns raised by Dr Nelson, the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in the current debate has been the increasing homogeneity of Australian universities. The model of the comprehensive university, which appears to be the dominant model throughout the nation, has led to a marked lack of differentiation between institutions. Not surprisingly, one of the suggestions raised in the Commonwealth’s recent review that differentiation might be enhanced through a “binary system of universities” – teaching-only universities and teaching and research universities - has not been well received by the higher education sector.

This thesis will show that Victoria College was generally successful in achieving the objectives of its constitution and in developing and delivering innovative courses in response to changes in the labour market. It was certainly cost-effective when compared with other institutions at the time. For nearly ten years it enabled many thousands of Victorians to gain access to higher education. Many members of its staff spent their working days – and evenings – at Victoria College as part of the collective process of “…getting the College thinking as a College rather than as a collection of five campuses” and in supporting its educational endeavours.25 Their efforts and its existence should not pass unrecorded.

6 Indeed, there are a number of people who believe that the diversity of the tertiary sector has been much reduced because of the demise of institutions such as Victoria College. There were so many kids who benefited from going to the CAEs, and I don't care what people talk about academic standards, they benefited, they graduated, they became very useful members of the workforce and society; and I am not sure that that is the case now with these huge mega universities.26

Methodology This thesis is an historical case study of Victoria College to illustrate how one institution responded to State and Commonwealth higher education policies between 1981 and 1991. The study draws heavily on primary and secondary documentary sources and interviews to illuminate understanding of Victoria College during the decade of its existence. In particular the Victoria College archives (these also include archived records from the four constituent colleges) now held by Deakin University together with the records of the Victorian Post Secondary Education Commission archived at the Victorian Public Records Office were especially valuable.27 Unfortunately no records of meetings of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commissioners for the period after 1985 until the abolition of the Commission could be located, either at the Victorian Public Records Office or the Victorian Department of Education. The Deakin University Archivist made available a complete set of the Victoria College News Sheet, an internal publication distributed fortnightly, which proved to be a particularly rich source of information about College events and personnel.

In addition to the documentary sources cited, this thesis was informed by interviews and conversations with former members of the staff of Victoria College and its constituents, as well as a number of former senior administrators in government departments and organisations. Brief biographical details of persons interviewed are contained at Appendix 1.

Several explanatory points need to be made in relation to methodology. Much of my professional life has been spent as an education bureaucrat and consequently many of the people who had key roles in the events narrated in this thesis were well known to me. More than that, many of these individuals were also part of my social networks; many of the government administrators have been my colleagues. This provided important access that other researchers might not have had. As well, it afforded me entry to interviews with key informants and who perhaps spoke more frankly than might have been the case had they not known me. Of course, in all instances, they were formally informed of my research project according to the requirements of the University’s Ethics Committee. I should also add that the individuals interviewed during the research process not only gave generously of their time

7 and expertise but a number also made available to me personal copies of relevant files and documents for which I am especially grateful.

For part of the time covered by this thesis, I was embroiled in the culture of a former CAE (not Victoria College) which had recently undergone amalgamation and was undergoing a restructuring process. This gave me a subjective understanding of the experience of merger and restructure. It also gave me an understanding of the political context of the time. Thus although this thesis does not constitute participant observation field research as understood by anthropologists and sociologists, because I was not conducting research as a participant, it does raise the issue of researcher bias. I have endeavoured to be mindful of this and to compare my recollections with other evidence such as archival documents. I have tried to be as objective as possible.

Finally, the achievements of any organisation reflect the collective efforts of all its staff. This is equally true of Victoria College. By 1990 the College employed over 935 persons. Many were outstanding academics, teachers and/or administrators. I regret that it has not been possible to document the individual achievements of these persons within this narrative.

Organisation of the thesis The literature on aspects of higher education is vast. In some respects, all of it is relevant. However, a truly comprehensive review of the literature would entail a chapter of such magnitude as to leave little room for the narrative of events that is the major focus of this thesis. Consequently, Chapter Two provides an overview of specific themes deemed to be most relevant to the history of Victoria College. These issues relate to diversity, institutional mergers, stratification and academic drift and multi-campus organisation.

Institutions do not operate in a vacuum. Although the bulk of this thesis examines the events that shaped Victoria College, Chapter Three provides an overview of developments in tertiary education in post-war Australia, the Martin Report and the creation of the binary system with a particular focus on how this system was implemented in Victoria.

Chapter Four describes the economic and fiscal context of the Victorian Government’s decision to amalgamate nine of its colleges of advanced education. It examines the “teacher- education crisis” and the responses of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education to the requirements of the Commonwealth that Victoria reduce both the number of trainee teachers as well as the level of resources devoted to teacher education. It provides a thumbnail sketch of the four constituent colleges of Victoria College. Additional details about the history of

8 SCV Toorak, SCV Burwood, SCV Rusden and Prahran College of Advanced Education, as well as their strengths and aspirations, is provided in Appendix 3.

Chapter Five outlines the notification of the constituent colleges regarding the formation of Institution No 1 and their subsequent activities, the deliberations of the Planning Committee in shaping the future “Rubertop” College, and the appointment of its first Principal.

Chapter Six examines the governance of Victoria College and the initial strategies adopted to manage the new multi-campus institution.

Chapter Seven examines how Victoria College attempted to deal with its financial difficulties. It also highlights the complex relationships and roles of the Commonwealth and State coordinating authorities in relation to individual institutions.

Chapter Eight looks at programmatic diversity. It describes how Victoria College developed an academic strategy and a vision for the future, the assumptions it used, and the main objectives of this strategy. It argues that by 1988 the College had been successful in diversifying its academic program. It had substantially reduced the proportion of teacher education, moved into new course areas, such as nursing and technology management, introduced higher degrees and gained declared status.

Chapter Nine concerns students at Victoria College. This chapter provides some insight into how the characteristics of the student body at Victoria College changed in the years 1982 to 1991 including changes to its socio-economic composition. What sort of students attended the College and how did they differ from students at others colleges of advanced education?

Chapter Ten, “The End of An Era”, analyses the impact of the Commonwealth Government’s new higher education policy and the introduction of the unified national system of higher education in Australia. It describes the approach to implementation taken by the Victorian Government including pressures for further mergers.

Chapter Eleven, “Conclusion” provides some reflections on the decade of Victoria College and the state of the higher education sector in the 21st century.

A chronological summary of major events in higher education is contained in Appendix 2.

9 Chapter 2 Literature Review

The literature on higher education is vast. Although much has been written about Australian higher education systems and institutions, processes and policies, regrettably, there is no definitive history of the binary system in Australia. Nevertheless, Susan Davies’ account of the approach of the Martin Committee provided valuable insight into the development of the binary policy in Australia.1 Similarly, John Pratt’s comprehensive history of the “polytechnic experiment” served to highlight the context and outcomes of the binary policy in the United Kingdom.2

Because this is a history of a specific institution, almost all that has been written about post- war higher education in Australia probably has some relevance to the history of Victoria College or its antecedents. Indeed, many books and articles were consulted, all of which in some way added to this writer’s appreciation of the complex nature of organisational behaviour and policy development in higher education. Although this thesis is arranged chronologically, each chapter also has a sub-theme which contains reference to relevant research. Consequently, this chapter has been confined to addressing some of the literature on a number of themes believed to be of specific relevance to this thesis. The first of these relates to the concept of diversity in education.

Diversity in higher education In the broader scientific literature, diversity is a term indicating the variety of entities within a system at a given point in time.3 Martin Trow offers a useful definition of diversity as applied to higher education: By diversity in higher education I mean the existence of distinct forms of post-secondary education, of institutions and groups of institutions within a state or nation that have different and distinct missions, educate and train for different lives and careers, have different styles of instruction, are organised and funded differently and operate under different laws and relationships to the government.4

It has been argued that diversification increases the availability of higher education as well as the range of choices available to learners. It also enables institutions to develop distinctive missions and to respond to changing social pressures.5 Certainly, this view appears to have influenced the Martin Committee’s recommendations about establishing the new types of institutions, which it believed, would enable Australia to meet the objective “of widening the range of educational opportunities beyond the secondary school”.6 The Australian public

10 policy response to enhancing diversity therefore was to create Colleges of Advanced Education as a formal higher education sector, separate and distinct from the universities.

Diversified higher education systems are supposed to be more responsive to the needs of students and of the labour market, as well as producing greater social mobility, effectiveness, flexibility, innovativeness, and stability. More diversified systems, generally speaking, are thought to be ‘better’ than less diversified systems and are thought to make higher education institutions more responsive to societal needs.7 Recent changes in government higher education policy have usually been justified on the basis of increasing the responsiveness of higher education systems to community needs and economic priorities. Complex societies and differentiated economic markets, it is argued, display a variety of needs that, supposedly, cannot be fulfilled by a single type of higher education institution, hence the need to diversify. Systems that are more diversified are better able to respond to this variety of needs.8

However, the extent of diversity within a higher education system is related to the type of diversity under consideration. Birnbaum not only distinguishes between internal diversity (differences within institutions) and external diversity (differences between institutions), but describes several types of external diversity.9 These include: ! systemic diversity – the different types of institutions to be found within a higher education system; ! structural diversity – institutional differences that exist due to historical and legal foundations or differences in the division of authority within institutions; and ! programmatic diversity – differences in programs and services provided by different institutions within a system.

According to Birnbaum’s model, Australia’s binary system was therefore an example of government-sponsored systemic diversity designed to promote programmatic diversity. Similarly, the procedures and policies that it put in place to support this policy also encouraged programmatic diversity. The course approval processes required colleges to demonstrate both a need for the new course and also to show that the need was not currently being met by courses at other institutions. The very emphasis on difference meant that institutions such as Victoria College looked to develop niche courses and to develop the newly emerging disciplines, such as community languages, design, visual and performing arts.10 On the other hand, the accreditation process, like quality assurance, tended to work against differentiation.11 The very composition of accreditation committees, which invariably included one or more university academics, tended to entrench academic norms and values,

11 particularly those characterised by the elite institutions, through the system, so that the structure and content of college courses became increasingly like those in universities.

In one sense, of course, all higher education institutions are constantly increasing programmatic diversity as knowledge expands and new areas become the subject of academic scrutiny. Burton Clark describes academic activities as being divided and grouped in two basic ways – by institution and by discipline. He contends that the disciplinary structure of higher education has been one of “unrelenting generation of new fields and specialities” and that differentiation on the disciplinary dimension is many times “greater than differentiation on the institutional dimension”.12 He concludes that higher education is a differentiating society par excellence. It adjusts internally to increasing “arrays of input demands and output connections by greater specialisation in its production units and the programs they offer”.13

Nevertheless, diversity cannot be understood in isolation from the way in which governments manage and structure higher education systems. Indeed, as noted above, government policies may be a major factor in decreasing levels of diversity, through the accreditation and other planning processes which they adopt to regulate higher education institutions.

This view is supported by Van Vught. From an analysis of various empirical studies, he concluded that these studies showed that environmental pressures (especially government regulation), as well as the dominance of academic norms and values (especially academic conservatism), were the crucial factors that influenced the process of differentiation and dedifferentiation in higher education systems.14

Certainly, the binary system initially fostered diversity of institutions in Australia. By January 1974 there were 82 individual colleges. These varied in size, in the composition, level and nomenclature of their courses, in the nature of their staffing and in the mode of study undertaken by their students.15 However, according to Meek and O’Neill, differentiation in the Australian higher education system remained relatively constant after 1981 as colleges succeeded in partially adopting university characteristics.16 Thus, institutional ambition and systemic differentiation worked against each other, so that in both Australia and the United Kingdom, the binary system collapsed mostly under the “weight of the campaign by non-university institutions to gain funding parity and equal status with universities”.17 In contrast, the complex tripartite structure of California’s public higher education system survives to this day by conscious legislative decision.

12 Goedegeburre and his colleagues concluded that the key to stability in diverse higher education systems probably lies in the legitimation of roles and tasks for different types of institutions.18 They contend that in the California system, for example, each type of institution benefits from the hierarchical tripartite structure. The ‘elite’ research institutions belonging to the University of California are insulated from mass demand by the community colleges. Further, at least some of the popular support enjoyed by the community colleges is based on the notion that a student can progress from an associate diploma at the local college to a Ph.D at Berkeley (even though not many do so).19 By contrast in Australia, Goedegeburre and his colleagues considered universities and colleges taught much the same type and level of course and recruited more or less from the same pool of students, but the latter received less financial and social support for doing so.20 However, this view is not entirely correct because, as the work of Anderson and Vervoorn showed, colleges tended to offer greater educational opportunities to students from lower socio-economic groups than did universities.21

However, what is of concern to both higher education policy and research is not diversity per se as some absolute state of affairs, but “desirable degrees of difference and similarity coupled with an understanding of the forces which push higher education institutions and systems in one direction or another”.22

What is particularly interesting is that despite changes in government policy about how institutions should be managed and the source of their funding, the promotion of diversity has remained a central part of government policy. Initially diversity was to be fostered through the sectoral divisions of the binary system. Since the mid 1980s governments have assumed that the actions of market forces will promote diversity and they have therefore promoted institutional competition, de-regulation and privatisation. Because this shift in public policy to the current ascendancy of neo-classical economic doctrine or economic rationalisation has occurred in many countries, it has been the subject of considerable research and analysis both in Australia and overseas.23

The history of Victoria College will show that the diversity of higher education is probably best understood in terms of the relationship between higher education institutions and systems and environmental forces and pressures. Just as the environment structures institutional behaviour, so too the actions of institutions in turn help structure the environment. Institutions not only “adapt to the environment, but the environment in turns adapts to the institutions”.24

13 Academic drift and stratification in higher education Whether formally differentiated or not, Trow maintains that all higher education systems are stratified: higher education is itself “…a stratified system of institutions, graded formally or informally in status and prestige, in wealth, power, and influence of various kinds.”25 Moreover, the stratification of institutions within sectors and of departments or units within institutions tends to be remarkably durable.26

The OECD examiners who visited Australia in 1976 noted the existence of an implicit hierarchy of institutions within the total post-secondary system: …As far as student preferences are concerned, a very definite ‘pecking order’ appears to have emerged in each State (as revealed by the tertiary education selection procedures), with the old established universities at the top of the list followed by a small number of well- established colleges of advanced education. Then come most of the newer universities and a few more colleges of advanced education with a long tail of colleges of various kinds at the end.27

Academic prestige and some form of institutional hierarchy based on prestige appear to be part of every higher education system. In nearly every country, the most important feature that seems to differentiate universities from other types of higher education institutions is research, pure or basic research in particular. While in some countries, non-university institutions may be supported for applied research, almost everywhere the bulk of money spent on research in higher education goes to the universities. However, the elevated status of the research university, which has occurred in recent times, is a direct consequence of the importance of advances in science and technology because these confer substantial economic advantage on the societies in which they occur.28

The idealised role of the research university in Australia and its legitimisation in policy was substantially influenced by the views of Sir Leslie Martin, the chairman of the Committee whose recommendations led to the establishment of Australia’s binary system of higher education. Martin’s own training had been as a research scientist under Sir Ernest Rutherford at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University. This experience made him a strong proponent of the view that knowledge should be pursued for its own sake and that research in the pure sciences was the major source of new knowledge. Consequently he believed implicitly that the university had a primary role in any system of higher education and that its “…proper function was research and the training of research workers”.29 The other institutions were to provide vocational education, thus freeing up the universities to concentrate on research and disinterested inquiry.30

14 Many writers have described aspects of the binary system in Australia and the process of academic drift that occurred.31 The tendency of Australia’s CAEs to take on the attributes of universities began very early in the life of the binary system. Academic drift, however, is based on the value which attaches to academic prestige; “it is not some abstract value, but one with direct practical and material consequences”.32 The additional resources that flowed to universities, largely for their research endeavours, were an important part of these consequences. Nor was the process of academic drift confined to institutional ambition that led colleges to introduce structures and courses resembling those of universities. Staff ambitions were also important. Many of the CAE academics coveted the professorial titles and the academic prestige linked to these titles because these are the major source of status in the academic community. Although CAE staff may have yearned for professorships, until 1988 when the unified national system was introduced, they had to be content with upgrading the academic content of their courses and developing post-graduate programs. Academic drift occurred rapidly in Australia. Within less than a decade of establishing the binary system in Australia, concern about unnecessary duplication within and between sectors was so great that it led to several further inquiries into post-secondary education in Western Australia (1976), Tasmania (1976) Victoria (1978) and South Australia (1979. All of the reports, except for the one in Victoria, advocated the consolidation of colleges.33

Moreover, as Meek has suggested, what occurred in Australia was not merely a case of academic drift, but of a “convergence of policy environments” as government relaxed direct control over the non-university sector and thus its ability to contain institutional activities and ambitions.34 This relaxation of the policy environment by the Commonwealth Government was outlined in the 1982 Discussion Paper distributed by the Advanced Education Council which supported, in principle at least, the power of colleges to self-accredit their courses.35 Consequently during the 1980s it became difficult to sustain the legitimacy of the equal but different philosophies of the binary system as institutions in the two separate sectors became increasingly alike.36 Since the introduction of the unified national system in 1988, the policy of the Commonwealth government is that institutional competition in a deregulated environment will stimulate institutions to diversify their educational programmes and research activities; each university will come to occupy particular niche markets.37 However, there is an emerging view that since replacing the binary divide with the unified national system, higher education has become more uniform and less diverse.38

Academic drift is not the only force working against differentiation within higher education institutions. The nature of academic work itself acts to produce convergence. As already

15 noted, higher education is not a unified single purpose enterprise, but a collection of diverse disciplines and professions, each pursuing its separate goals, aims and interests. The discipline is the basic organisational and political unit within higher education, which “itself both structures and is structured by knowledge”.39

In all higher education institutions, organisational structures are based on collections of cognate disciplines. Academics, as “specialists in specific knowledge fields” are grouped together to teach and to do research. Largely insulated from the rest of the organisation, “these specialists use their autonomy and expertise to perform the basic activities of a higher education institution”.40 Moreover academics are socialised into their discipline and profession by the institutions where they themselves received their education, and they tend to inculcate this same academic culture in their own students.

Academic norms and values are therefore a powerful homogenising force in higher education. As Meek and Wood have pointed out, the fact that higher education institutions are often presumed to be unresponsive to change has to be related to higher education’s specific structure of high professional autonomy and diffused and fragmented decision-making structure.41

Mergers in higher education Although this thesis is not primarily about mergers, the fact that Victoria College was created through amalgamation had a powerful impact on its evolution. This suggests that the literature on institutional mergers will also provide some useful insight into the factors that influenced developments at Victoria College.

A number of studies have documented the processes and problems associated with amalgamations in higher education.42 Harman proposed that the terms “merger” and “amalgamation” can be used interchangeably, with both being defined as “the combination of two or more separate institutions into a single organisational entity”. He further suggested that the term “integration” be employed to encapsulate the processes of reorganisation and blending that inevitably follow a merger. This thesis utilises Harman’s suggested terminology.43

Harman also proposed a classification system for describing amalgamations in Australian tertiary education that distinguished between “Involuntary” and “Voluntary” amalgamations. Under this system, the merger that formed Victoria College would be classified as an involuntary amalgamation involving consolidations within the same sector.44

16 In Victoria several amalgamations of higher education institutions took place during the 1970s. Most were involuntary consolidations within the same sector, involving the merger of small single-purpose institutions in the advanced education sector to form larger units. These included the amalgamation of Larnook and Monash Teachers Colleges to form the State College of Victoria at Rusden in 1975, the merger of the Training Centre for Teachers of the Deaf with Burwood Teachers College in 1976, as well as the incorporation of Mercer House into SCV Toorak in 1975. During this period, Victoria’s fourth university, Deakin University, also came into being through the combination of two colleges of advanced education in 1975. In a paper presented at a conference at the University of Melbourne, the Vice-Chancellor of Deakin (Professor Jevons) highlighted the tensions associated with the absorption of college staff into the University and the problems involved in establishing new institutional objectives following the merger.45

The 1976 amalgamations, which created the Colleges of Advanced Education at Ballarat and Bendigo, were further examples of involuntary mergers. In both cases, two existing institutions were combined to form a new college of advanced education. A detailed examination of these mergers was carried out by Harman, Beswick and Schofield who found that the processes of merger and integration were more complex than expected and created considerable stress and anxiety for all staff.46 The study also concluded that the mergers had led to generally positive outcomes, including a strengthening of academic programs, a wider range of course offerings, and greatly improved facilities. In respect of cost savings, the study found that recurrent costs had not been greatly reduced, since all staff had been given continuity of employment. Nevertheless there had been substantial savings in the capital expenditure required to provide adequate buildings and facilities, once the new institutions had been consolidated on one site.47

Subsequently, there have been two main periods characterised by extensive merger activity. The first of these occurred in the period 1981-1982 when the Federal Government required 30 teacher education colleges to amalgamate or lose all Commonwealth funding. The forced mergers of this period, which included the constituents of Victoria College, led one commentator to recall Martin Trow’s observation that: …the health and freedom of colleges and universities is a function of the diversity of their resources. When universities live by the state, they die by the state. The power of the state and relative isolation and vulnerability of tertiary education became clearer in Australia during 1981.48

17 Several case studies describing the process and outcomes of these mergers suggest that although amalgamations may offer opportunities for growth and diversification, they are rarely achieved without considerable pain.49 In describing the formation of Sydney College of Advanced Education, Koder and McLintock identified ideological issues, human concerns and organisational issues as the three major forces that confront a newly merging institution, and stress the considerable energy required to deal with the emotional effect of merger.50 Similarly, staff anxiety and opposition were identified as major factors in the merger process that resulted in the creation of the Western Australian College of Advanced Education. Reflecting on the costs and benefits of this merger, the Chairman of the College Council concluded that “although higher education in Western Australia will be better off”, the amalgamation still dominates Council business five years later and consequently “consumes the time and energy of everyone associated with the College”.51 By contrast, Abbott does not discuss the merger process or integration issues but uses the example of Victoria College to chart the structural reorganisations that occurred in higher education between 1960 and 1990.52

In his examination of process versus outcomes, Ramsey argued that many of the problems faced by the 1981 group of merged institutions resulted less from the amalgamations themselves than from the economic climate in which they took place. As to whether mergers save money, Ramsey observed that they do when governments decree that they shall, pointing to “savings” of $48.9 million for six merged colleges for the 1982-1984 triennium over the amount that would have been provided if the 1981 levels for the 21 constituent colleges had applied.53 He suggests that criteria to judge the “success” of merged institutions might include measures such as changes in course mix; course rationalisation and reduced duplication; growth of research and development activities; student demand and retention rates; graduate employment; changes in student/staff ratios and staffing profiles.54

A second and considerably more extensive bout of merger activity in higher education occurred in the years between 1988 and 1993 in response to the introduction of the unified national system. This activity was linked to the Government’s objective of introducing more cost-effective institutional arrangements through “further consolidation of small institutions” and resulted in a reduction in the number of Australian higher education institutions from 78 in 1982 to 38 in 1991.55 Ironically, during this process, all of the multi-campus institutions previously formed through the 1981 mergers ceased to exist as independent entities. Some were dismembered and then parcelled out amongst other institutions (Sydney CAE), while others were absorbed (Victoria College, Melbourne CAE) by existing universities. In

18 Victoria, the only exception was Philip Institute which merged with the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) to form RMIT University.

After a comprehensive analysis of higher education mergers in Australia and the Netherlands, Goedegebuure concluded that some striking similarities have emerged regarding the processes and outcomes of mergers. Notwithstanding public rhetoric, he contends that mergers are rarely a “marriage of equals”.56 On the contrary, “the strong take over the weak and the meek inherit absolutely nothing”. Similar to the findings of Harman, Beswick and Schofield, Goedegebuure also concluded that the evidence suggests that higher education mergers have generally positive effects, including expanded programs and, possibly, greater quality. Such mergers, however, are often greeted with “antipathy if not downright hostility” and occur primarily in reaction to external developments, particularly to government policy. Finally, he concludes that, almost without exception, the numerous case studies indicate that they …are intimately associated with problems, stress and anxiety at both the inter-institutional, the basic unit, and the individual level: tensions that are considered to have long lasting effects on the evolution of the new institution. Empirical evidence suggests that it takes from five to ten years for the negative effects of institutional merger to wear off. But despite all this, merger continues to be a favourite instrument used by governments in relation to various parts of the public sector.57

The multi-campus institution Not only was Victoria College the product of a forced merger, it was also a multi-campus institution. Since the mergers that accompanied the introduction of the unified national system of higher education in Australia after 1988, nearly all institutions now have multiple campuses. However in 1981 when the consolidation of Victoria College from four previously separate colleges was mandated, very little was known about the management of such institutions, particularly in Australia.

In analysing the strengths and weaknesses of American multi-campus universities, Clark Kerr suggests that not only are such institutions less collegial and less personal, but they are also “more open to control by external authority than would be a series of separate campuses”.58 The literature describes two types of multi-campus systems. They can be either “consolidated systems” or “flag ship systems”, with a consolidated system being a new entity resulting from the consolidation of previously existing campuses under a new central administration and governing board.59 Clearly, Victoria College was a “consolidated system” under this definition. Indeed, most of the new institutions formed subsequently also fall into this

19 definition, particularly in the case where universities merged with former colleges. As Meek has observed, in such cases, “universities are not amalgamating with colleges, but colonising them”.60 The central management issue for multi-campus institutions or systems is to devise arrangements that balance the necessity for some local autonomy as well as providing for central authority. However there does not appear to any magic formula for determining the appropriate degree of balance between “the centre and the periphery”.61 This thesis examines how Victoria College tackled the issue of central versus local authority in managing its four major campuses.

20 Chapter 3 Historical Overview

By 1965 the Martin Report had led to the introduction of a binary system of institutions that would underpin the structure and development of Australian higher education for the next twenty-five years. Australia’s binary system, like its counterpart in Britain, contained two discrete sectors – the university sector and the non-university or CAE sector (Colleges of Advanced Education), but from its earliest days the system was undermined by academic drift as colleges emulated the characteristics of traditional universities. In 1974 Australian teachers colleges became part of a much expanded CAE sector which until then had mainly included the former technical colleges and specialist para-medical or agricultural colleges. This greatly enhanced the diversity of the higher education system. To understand the forces that shaped Victoria College it is necessary to understand the environment that led to its creation and the factors that influenced the institutions which formed it. This chapter therefore provides an historical overview of higher education in post- war Australia with a specific focus on events in Victoria.

The Binary System in Australia Australia was not alone in expanding its higher education system in the second half of the twentieth century. A similarly vast and rapid expansion of higher education occurred in most industrialised nations during this period. Growth took place both in universities and through the development of alternative educational structures.1 The OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) identified three distinct types of non-university institutions. These were described as the “multi-purpose” model, typified by the community colleges in North America, the “specialised” model which included institutions offering vocational courses in a limited number of areas, and the “binary” model, typically represented by the British polytechnics.2 According to the OECD, an institution within the binary model offered courses and qualifications intended to be distinct from, but of a comparable level to, those in other institutions.3

As was outlined in the Introduction to this thesis, Australia’s binary system evolved as a result of the recommendations of the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia (the Martin Committee). The Committee was chaired by Sir Leslie Martin, who had become the foundation Chairman of the Universities Commission in 1959, following a distinguished academic career first as a research scientist and then as a professor at the

21 University of Melbourne.4 The Martin Committee recommended that the greatly increased demand for tertiary education should be met by a new type of institution, alternative but complementary to the universities. Essentially this meant that the higher education courses offered by the existing non-university institutions should be upgraded and broadened to provide vocational and technical training. The higher education courses of the technical colleges were to be liberalised in order to provide “education” rather than just “training”.5 Teachers colleges were to be removed from the control of State education departments and their entry requirements upgraded to completion of full secondary schooling and their courses extended to three years in length.6

After considering the Committee’s report on the pattern of tertiary education in relation to Australia’s needs and resources , the Commonwealth government moved to introduce a higher education system with two divisions, the University sector and the Advanced Education or CAE sector. Although endorsing the basic objectives of the Martin Report, the government under Sir Robert Menzies only partially accepted its recommendations, excluding teachers’ colleges from the new system. It did however establish colleges of advanced education (or CAEs as they became known) to improve access to higher education for all students. Although Martin envisaged that the new colleges would provide vocational education to growing numbers of students, his own background led him to believe that universities would remain firmly at the top of the educational hierarchy, as the prime source of the nation’s intellectuals.7

The “original” colleges of advanced education were the major institutes of technology and some small specialised ‘technical colleges’ in each State, such as those offering pharmacy, speech and occupational therapy, and agriculture. Victoria was quick to take advantage of the new policy, having established the Victoria Institute of Colleges in 1965, so that by 1969 Victoria already had 19 recognised CAEs as against nine in New South Wales. In any case, Victoria’s system of technological institutes had, in fact, provided the model for the Martin Committee’s new non-university institutions.8 Moreover, R. R. Mackay, the Principal of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, had been a member of the Martin Committee.9

It is hardly surprising that the technological institutes in all States, running primarily male- dominated technical and business-oriented courses, soon became the tall poppies of the advanced education sector. The large metropolitan institutions also banded together to progress their common interests, becoming known as the DOCIT group (DOCIT being an acronym for the Directors of the Central Institutes of Technology).10 By 1976, these eight institutions accounted for almost two thirds of students in courses other than teacher

22 education. In a submission to the Williams Committee, the DOCIT group proposed that these colleges should be recognised as “senior” institutions (on the basis of criteria they themselves advanced) with a special, direct relationship with State and Commonwealth authorities, similar to that of universities.11

System diversity increased substantially after 1974 when teachers colleges were incorporated into the advanced education sector. Not only were there more colleges (by January 1974 there were 82 individual colleges) but females came to be equally represented amongst CAE students. Whereas in 1971 only one quarter of new enrolling students in colleges of advanced education were female, by 1975 women represented almost 46 per cent of newly enrolling students, although 44 per cent of all newly enrolling students were in teacher education.12 Most colleges, excluding teachers’ colleges, had an enrolment of less than 1000 students, and some of them less than 100 students. Many were single purpose colleges, serving the needs of a particular occupation, industry or district. Such diversity could not have been provided or nurtured within the university sector, and only the existence of advanced education authorities has enabled the colleges to raise their standards to a level where their students could anticipate receiving a genuine education rather than more occupational training, and where the qualifications they awarded could be recognised outside their immediate sphere.13

The achievement of CAE status by the previously State-run teachers’ colleges came about primarily as a result of a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts into the Commonwealth Government’s role in teacher education presented in February 1972. The Secretary to the Committee was Dr Colin Campbell who was later to become Director of Prahran College of Advanced Education and then Director of Victoria College following its creation as a result of the so-called “Razor Gang” decisions. The introduction to the Senate Report began with the statement: Teaching the teachers would appear to be the logical point of an educational system, but its place in educational priorities in Australia has until recent years been closer to the bottom than the top of the list.14 In its final set of recommendations, the Senate Committee focused on the administration of teacher education and argued that teacher-training programs should either be associated with a university or incorporated into colleges of advanced education.

But even before the teachers’ colleges became part of the binary system, there was a “distressing lack of clarity about the purposes and goals of higher education in general” and perhaps the most “serious confusion and uncertainty” related to the respective roles of universities and Colleges of Advanced Education”.15 Partly because of this confusion, between 1966 and 1969 a further three Committees were commissioned to advise on higher

23 education in Australia. Both the first and second Wark Reports and the Wiltshire Report endeavoured to clarify the distinction between CAEs and the Universities.16 The role of the colleges of advanced education was confirmed as being a vocational one, one which would enable students to play an effective part in the economic life of the nation immediately after graduation. The focus of CAEs was on teaching while universities, in addition to their teaching mission, were given a major research role in the discovery and expansion of knowledge.

As early as 1970 there was a considerable body of opinion suggesting that there could be no “intelligible distinction of character or function between universities and colleges”, that “these distinctions were artificial” and would increasingly come to be seen as such.17 Writing somewhat later, Teichler described the Australian higher education system as a “supplemented binary system” in which the colleges of advanced education resembled the British polytechnics in various respects: They offer the same kind of degree courses as the universities; they are expected to do this with more or less the same quality as the universities, but in a more practical and vocationally oriented manner. In addition they provide shorter college-level courses and higher vocational courses as well.18

Writing in 1970, Professor Partridge suggested that “one solution to some of the difficulties” in higher education might be for “…the Commonwealth to assume the exclusive responsibility for financing tertiary education”, although he noted that there were “weighty reasons for doubting” that this was a real possibility.19 He may well have been surprised when, in 1974 the Commonwealth Government under Prime Minister Gough Whitlam accepted full responsibility for the funding of all higher education in Australia, including that of teacher education. Prior to this funding responsibility had rested jointly between the States and the Commonwealth or had been the sole responsibility of the States because the Australian Constitution assigns responsibility for education to the States except in relation to student benefits. However, Section 96 of the Constitution empowers the Commonwealth to provide financial assistance to the States on such terms and conditions as are determined by Parliament, and this provision was utilised to provide funding for higher education.

Once the Commonwealth assumed the financial burden for higher education, it expected to play a much larger role in determining policy for the sector. Inevitably, a larger role for the Commonwealth could only occur at the expense of the States. As this thesis will show, the forced consolidations on institutions that occurred in 1981 exemplify how the Commonwealth’s financial power enabled it to implement its policy even in the face of strong

24 State opposition. From Martin onwards the Commonwealth Government has largely dictated higher education policy.

Higher education in Victoria in the post-war period As in the rest of Australia, Victoria’s demographic changes and economic prosperity were two important influences on education in the second half of the twentieth century. The post- war “baby boom” coupled with high levels of immigrants to Australia produced one of the most dramatic demographic changes in Australia’s history. Consequently, enrolments in Victorian Government primary schools doubled between 1950 and 1972 and the number of students in Victorian secondary schools increased from 91,503 in 1960 to 154,293 in 1969.20 At the same time the “long boom” was characterised by sustained economic performance and from the mid-1950s real GDP per head grew more rapidly than at any other time, reflecting rising living standards.21 This led to what has been called the “revolution in rising expectations” as Australian parents encouraged their children to achieve the educational opportunities that most of them had been denied by the Depression or the war years.22 Partly because Australian families now had the financial capacity to support their children in achieving these opportunities, a much greater number of students completed secondary schooling, with nearly a third of young Australians in 1977 staying on to their final year.23

Increasing numbers of these young people then sought to participate in some form of post- secondary education. Up until 1961 when Monash University opened, the University of Melbourne was the sole provider of university education for Victorians. In addition there were the diploma courses of the twelve senior technical colleges, of which the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) was the largest and most prestigious. Teachers’ colleges under the control of the Victorian Education Department numbered 14 in 1965 and, at least for primary teaching courses, admission did not require completion of a Year 12 qualification.24

Post-war Victoria was also experiencing many of the same changes to employment and industrial patterns that characterised the Australian economy generally. In particular the more tightly regulated “professionalism” of key occupations and the growth of bureaucracies, both in Government and private organisations, meant that educational qualifications became increasingly important as determinants of employment and status. Coupled with the outputs of the post-war baby boom, this led to enormous pressure for further expansion of the tertiary education sector.

25 By the early 1960s it was apparent to the Victorian Government that expansion of tertiary education on its own was not enough. There was an emerging view that higher education needed to adapt to the needs of the Australian economy by providing more skilled workers, particularly high level technologists and applied research workers. Accordingly, early in 1961 the Victorian Government set up its own Committee under the chairmanship of former Director-General of Education Major-General Sir Alan Ramsay, “to report and make recommendations on the prospective needs of the State for educational facilities at University level for the next ten years”.25 In August of the same year, Prime Minister Menzies established the Martin Committee “to consider the pattern of tertiary education in relation to the needs and resources of Australia”.26 Given that the deliberations of the two Committees took place at much the same time, it is interesting that they came to such different conclusions.

When the Ramsay Committee reported in 1963, it recommended that the growing demand for higher education should be provided through “full and proper university facilities” or university colleges rather than by alternative types of institutions. From 1960 onwards the Victorian Government had been publicly committed to the upgrading of some provincial technical colleges to university colleges as a consequence of its twin objectives of expanding technical education in general as well as providing tertiary education in regional Victoria.27 Not surprisingly, therefore, the Ramsay Committee also recommended that a trial university college be established at Ballarat. In spite of ongoing pressure from Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology for the power to confer degrees, the Committee opposed the conversion of existing technical or teachers’ colleges into universities as it would “serve no useful educational or vocational purpose”.28

Technical Institutes become Colleges of Advanced Education In spite of Ramsay’s advice, the Victorian Premier (Mr Bolte), announced during the election campaign in June 1964 that eight technical colleges would be raised to degree status and a central governing council would be set up.29 It is possible that this policy announcement reflected his knowledge of what the Martin Committee was intending to recommend, since it is reasonable to suppose that he is likely to have had contact with Sir Leslie Martin, a fellow Victorian. The next year the Victoria Institute of Colleges was established as a central authority with wide-ranging powers to make recommendations on “any matters relating to tertiary education other than in the universities of Victoria”.30 These included “the financial requirements of the colleges”; their “staffing establishments”; and taking such “steps as considered necessary to stimulate the improvement of academic standards” as well as preparing financial submissions to the Commonwealth Government. 31 Dr Phillip Law was

26 appointed Vice-President of the Victoria Institute of Colleges in April 1966 and was to have a powerful influence on the development of the college sector in Victoria.32

By 1967 Victoria’s students had a choice of 36 tertiary education institutions in which to undertake their post-secondary studies. In that year there were three universities, 19 federally funded Colleges of Advanced Education and 14 State-financed Teachers’ Colleges. In 1969, Prahran College of Technology (formerly Prahran Technical School) was added to the list of institutions receiving federal funding increasing the number of CAEs to 20. So began a period of unprecedented expansion for tertiary education. In the ten years after 1965 students enrolled in Colleges of Advanced Education under the control of the Victoria Institute of Colleges more than trebled, and during the same period there were similarly large increases in the number of enrolments in teacher education courses.33

The creation of the Victoria Institute of Colleges certainly increased the opportunities for tertiary education available to Victorian students, but in so doing it tended to shift entrance requirements towards those of the universities, that is, towards a satisfactory sixth form record (matriculation) or its equivalent. As the Martin Report had noted, the Victorian system of technical education was much more highly developed than that in other States. In Victoria there were more senior technical colleges offering courses at tertiary level than in the other States, and in some fields, such as in engineering, diplomates from the colleges outnumbered the output of the universities in the same field. However, whereas the Martin Report recommended that diploma courses should be three years post-matriculation, the Victorian pattern was for four-year courses post-fifth form because secondary technical education in Victoria finished at fifth form.

Almost immediately the States, led by Victoria, subverted the Commonwealth Government’s intention to restrict financial aid to the new type of colleges to diploma level and other sub- degree courses. In 1968, the Victoria Institute of Colleges decided, in accordance with its statutory powers, to award a degree in Pharmacy to students who had completed the course at the Victorian College of Pharmacy. This decision of the Victoria Institute of Colleges marked a fundamental change in the role of colleges from that envisaged by Martin and by the Menzies Government.

The Prime Minister had previously stated that the Commonwealth support “will not go beyond supporting the basic concept [of] new type colleges with a variety of advanced courses leading on completion to a diploma”.34 Nevertheless, funds to the Pharmacy College in Victoria were not cut off. Not only did the Commonwealth continue to fund the degree-

27 level course, but also shortly thereafter, the Government appointed the Wiltshire Committee to consider the matter of nomenclature and standards. Because of the support of the Wiltshire Committee for college degrees as well as diplomas, the Commonwealth finally agreed to fund college degrees provided a national body endorsed them as the Committee had proposed. Consequently, in May 1971, the Commonwealth and State Ministers agreed to the establishment of the Australian Council on Awards in Advanced Education (ACAAE). While the States retained the right to accredit actual courses, the role of the new body was to set guidelines for awards and to promote consistency in their nomenclature and standards throughout Australia.

In one sense the decision to establish the ACAAE was really a case of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted because by 1971 the Victoria Institute of Colleges, contrary to Martin’s recommendations, had already approved 18 degree courses and had embarked upon a deliberate policy of upgrading courses generally to tertiary level. As Dr Law later said of this policy: Why have degrees? That was largely related to our defined function as a tertiary system that was equal but different to universities… my view was that never in fifty years would we ever convince people that a diploma was as good as a degree. To be equal but different we had to produce a degree.35

Thus from the very beginning the CAE sector was marked by a move towards what has later become known as upward academic drift.36 The ongoing replacement of sub-degree courses by degree programs in CAEs blurred the distinction between colleges and universities, leading to the eventual demise of the system. It was also a catalyst for the expansion of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) Colleges to fill the middle-level training gap left by the CAEs. However academic drift was not the only factor that led to course lengthening and upgrading. The power and influence of male-dominated professional and para-professional associations and professional registration boards over the length and status of advanced education courses were also important factors influencing developments in advanced education. These organisations operated to enhance the status of courses predominantly studied by men. The most notable case was the Institution of Engineers and the support given by the Martin Report to its rule that a four-year training course was necessary for engineers. This decision certainly accelerated the growth of bachelor degree courses.37

By 1969 the Victoria Institute of Colleges was also pressing for salary parity between college and university staff, a move that was strongly resisted by the Victorian Government. When, as a result of the Sweeney Report, the Commonwealth supported equal salaries for college

28 and university staff, the Victorian Government modified its opposition to the extent that college salaries were initially raised to 96 per cent of university salaries, before salary parity was achieved.38 The process of upward academic drift was strengthened by the Sweeney decision because it gave implicit recognition to the notion that there was equality of intellectual standards between the two types of institutions. This decision further heightened the existing confusion about the respective roles of the two sectors.

Differentiating Victoria’s colleges of advanced education from universities Possibly, the issue that caused greatest confusion in the minds of the public and the one that continued to bedevil the CAE sector throughout its existence was finding a satisfactory definition of a “CAE”. Although a CAE was not called a university and it was not funded for research, what sort of institution was it? From shortly after taking up his position as Vice- President on 26 April 1966, Dr Phillip Law set about the task of differentiating colleges within the Victoria Institute of Colleges from universities. In an address in 1967 Dr Law explained that the Victoria Institute of Colleges: …is concerned with professional courses of a high standard, courses that are not less demanding and are not inferior in standing to those of a university, but are different in nature – more practical than abstract, more specific than general and more closely integrated with the practising professions for which they are training the students…We are determined …that our colleges will retain the characteristics that we want in them – vocationalism, keen attention to teaching and integration with industry.39 Indeed, his commitment to courses with a strong vocational content led the Victoria Institute of Colleges to restrict CAEs to the ‘hard’ technologies and to oppose the introduction of liberal studies courses in arts or social sciences as proposed by Martin.40

From 1965 onwards, a plethora of reports, books and articles attempted to describe the characteristics that differentiated colleges from universities.41 Colleges were said to be more vocational with close links to employers and industry and flexible in their teaching methods. Universities were to move in the direction of “more graduate work, an academic orientation and a concern with scholarship and research”.42 As this thesis will attempt to show, over time the absence of research in colleges eventually came to be viewed as the defining difference between the two types of institutions. What the official descriptions failed to mention, however, were the different social and economic functions of the institutions. Because universities enjoyed the highest status, they attracted a greater proportion of highly qualified entrants from middle and higher socio-economic classes. In return, they prepared these students for “the occupations which command the highest status – the traditional learned professions, secondary teaching of academic subjects and tertiary education itself”.43

29 However, if universities continued to cater for the elite, the colleges provided increased access to tertiary education from young people who might otherwise not have had such opportunities. It seems unlikely that the universities …would have expanded to the extent that colleges did in terms of admitting new students and offering a wide range of courses. I think it was the diversity of the courses that they were offering that opened education much more in Australia... I think that if somebody had looked at the picture and decided that the only way that they were going to move towards a mass system of higher education would be by setting up a competitor, then they would have gone ahead and set up something like the Colleges of Advanced Education.44 Research published in 1968 showed that CAEs catered for “the educationally and socially less privileged” including students who were “less academically qualified or who are university dropouts”.45 As this thesis will show Victoria College played an important role in increasing educational opportunities for students from less socially and economically advantaged backgrounds.

Teachers’ Colleges gain CAE status In order to enable it to receive Commonwealth funding for teachers’ colleges, the Victorian Government established a second coordinating authority in 1972, the State College of Victoria (SCV). This authority had responsibility for making reports and recommendations on any matters relating to tertiary education other than in the universities in Victoria and the affiliated colleges of the Victoria Institute of Colleges. The SCV colleges were mainly concerned with teacher education courses although the SCV Act did not limit the State College of Victoria to this field and over time there were moves, largely unsuccessful, to diversify the courses the SCV colleges offered. 46

The Martin Committee had first recommended autonomy for teachers’ colleges some nine years earlier. The Martin Report viewed the “preparation of teachers as one of the most significant phases of tertiary education in Australia… and any real prospects for educational advance rests essentially upon the quality of this preparation”.47 It had proposed the development of independent teachers’ colleges coordinated through a statutory body in each State, and canvassed the possibility of autonomous colleges expanding the range of courses they offered and developing into colleges of arts and science.

In May 1965, the Victorian Minister of Education held the first discussions concerning possible autonomy for teachers colleges. However soon after the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education announced that teacher training colleges were not eligible

30 for CAE funding. Consequently, no further discussions took place until May 1969, when the Victorian Government appointed L J Pryor, the Director of Teacher Education in Victoria, to head a Committee of Inquiry into a Proposed Organisation of Autonomous Teachers Colleges.48

During this period both the Victorian Association of Teachers’ Colleges Principals and the Council of the Teacher College Staff Associations (CTCSAV) were active in lobbying for the establishment of a separate coordinating body. As a former president of the Teachers’ Colleges Staff Association’s Council recalled, it may not have been necessary that such a body be formed: …Phil [Law] made a strategic error. The Teachers’ Colleges were so keen to get independence of the State Department of Education; they would have come in under the VIC banner if they had been handled well. But he was so antagonistic that they turned away from the VIC and pursued their own quest for independence under the SCV. [Also] Phil was autocratic and the teachers’ colleges were seen as really institutions of dilettantish nature.49

Partly because of such perceptions, both organisations came to believe that teachers’ colleges would be disadvantaged by the joining the Victoria Institute of Colleges which was seen as having hierarchical and directive organisational arrangements that provided “minimal external representation and restricted staff input”.50

Following the publication of the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts in 1972, the Commonwealth agreed to support the funding of State teachers’ colleges on the same matching basis as other colleges in the advanced education sector. However, Commonwealth funding was conditional upon the teachers’ colleges being self-governing or moving towards self-government under the supervision of an appropriate State coordinating body. This decision provided added impetus for the establishment of the State College of Victoria.

Although the Victoria Institute of Colleges belatedly entered the debate, asserting that the setting up of a new statutory body would be wasteful duplication, the State Colleges of Victoria Act 1972 (SCV Act) established a separate body to coordinate the activities of teachers’ colleges.51 This arrangement was unique to Victoria and was not one favoured by the Commonwealth authorities because of the additional administrative complexity it imposed.

31 The SCV Act was almost identical to that of the Victoria Institute of Colleges although the SCV placed great emphasis on its role as a body representing the collective interests of its eleven constituent colleges, which included the former Burwood, Toorak and Rusden Teachers’ Colleges.52 The governing body of the new authority, the Interim Senate, met for the first time on July 27, 1973.

Two coordinating authorities in Victoria E G Whitlam became Australia’s first post-war Labour Prime Minister in 1972. This ended 23 years of conservative government by a coalition of the Liberal Party and the Country Parties in the Federal Parliament. In 1974 the Whitlam government took over full financial responsibility for higher education, abolished tuition fees for students and introduced the Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme (TEAS) to provide financial support to poor students. These reforms fundamentally changed the nature of State and Commonwealth roles and responsibilities in the area of higher education. Not only did the Commonwealth assume complete financial responsibility for advanced education, but it also introduced funding of State coordinating bodies in 1975 in the form of a base grant of $66,000 annually together with a per capita sum of $26.50 for each EFT student 53. Indeed Whitlam was to write later that: The most enduring single achievement of my Government was the transformation of education in Australia. It assumed full financial responsibility for tertiary education and abolished fees for tertiary and technical education.54

However, Victoria’s negotiations with the Commonwealth proved difficult because of the necessity to compartmentalise post-secondary education in Victoria into discrete sectors, each with its own coordinating authority. This soon led to problems of “sectoral blurring” as the Victoria Institute of Colleges expanded into teacher education at the Warrnambool and Gippsland Institutes and by the amalgamation of Ballarat and Bendigo teachers’ colleges with the respective institutes of technology in 1976. This left the SCV with no teachers’ colleges in regional Victoria after Geelong Teachers’ College amalgamated with Gordon Institute of Technology in 1976 to form Deakin University.55 Indeed the formation of Deakin University from two non-university institutions further undermined the notion of two discrete sectors of higher education.

This situation led the Victorian Government to initiate a review of the organisation of advanced education in Victoria under the chairmanship of Mr Maurice Brown. Notwithstanding the obvious overlaps between the two coordinating authorities, the review reported in December 1976 that the Victoria Institute of Colleges and the State College of

32 Victoria “should not be amalgamated [because] there would appear to be no significant economic or administrative advantages”.56

In July of the same year the Victorian Minister for Education, L.H.S. Thompson, established a Committee of Inquiry into Post-Secondary Education to provide advice on a wide range of issues including: …the present and future demands for post-secondary of all kinds in Victoria; the present and future employment opportunities for people with post-secondary educational qualifications; the proper pattern of development and relationships of the various streams of post-secondary education; and measures which should be implemented to avoid the unnecessary duplication and overlap of courses and facilities in existing provisions for post-secondary education or likely to occur as a result of projected new developments.57

The Committee, chaired by Professor P H Partridge, conducted regular meetings, invited submissions, visited institutions and conducted interviews before presenting its Report on 24 February 1978. Like the Martin Committee before it, members of this Committee were predominantly men whose education and experience meant that they were likely to equate higher education with university education and to have limited understanding of the activities or potential of colleges of advanced education.58

One of the major issues identified in the Partridge Committee’s report related to what the Committee perceived as problems of coordination and rationalisation and, accordingly, it recommended that a new administrative authority to be called the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, be established as a matter of urgency. This new body which would coordinate across all three sectors of post-secondary education in Victoria - universities, colleges of advanced education and TAFE institutions - would replace the existing sectoral authorities: the Victoria Institute of Colleges, the State College of Victoria and the Council for Technical Education.

While stopping short of recommending mergers or closures (as other States had done), the Partridge Committee expressed doubts about the future of some institutions in an environment which it perceived as being characterised by over-provision, particularly in the fields of engineering and teacher education: In tertiary education, Victoria is already provided with the institutions and facilities that should be adequate for some years to come. Several existing institutions are already experiencing difficulty in enrolling enough students of adequate capacity and qualifications. This is, of course, more evident in some fields of study than in others. In our view, there will be no need to establish new tertiary institutions, either universities or colleges of advanced

33 education, in the foreseeable future. The problems will rather be one of finding ways of using more effectively the teaching resources that already exist. . Further development in post- secondary education would more profitably be undertaken in the technical and further education sector than in the tertiary sector.59

Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission established Although accepting the Report’s recommendations about the establishment of the Post- Secondary Education Commission the Victorian Government announced that the rest of its recommendations would be not be taken up until the Commission had studied them further. Shortly thereafter, the Post-Secondary Education Act 1978 established the Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission with broad ranging responsibilities. Its functions as described in Section 5 of the Act were very broad, including making recommendations about the co-ordination and proper development of post-secondary education in Victoria; the allocation of funds to institutions, courses of study, academic awards, and the balanced development of all types of post-secondary education throughout Victoria having regard to the special needs of the people of Victoria who live in provincial cities country towns and country areas. (S.5.(2))

On November 16, 1978, the Government appointed Dr Graham Allen, a former Vice- President of the State College of Victoria and Principal of SCV Melbourne as Chairman. He was a man uniquely fitted for the role, having considerable experience in post-secondary education in Victoria. His understanding of the complexity of the issues then facing higher education was evident in an interview conducted shortly after taking up his new position when he commented that: …one of the dangers I see facing all institutions of higher education is that, with the current difficulties in employment, the tailoring of courses and intakes into courses to make a tight match between ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ could become a controlling factor.60

In describing how he saw the future role of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Dr Allen stated that he believed that one of the most important tasks facing the Commission is, in time, to develop a properly thought through, carefully argued and well based statement on the purposes of post-secondary education and the ways these can be pursued. In my view, we haven’t had that in Victoria up to the present.61

As this thesis will demonstrate, developing a ‘properly thought through’ approach proved to be a very fraught exercise because of the simultaneous pressures to reduce enrolments in teacher education and to increase the range and quantity of middle-level TAFE training to

34 support industry restructuring. The task of juggling these competing needs, particularly in the early days, fell to the Chairman, Dr Graham Allen and the Commission’s Executive Director, Michael Selway62. It has been suggested that Michael Selway and Graham Allen were among the two most influential forces in tertiary education in Victoria for ten years after 1978.63

In the following June (1979) the Commission forwarded to A J Hunt, Victorian Minister of Education, a Report entitled The Co-Ordination of Advanced Education in Victoria: A Report to the Minister of Education. The Report reviewed a number of recommendations made by the Post-Secondary Education Committee (Partridge Committee). It concluded that …after consideration of the submissions and of the information received during consultation with prime bodies, the Commission agrees with the recommendation of the Post-Secondary Education Committee that the separate administrations of the Victoria Institute of Colleges and the State College of Victoria should be discontinued.64

It also recommended that all Victorian colleges of advanced education be responsible directly to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission.65 The Report went on to outline the Commission’s belief that external validation of courses had been one of the factors which had assured the quality of awards of Victorian colleges of advanced education. Nevertheless, the Commission now believed that as “soon as possible accreditation of courses should become the responsibility of colleges themselves, but that appropriate accreditation arrangements should be devised to ensure that this recognition is maintained”.66 Accordingly, new legislation was recommended, in the form of a Victorian Colleges Act, to provide for the establishment of institutions with specified powers, “…among which is to be the power to confer their own degrees”.67 This was a very significant inclusion because the power to accredit and award their own degrees was one of the major factors distinguishing universities from CAEs. Extending this capacity to CAEs further blurred the distinctions between the two types of institutions.

The role and powers of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission ultimately exceeded those envisaged by the Partridge Committee by virtue of the requirement to report and make recommendations about all three sectors of post-secondary education, including the allocation of funds amongst sectors and institutions.68 Similarly, although the Partridge Committee had recommended that the universities should continue to deal directly with the Commonwealth but keep the Commission informed of their submissions, the legislation required all post-secondary institutions to provide notice in writing of their intention to communicate with tertiary funding bodies. The Victorian Post-Secondary Education

35 Commission also had the power to require institutions to attach Commission comments to their submissions if it so decided.

Nevertheless the new arrangements gave colleges greater autonomy in day to day management of their institutions, a point noted in the Ministerial Statement on Coordination of Advanced Education in Victoria released on the 18th July, 1979: An important effect of the decisions taken by the Government on these issues will be to place greater responsibility on the individual colleges to manage their own affairs. Although they will be responsible to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission on major policy matters, they will no longer be subject to the more detailed supervision of their activities which has existed during a major developmental period. The granting of greater autonomy to colleges was yet another instance of how State government policy also worked to undermine the binary system as envisaged by the Martin Committee, just as the funding of degree courses in colleges by the Commonwealth had done earlier. By gradually ceding to colleges all the same privileges enjoyed by universities, such as the power to accredit their own courses, successive State and Commonwealth governments increasingly blurred the distinction between the two sectors.

Although the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission commenced operation in 1978, it was not until 19 December 1980 that the State College of Victoria and the Victoria Institute of Colleges were dissolved. One of the first tasks of the newly appointed Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission was to coordinate Victoria’s response to the so-called “teacher education” crisis and the institutional consolidations mandated by the Commonwealth. How it approached this task and its dealings with the four institutions destined to form Victoria College will be described in the next chapter of this thesis. Indeed it will be argued that the events that led to the formation of Victoria College may also be seen as a defining moment in the future of Commonwealth/State relations in higher education.

36 Chapter 4 Creating Victoria College – the economic and fiscal context

The long post-war period of sustained expansion of tertiary education came to an abrupt end after 1976. The “steady state” as it was known was quickly followed by a “time of troubles”.1 The years between 1976 and 1981 were particularly difficult for teacher education institutions because of a perceived oversupply of teachers. The Commonwealth Government’s policy response to this issue was to require the States to redirect resources away from teacher education and into sciences, technologies and business. In 1981, it announced its final solution: the “rationalisation” of advanced education through the consolidation of 30 teacher education institutions nation-wide. 2 In response, the Victorian Government mandated a number of amalgamations, including that of SCV Toorak, SCV Burwood and SCV Rusden with Prahran College of Advanced Education to form Victoria College. This chapter describes the events immediately preceding the announcements of institutional mergers in 1981.

The inclusion of teacher education colleges into the advanced education sector in 1974 greatly expanded systemic diversity, adding 35 additional colleges to the existing 41 institutions. It also broadened the socio-economic composition of the student body because teaching had traditionally been an important avenue in enabling poorer students to obtain a tertiary education.3 During their first few years in the advanced education sector there was a national shortage of teachers. This meant that the former teachers’ colleges were mainly preoccupied with upgrading their teacher education courses, coping with the growth in numbers, and upgrading the qualifications of their staff.4

Nevertheless, the upgrading of staff qualifications is an issue that is clearly linked to the process of academic drift. Staff of teachers’ colleges was drawn primarily from amongst the ranks of teaching practitioners and were more often selected for their practical experience than for their academic qualifications. Consequently, compared with other colleges of advanced education, staff in teacher-education institutions tended to be less qualified academically, particularly institutions dedicated to primary teacher education. This probably explains why, in the institutional “pecking order”, colleges focused on the education of secondary teachers perceived their institutions to be intellectually superior to those devoted to training primary teachers, while both types of teacher education colleges were perceived to be less prestigious than the institutes of technology.

37 Moreover, unlike the technical colleges, the teachers colleges had no powerful constituency to plead their cause. By the time the teachers colleges were made corporate in 1973-1974, the colleges of advanced education, the former institutes of technology like RMIT, were well down the track and had developed strong power bases.

Supply and demand issues in teacher education The possibility of a surplus of teachers was a new phenomenon for advanced education. The dramatic increases in the school-age population, which saw enrolments in Victorian Government primary schools double between 1950 and 1972, had led to continual pressure for more teachers. Consequently, the number of trainee teachers increased to such an extent that by 1970 the number of Government teachers’ colleges in Victoria had grown from three to fourteen.5

As a result of the continuing growth in educational participation, teacher employment expanded at about five per cent per annum in the decade after 1965. This represented the biggest single area of graduate employment, particularly for women, who accounted for about 60 per cent of all schoolteachers in 1977.6 Demand declined markedly by the late 1970s, as school populations became smaller. The earlier growth in the size and number of teachers’ colleges meant that the institutions would soon be producing teachers for whom there would be no immediate appointments in schools.

In its Annual Report for 1978 the Victorian Education Department noted that within the last five years the situation had “moved from an undersupply of teachers to an excess in some areas of staffing needs”. It also reported that whereas entry to teaching had previously been “rigidly controlled through a teaching awards scheme”, the Department now maintained the teaching awards system “only to ensure that short-fall staffing needs will be met”.7 Until the separation of teachers’ colleges from the Education Department in 1973, most students were supported during their study by teaching studentships and scholarships introduced in response to post-war teacher shortages.8 Because teaching has traditionally provided an avenue for social mobility, these awards also played an important role in enabling young people from lower socio-economic groups to gain access to tertiary education. The policy to reduce intakes into teacher training courses also enabled the studentship scheme to be terminated, thus further narrowing the opportunities for occupational and social mobility for working class students and for women.

38 Attempts by the teacher education institutions to diversify in response to this declining demand were not supported by the Commonwealth. By 1979, only two per cent of enrolment in the State College of Victoria institutions, the former teachers colleges, was available for non-teacher education courses. Despite the fact that the Martin Committee had envisaged some diversification by the teacher education institutions, the Commonwealth continued to restrict growth so that: the desire of colleges to provide liberal arts courses for the general community has also been frustrated by lack of support from federal authorities.9

This point was noted by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission as it considered a paper reviewing Commission policy about post-secondary education in Victoria in 1982-84 at its first meeting in January 1981. The paper confirmed the Commission’s view that the Tertiary Education Commission will not favour academic diversification of teacher education institutions for what appears to be institutional maintenance, and in particular, it will not encourage expansion of liberal studies in colleges currently specialising in teacher education unless this in association with another, more broadly-based, institution.10

Nor was the Commonwealth Government’s policy on the possibility of a teacher surplus in Australia restricted to preventing the diversification of teacher education institutions. In a Statement on 9 June 1978 Senator the Hon J L Carrick, Minister for Education warned that: The Government notes that intakes to pre-service teacher education courses have been falling in recent years and believes it important that the Commission have discussions with State and institutional authorities… with a view to achieving further reductions in intakes into these courses in 1979 in response to the present and prospective surplus in the supply of teachers.11

Nevertheless, the situation might not have led to the draconian measures of 1981 if the implications of the changed demographic patterns had not become evident at the very time that the economy was encountering hard times.

Economic downturn and the education debate In the mid 1970s Australia along with most other industrial economies entered a period of recession characterised by soaring inflation, increased unemployment and a decline in overall economic growth. Implementation of Labor’s election commitments caused Government outlays to rise to 28 per cent of GDP in one fiscal year (1974-75) (having been steady over the previous decade at 23 per cent of GDP) and exacerbated Australia’s underlying inflationary pressures. 12 At the end of the 1970s, there was a further slowing of the

39 economy. Unemployment rose to previously unheard of rates and became structural as well as cyclical, because new jobs were not created as fast as the labour force itself grew.

At the same time there was a recognition that the dramatic increases in demand for tertiary education places from the “baby boomers” had levelled off and population increases had now subsided to lower levels. The official view from the Tertiary Education Commission was that “the demand for places in universities or colleges of advanced education is being met” although, it noted that this was largely a “reflection of deliberate decisions to hold the intakes of university students at the 1976 level and of advanced education students at the 1977 level”.13

These circumstances engendered political pressure for an examination of all areas of significant government expenditure, including tertiary education. In October 1976, the Government appointed Professor Bruce Williams, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney, to head a Committee to conduct a wide-ranging Inquiry into Education and Training. When the Committee’s Report (the Williams Report) was published in February 1979 it proved critical of the CAE sector, suggesting that the “past years of rapid expansion had not necessarily seen the maintenance of high standards”.14

Education issues also received greater prominence in the mass media during the closing years of the decade but the tenor of the debate was particularly negative. Colleges and universities were portrayed as inefficient, duplicating, irrelevant and costly and the education system generally was depicted as failing to provide students with the skills necessary to support economic growth. 15 This view gained support when the Federal Minister for Education stated in Parliament: More and more people are questioning the quality of delivery of education. There are significant grounds for such questioning. The Williams Committee report has supported public doubts.16

Indeed when the Williams Report was released in February 1979 The Australian communicated its analysis in feature articles entitled: Increased Spending Era Comes To An End and Far-Reaching Changes In Education Plans- Tougher Standards, Elite Universities, Upgraded Techs, Think Tanks as Education Meets the Cost Crunch.17 The general thrust was that the Report had highlighted the need for greater economy and efficiency in advanced education, while supporting additional growth in technical and further education. The debate was now dominated by economic rather than broader social or educational issues. Accountability, rationalisation, the division of scarce resources became its catch cries whereas

40 concepts such as of equality of educational opportunity disappeared from the discussion altogether.18

During 1979 the oversupply of teachers became a focus of media attention. A series of articles, such as that entitled Brain Drain Crisis for Teaching, reported that there was a dramatic decline in teacher trainee enrolments because of fears of unemployment.19 The Council of Academic Staff Associations (CASA) described this concerted campaign as an attempt to single out teacher education .. as a convenient scapegoat in efforts to slow down the growth in advanced education. A minor oversupply of teachers in the late seventies became inflated by press and politicians into a national tragedy of wasted taxpayers’ money, although the graduates involved found employment anyway, if not in teaching, then in other professional and semi-professional fields.20

There can be little doubt that the media attention paved the way for community acceptance of the college mergers and the reduction in teacher education intakes that were shortly to follow. This view was one shared by Dr Curry: I almost feel that there has been a deliberate attempt to denigrate the teaching profession. Because there are so many teachers they have never had the public status which the other professions have had, therefore not had the political clout. They don’t add to the bottom line as far as profits are concerned. Whatever contribution they make is not able to be measured. And for all these reasons, you have had I think a demeaning of the status of the teaching profession.21 Certainly, the single purpose CAEs, the former teachers’ colleges, never obtained the same political influence as the institutes of technology. There are several probable reasons for this. In the first place, as we have seen, the former teachers’ colleges gained autonomy much later than other CAEs. They were not involved in engineering, science or business education and therefore their links to the business community were tenuous at best. Their graduates became teachers, many were women, and few were likely to become ‘captains of industry’ with political influence.

Reductions in teacher education intakes: the Commonwealth versus Victoria In October 1979, the Tertiary Education Commission circulated its Working Paper on the Supply and Demand for New Teacher Graduates in the 1980s to State coordinating authorities. 22 Subsequent debate focussed on the assumptions used to derive the estimates of teacher surpluses because these formed the basis for planned reductions in enrolment numbers.23 Even the Tertiary Education Commission acknowledged that the uncertainties relating to the projections of supply and demand:

41 …justify caution in considering the need for further reductions in intakes. It suggests, however, that some further reductions are necessary, particularly for primary teacher training courses.24

Discussion about the extent of the reductions in teacher education intakes dominated negotiations in advanced education from the period beginning in 1977. Victoria was reluctant to reduce intakes on the scale envisaged by the Commonwealth and sought to extend the time period in which to manage the transition to lower enrolment levels. In its submission to the Tertiary Education Commission in July 1977, the State College of Victoria argued that time should be “…given to make necessary adjustments in enrolment patterns in a planned and organised way” to ensure the viability and stability of the sector.25 At the same time, the State College of Victoria also cautioned its colleges to act responsibly: You will know that the hue and cry has started about oversupply of teachers… However, it is essential that no college exceeds these agreed enrolments. Otherwise, we may well find attempts to introduce draconian cuts even before the next triennium.26

Although the State College of Victoria did make reductions in intakes into pre-service teacher education courses, it had also increased enrolments in post-experience courses, which largely offset the decreases in pre-service courses.27 Consequently, from 1978 onwards there was continued pressure from the Tertiary Education Commission for Victoria to make “permanent reductions in the volume of resources devoted to teacher education”.28 At the same time the Advanced Education Council drew attention to the need to review the provision of advanced education in metropolitan Melbourne and suggested that Victoria may need to consider a “major restructuring within the advanced education sector” by 1980 or 1981.29

In late 1978 the situation changed when the Victorian Government established the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission as Victoria’s principal post-secondary education coordinating authority. Because of existing academic and contractual obligations it was necessary to retain both the Victoria Institute of Colleges and the State College of Victoria so that appropriate arrangements could be developed before legislative changes were implemented late in 1980. Consequently, the three parties negotiated an agreement about transitional arrangements, including the diminished responsibilities for the Vice-Presidents of the Victoria Institute of Colleges and the State College of Victoria and their future appointment on a part-time basis.

The Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission officially came into being on 25 October 1978. Its relations with the State College of Victoria quickly became strained when,

42 late in 1979, it announced its planning decisions for 1980 and beyond. In correspondence to the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission on 19 December 1979, the Vice President of the State College of Victoria expressed “deep concern at the way in which the VPSEC had handled the question of enrolments in teacher education courses in 1980” and the “drastic reductions in pre-service intakes” in most colleges of the State College of Victoria.30 As can be seen in the following table, student load in pre-service teacher education did reduce substantially between 1978 and 1980, although not as much as the Tertiary Education Commission would have wished. Table 4.1 Student Load in Advanced Education in Victoria Estimated 1978 to 1981 1978 1979 1980 1978-1980

Pre-service teacher education 13,021 11,723 10,500 -2521 Post-experience teacher education 3010 3750 4000 990

Total teacher education 16031 15473 14500 -1531 Science-based courses 11093 12100 12291 1198 Commerce/social 14590 14918 15350 760 sciences/humanities based courses TOTAL 41714 42491 42142141 427 * Source: Tertiary Education Commission, Report for 1982-84 Triennium, Volume 1, Part 3, Advice of Advanced Education Council, February 1981, p. 157.

Although no longer directly responsible for negotiating with the Commonwealth, the State College of Victoria continued to participate in the debate as an advocate for the SCV colleges, a situation that doubtless caused some difficulties for the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (VPSEC) in establishing its authority in its negotiations with both the Commonwealth and with the State College of Victoria colleges.31

In order to provide a forum for discussion, consultative meetings between the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) and State Coordinating Authorities were initiated. At the first of these meetings held on 26 September 1979, Professor Peter Karmel, the Chairman of the TEC informed State representatives that, “based on the available data”, the resources devoted to teacher education needed to be reduced by about 25 to 30 percent between 1978 and 1984” so as to achieve a reasonable balance between supply and demand.32 According to the Chairman, the Tertiary Education Commission was “concerned that institutions had apparently taken little notice of its comments” about the staffing implications of the reduction in teacher education. State representatives then pressed the Commission representatives to “make an early response to existing proposals before the Commission for the introduction of liberal studies courses at undergraduate (UG3) level at some CAEs”.33

43 Proposals for structural change Armed with the knowledge that Victoria needed to make further reductions in teacher education enrolments, the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission embarked on discussions with a number of colleges concerning future developments. It seems that the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission canvassed a wide range of options during this time, including an unsuccessful approach to Monash University regarding the possibility of SCV Rusden being absorbed by Monash University.34 Dr Allen urged colleges to consider the possibilities of cooperation and sharing of facilities between neighbouring institutions and the development of what he called “affiliations”.

Subsequently the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission prepared its Advice to the Advanced Education Council for the 1982-84 triennium. This document, considered at the Commission meeting held on Wednesday 14 May 1980, stated that: …as institutions previously involved almost solely in teacher education will be seriously affected [by the reduction in teacher education intakes] it is anticipated that arrangements for sharing resources ranging from contracting arrangements to full-scale amalgamation of institutions will occur.35 The document went on to outline proposed developments in Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education, including the proposed amalgamation of Melbourne State College and SCV Coburg at the earliest possible date.

In relation to Prahran College of Advanced Education, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission advised that although the College was “a strong institution demonstrating potential for expansion”, it was “severely constrained in its academic activities by the lack of physical facilities”. To provide adequately for the institution considerable capital funds are needed. The Commission is not persuaded that these funds can be seen as a priority within the State’s needs and has considered alternative solutions. One of these would be close Prahran and direct its academic activities to other institutions such as Caulfield, Hawthorn and Swinburne. Apart from the likely strong opposition from a number of quarters to the removal of a vigorous educational institution, the Commission itself is not persuaded that such a course would offer any significant benefit to the community.36 The paper concluded that the combination of Prahran and Toorak State College was advantageous from all points of view.

On the 21st May 1980, the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission wrote to a number of colleges informing them of the Commission’s decisions. He wrote to

44 the Principals of Melbourne State College, SCV Coburg and Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences informing them …that the Commission has recommended to the Minister of Education that Melbourne State College should enter into contractual arrangements with Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences and that Melbourne State College and SCV Coburg should amalgamate.37

On the same day Dr Allen also wrote to Dr J Milton-Smith, Acting Director of Prahran College of Advanced Education, advising that although the Commission had concerns “about the lack of suitable physical facilities, particularly inadequate library resources”, the Commission …is unable to accord your College an early priority in the allocation of capital funds, having regard to the substantial sums required, the unfavourable climate for the provision of capital funds, and other needs within the State. After considering geographical and other factors and in recognition of the reduction necessary in teacher education involvement by SCV Toorak, the Commission has concluded that the combination of Prahran College of Advanced Education and SCV Toorak would be advantageous from all points of view. SCV Toorak has excellent facilities and should be preserved as a focal point for advanced education studies. The Commission believes, however, that the continuation of the College as a teacher education centre in its own right cannot be justified but that teacher education should continue if other activities were introduced. In the Commission’s opinion, the conduct at the Toorak campus of some academic activities already established at Prahran CAE, and the combined use of Toorak’s facilities, could substantially solve the problems of both colleges.

The Commission has, therefore, recommended to the Minister of Education that 1. Prahran College of Advanced Education and SCV Toorak should enter into contractual arrangements before the end of 1980 to achieve common academic policies; 2. Financial, building and other resources should be coordinated; 3. The term of the contract should cover at least the period from 1981 to 1987, with a review in 1985; and 4. Desirably, full amalgamation of the two institutions should take place at the earliest time acceptable to them.38

On 25 August 1980, a letter to Hon A J Hunt, Minister of Education from Peter Isaacson, President of Council, and Dr Colin Campbell, Director, advised that the Council of Prahran had considered this matter and wished to advise that it supports the general thrust of the recommendation. The Council considers that the most appropriate way to plan for the future of Prahran CAE and SCV Toorak is in the context of a form of amalgamation of the two colleges.39

45 Given the looming cuts in intakes into pre-service teacher education at the College, a similar letter from the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission to SCV Toorak elicited a pragmatic response. At its Council meeting of 9 June, the Council of SCV Toorak resolved to “support in principle the integration of SCV Toorak with Prahran CAE” and to work toward the aim of integration “possibly by the end of 1984”.40

Elsewhere the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission proposals for the 1982-84 Triennium met with greater hostility. There was opposition on a number of grounds. Not surprisingly all colleges continued to resist efforts to further reduce teacher education student load. Both Melbourne State College and SCV Coburg reacted with great hostility to the proposal for amalgamation of the two colleges and the Toorak Staff Association wrote a submission expressing opposition to the proposed linkages between Prahran and SCV Toorak. In addition, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission received “lengthy submissions from the Senate of the State College of Victoria criticising the Commission’s assumptions”, but neither the Senate nor any of the other submissions provided alternative planning proposals. 41

Colleges refused to accept that the 30 per cent reduction in teacher education intake over the next five years proposed by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission was absolutely necessary to comply with Commonwealth guidelines. Consequently, teacher- education institutions seized gratefully on comments by Victoria’s Director-General of Education, Dr Lawrie Shears, about likely teacher shortages before the end of the 1980s if proposed cuts in teacher college enrolments were implemented. Dr Shears’ comments were reported in The Age on 10 July 1980, following his return from a study of teacher supply and demand in Britain and California.

In May 1980, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission had formally advised the Advanced Education Council of its proposals to consolidate and reduce teacher education enrolments in Victoria. In February 1981, the Advanced Education Council’s response to these proposals was less than enthusiastic.42 In its published Advice for the 1982-84 Triennium, the Council noted that even if the VPSEC proposals had been implemented, which now seemed unlikely, this still left seven separate metropolitan colleges and four non- metropolitan colleges in Victoria in which teacher education was the major activity. It expressed concern that although Victoria appeared to have achieved a 12.7 per cent reduction in teacher education enrolments between 1978 and 1981, a further 14.4 per cent reduction was still to be achieved between 1981 and 1984. Council went on to state that in its view Victoria

46 was without a strategy for advanced education that would enable institutions to remain viable while reducing teacher education resources to the required levels.

The Advanced Education Council supported its opinion by noting that no structural changes had been proposed for several institutions engaged solely in teacher education, such as SCV Rusden or SCV Burwood, for which substantially reduced intakes were planned for the 1982- 84 triennium. Moreover, consistent with the views of the Australian Education Council, it continued to oppose diversification of teacher education institutions because there were several universities and multi-vocational colleges in Melbourne already offering these studies.43 This view had significant implications for the proposed development of SCV Burwood, SCV Frankston, SCV Rusden and SCV Toorak because the Victorian strategy was predicated upon the proposal “that reductions in teacher education student load should be partly compensated by increases in non-teacher education load”.44

As the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (VPSEC) was to state in its Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 1981, the Tertiary Education Commission Report made it clear …that Victoria would have to develop more far-reaching proposals if financial support for an adequate framework for advanced education was to be guaranteed during the 1982-84 triennium and beyond.45

At the end of March 1981, the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission wrote to the Advanced Education Council rejecting the Council’s view and reiterating that the Commission’s basic strategy was to transfer resources from teacher education to other fields of study in such a way as to minimise disruption and maintain the quality of educational provision in Victoria. Nevertheless, in early April the Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission developed further proposals for rationalisation of post- secondary education in Victoria in response to the Tertiary Education Commission’s February Report. 46

Victoria’s plan for consolidating colleges At the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission meeting held on 8 April 1981, the Board discussed at length the view of the Advanced Education Council and the Tertiary Education Commission that reduction in the number of separate institutions was desirable to “consolidate academic activities either in association with larger multi-purpose colleges of advanced education or universities, or within the context of a multi-campus institution”.47 It then formulated a number of recommendations within the planning parameters set by the

47 Tertiary Education Commission, which it believed, optimistically perhaps, “embody solutions which are educationally justifiable and which are likely to receive the strongest support from the institutions affected”.48

The recommendations that formed the basis of a Report to the Minister of Education were intended to accomplish five specific purposes.49 These included establishing new institutions of sufficient size and diversity that would be able to maintain the number and quality of staff with the limited funds that would be available. They would also be able to provide for more efficient use of education resources and appropriate access for students in the metropolitan area.

Because the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission considered that the creation of a single governing body facilitated the best use of the total resources available, it made three specific recommendations for institutional amalgamations. One of these was that SCV Burwood, Prahran College of Advanced Education, SCV Rusden and SCV Toorak be amalgamated into one multi-campus, multi-discipline college of advanced education governed by a single Council, ultimately offering advanced education studies on three campuses. 50

Other revised institutional arrangements were a new multi-campus college of advanced education formed by amalgamation of SCV, Coburg, Institute of Early Childhood Development and SCV, Melbourne; and the integration of SCV, Frankston with Caulfield Institute of Technology.

However, before the Victorian Government could announce its acceptance of these recommendations, other events intervened. On 30 April 1981, the Prime Minister announced the government’s decisions concerning the Review of Commonwealth Functions carried out by a committee of senior ministers, the so-called “Razor Gang”. The government’s conclusions on the review, carried out under the chairmanship of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Sir Phillip Lynch, had implications for all portfolio areas, including education. Specifically on tertiary education, the Prime Minister stated that: …the Government has been concerned at the proliferation of separate institutions and proposes immediate action to reduce this trend and to provide for more efficient use of resources.51

Thirty existing colleges of advanced education “for which teacher education is the main activity”, including nine in Victoria, were to be incorporated into multi-purpose or multi- campus colleges with a single governing body or were to be integrated with neighbouring

48 universities.52 It also announced that if satisfactory arrangements had not been made for an institution by the end of 1981, Commonwealth funds would not be provided from 1982 onwards.

The “Razor Gang” recommendations, which also included a proposal to introduce tuition fees for second and higher degree students and a decision to close the engineering schools at Bendigo CAE, Preston Institute of Technology and Deakin University, provoked outrage amongst the education community. Administrative staff, students and academic staff throughout the nation united in protests “not seen since the days of the Vietnam War”.53 Street marches and demonstrations were held in Melbourne and Sydney, there were student and staff walkouts in Queensland and there were threats of industrial action and non- cooperation by university councils and college academics.

On 5 May 1981, a Ministerial Statement by the Victorian Minister of Educational Services condemned this “unilateral, blunt, insensitive and ill-considered announcement”.54 Nevertheless, the Minister stated, given the financial and political realities, the Victorian Government would accept the Commonwealth’s proposals, since “rationalisation” was “clearly preferable to the phasing out of colleges”. The first of these was a new “multi- campus, multi-discipline college of advanced education”, the future Victoria College, formed through the amalgamation of the existing colleges of SCV Burwood, Prahran College of Advanced Education, SCV Rusden and SCV Toorak. The new institution would have a “strong base in teacher education, encompassing primary and secondary teaching and associated specialisations, art and design, business studies, humanities and social sciences”. It would also have “the capacity to move, if required, into other fields of study”. The Minister added that as the “councils and staff at Prahran College of Advanced Education and SCV Toorak” had already done much work to effect their amalgamation, it was “expected that this work would now be of value in proceeding to a wider amalgamation”. The Victorian Government proposed that the amalgamations be “implemented as soon as possible” and each group of colleges was to be requested to form a “planning committee whose members should be predominantly drawn from the present institutions”.55

Thus ended a period that the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission was to describe as “one of the most important and critical… for post-secondary education in Australia and, in particular, Victoria”.56 The decisions also marked a new phase in relationships between the Government, the Commissions and the States. 57 Previously the Commonwealth had generally adopted the view that within advanced education it was a State matter to decide on how available resources would be allocated within the context of the

49 overall guidelines. However in this case the Commonwealth had “seriously breached” this accepted principle by determining precisely which institutions were required to amalgamate, and had even specifically named those engineering schools which were to be closed (although these had been foreshadowed in the Report of the Partridge Committee established by the Victorian Government).58 Indeed it might be argued that the creation of Victoria College, through merger of four formerly independent CAEs targeted by the Commonwealth for rationalisation, was as much a Commonwealth as a Victorian initiative.

What is particularly interesting is that the plan to amalgamate Prahran, Toorak, Rusden and Burwood had been developed by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission itself, albeit under duress from the Tertiary Education Commission, and prior to any announcements by the Commonwealth Government. Although the Ministerial Statement did refer to plans already developed by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, the Government appears to have been pleased to see anger directed towards Canberra rather than towards the Victorian Government. In most subsequent writing about Victoria College, it is the Commonwealth that is the “enemy” rather than the Victorian Government.

Implications of events of 1977-1981 for higher education sector The years 1977 to 1981 saw a fundamental change in the management of higher education in Australia, although it was perhaps not recognised as such at the time. Previously the Tertiary Education Commission had required States to allocate resources in line with Government guidelines. The insistence of the Advanced Education Council that the number of separate institutions in Victoria be reduced was really an intrusion into matters that should have been the province of the State.

During these years the role of the Tertiary Education Commission in promoting the "…balanced development of tertiary education", became the means of forcing State governments to adopt policies espoused by that Commission. Moreover, this was policy by stealth. Major policy issues that were to have an important influence on the structure and size of advanced education in the 1982-84 triennium received only the most fleeting and superficial consideration in communications between the Commonwealth and State coordinating authorities.59 As the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission wrote to the Tertiary Education Commission: The lack of rigorous consideration of these major policy positions is somewhat alarming given that they have exerted a profound influence on higher education ever since and it is still unclear whether there is any empirical evidence to support them. I refer here particularly to

50 those issues implicit in the Tertiary Education Commission’s model for structural changes in Victoria, which included the following propositions. 1. Single-purpose teacher education institutions are cost-inefficient and provide inferior education. 2. Reduction in the number of institutions by amalgamation, and formation of larger, multi-campus institutions will lead to more efficient resource usage and higher academic quality. 3. Staff management policies will not affect the quality of academic programs. 4. Large, multi-purpose institutions have more flexibility in meeting changing circumstances.60

The other major change in relationships occurred as a consequence of direct intervention by the Commonwealth government following the Review of Commonwealth Functions. This totally ignored the normal process of consultation between Commonwealth and State at government and coordinating level. Despite the fact that the 30 institutions identified by this review were drawn from a table in the 1982-84 Triennial Report of the Tertiary Education Commission, the Government's decisions effectively by-passed this Commission and foreshadowed a move to more direct Government intervention in higher education policy. 61 It is likely that the recommendations of the "Razor Gang" originated in the Commonwealth's Education Department under its Secretary, Ken Jones.62 In this respect the process also foreshadows the move to more direct management of the higher education sector by the relevant Minister through his or her Commonwealth bureaucracy that was a hallmark of the Dawkins’ reforms in the late 1980s.

The Constituent Colleges Of course the most far-reaching and immediate impacts were felt by the merging institutions. The four institutions that were to form the new “Rubertop” college, as it quickly became known, had quite different histories and orientations. Each would bring to the new amalgamated College bring its own history, aspirations and personalities. The Burwood and Toorak and Rusden State Colleges had concentrated mainly on providing teachers with their initial training as well with post-graduate and upgrading courses. Although Rusden’s focus was on secondary teaching, both Burwood and Toorak concentrated mainly on primary teaching. By contrast, Prahran College of Advanced Education provided degree and diploma courses in Art and Design, Business and General Studies and it was these courses that would provide the initial basis for future diversification away from teacher education in the new institution.

51 Established in 1951, Toorak Teachers’ College had been a major provider of primary teacher education courses for Victorians for almost thirty years. During the turbulent latter years of its existence as an autonomous State College, the Principal at SCV Toorak was Dr Norman Curry. Under pressure from the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, SCV Toorak and Prahran College of Advanced Education agreed to collaborate with a view to eventual merger, and during the latter half of 1980 the Prahran CAE School of General Studies had moved to the Glenferrie Road campus. By 1981, its last year as an independent institution, there were 1,281 students and 159 staff enrolled at SCV Toorak. The College’s activities were supported by a budget of $5,308,000 and an accumulated financial surplus of $1,723,000 at 31 December 1981.

SCV Burwood, like SCV Toorak, concentrated mainly on providing primary teachers with their initial training and with graduate and upgrading courses. It also supported a highly regarded Institute of Special Education that provided a range of training courses for teachers of people with disabilities. When the amalgamations were announced in 1981 the College, under its Principal, Mr A. J. (Peter) Nattrass, had an enrolment of 1471 EFT students; there were 116 (EFT) academic staff and 86 general staff. Funding for 1981 was $6,216,000 and the accumulated financial surplus at 31 December 1981 was $455,000.

SCV Rusden was established in 1966 as Monash Teachers’ College in new permanent buildings close to Monash University to provide secondary education courses parallel with those of the Secondary Teachers’ College at Melbourne. It also trained home economics teachers at the Larnook campus in Orrong Road. When Dr Paul J Wisch took over as Principal in 1977, it was the second largest of the nine colleges in the SCV system. By 1981, Rusden had 1645 full-time and 572 part-time students engaged in secondary teacher training at both undergraduate and graduate level. At that time, the College employed 299 members of staff (175 academic and 124 general staff). Its 1981 budget was $8,327,000, and its accumulated financial deficit at 31 December 1981 was $379,000.

Prahran College of Advanced Education traced its origins to the formation of the Prahran Mechanics’ Institute in 1854. In many ways, Prahran CAE exemplified the strengths of the college system – the ability of colleges to develop innovative education programs in response to emerging industry and community needs. Certainly Prahran’s pioneering work in art and design education became recognised in the 1960s when the photography component in the College’s graphic arts course grew into the first diploma course in Photography offered in Australia.63

52 By the time of the merger in 1981, Prahran College of Advanced Education was a multi- sector tertiary institution which provided degrees and diplomas through its Advanced College Schools, as well as preparatory, access, bridging, apprenticeship and certificate courses to 767 full-time and 1192 part-time students in its Technical and Further Education Departments. The College also had 1350 advanced education students and a budget of $5,097,000. It employed 125 academic staff and 121 General Staff (including staff shared with TAFE). Its accumulated financial surplus at 31 December 1981 was $106,000. Its Director was Dr Colin Campbell, who had taken up the position in the previous year.

For staff at SCV Burwood, Prahran CAE, SCV Rusden and SCV Toorak, the six months from the Minister’s announcement to the introduction of the legislation to form Victoria College was a time of great uncertainty. Senior managers at the individual colleges were faced with the twin challenges of maintaining current operations whilst planning for the new institution, in an environment dominated by severe reductions in funding. Nevertheless, in spite of their misgivings, the four colleges worked cooperatively to plan the transition to the new institution. The next chapter will describe the planning process which took place during that six month period, a process that was made even more difficult because it was necessarily hasty, because actual policy development could not be implemented without a Victoria College Council and because in the absence of a new chief executive, any major decisions had to be agreed by all four Principals.

53 Chapter 5 The Amalgamating Institutions and the Planning Process

When on 5 May 1981 the Victorian Government announced the decision to amalgamate a number of colleges of advanced education in Victoria it proposed that these mergers should be implemented as soon as possible to enable the new institutions to be operational by the beginning of 1982. Each group of merging colleges was requested to form a planning committee whose members were mainly drawn from the institutions involved, ‘to make recommendations for the resolution of the practical problems which will be encountered’. This chapter describes the events that occurred between the announcement of the amalgamation and the establishment of Victoria College as a legal entity. It examines the planning process and describes how many of the critical decisions about the future of the new institution were orchestrated by the four Principals of the merging institutions.

Towards the end of the 1970s, the Commonwealth Government became concerned about an oversupply of teacher trainees, partly due a reduction in the school age population and partly to an unexpected decline in the number of teachers leaving the profession. It demanded that the States reduce the number of teacher trainees and transfer the resources into the humanities, social sciences and business studies courses. This was a major problem for the single-purpose colleges of advanced education engaged primarily in teacher education, such as the State Colleges of Burwood, Toorak and Rusden, because the Commonwealth Government also refused to allow them to diversify into other areas. Consequently, from around 1977 onwards teacher education institutions expended considerable energy on justifying their continued existence and arguing against the reductions in intakes to teacher education courses proposed by State and Federal authorities.1

Governance of higher education To understand the events of this period it is useful to describe the “confused” state of higher education funding and governance arrangements that existed in 1981. Under Australia’s federal system of national government, the States retain Constitutional responsibility for education, and therefore individual institutions owed their legal existence to State legislation. Victoria’s teachers colleges had ceased to be controlled by the Victorian Education Department in 1973 and became autonomous institutions with their own governing councils like universities and all other colleges of advanced education. At this time too, Victoria’s four universities were each established under individual acts of parliament, whereas most of

54 the colleges of advanced education had their legal basis in the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Act of 1978, although the Swinburne and Royal Melbourne Institutes of Technology were companies under Victoria’s Companies Act. On the other hand, higher education funding was provided by the Commonwealth Government, generally in line with the triennial recommendations made by the Tertiary Education Commission and its Councils – the Universities Council and the Advanced Education Council. The Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission was the statutory authority responsible for coordinating tertiary education in Victoria, for accrediting the courses of colleges of advanced education and for negotiating with the Commonwealth over funding and student numbers.

Thus, while the Commonwealth provided the funds for higher education, when its policy required the consolidation of institutions this could only occur through State legislation. Furthermore the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Act did not enable the Victorian Government to compel colleges of advanced education to merge, although it did have the power to dissolve their Councils which would effectively abolish them if they refused to merge as required.

Although this was a complex, multi-layered and very time-consuming system, its greatest attribute was that the Victoria and Commonwealth coordinating commissions provided a “buffer” between institutions as suppliers of educational services and the Government as purchaser. Its other advantage was that it tended to provide a stable policy environment and to ensure “…predicability and coherence to long term planning”.2

Though the Commonwealth held a virtual “power of veto” through its control of funding, under the Tertiary Education Commission system all groups had to work together to develop policy. Whilst this was a slow and cumbersome process, it did encourage a relatively rational and considered approach to policy development. The Tertiary Education Commission reports were exemplary in that they canvassed issues in such a way that most points of view were at least acknowledged in the discussion. The Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, like some of its counterparts in other States, put considerable effort into preparing its submissions, consulting widely with stakeholder groups, such as staff associations, principals groups and teacher unions, as well as with individual institutions. In most cases outcomes and decisions were the product of negotiation and compromise. Whilst this may have encouraged the perpetuation of the “status quo” it nevertheless meant that there was generally system-wide understanding of policy decisions and support in their implementation.3

55 The direct intervention by the Commonwealth Government in May 1981 seriously undermined this process and foreshadowed the diminishing capacity of the States to influence higher education policy, an influence which was almost entirely lost when the Commission was abolished in 1988 when the Unified National System was created.

The Review of Commonwealth Functions Even though structural changes in Victoria’s advanced education sector had been under discussion for several years, it was the Commonwealth’s intervention that precipitated events.

The Government’s budgetary problems resulting from the economic downturn led it, in 1981, to initiate a Review of Commonwealth Functions carried out by a committee of senior ministers, the so-called “Razor Gang”. On 30 April 1981 the then Prime Minister, Mr M Fraser, announced that Government had identified thirty existing colleges of advanced education ‘for which teacher education is the main activity’ which it now required to be incorporated into multi-purpose or multi-campus colleges with a single governing body or to be integrated with neighbouring universities.4 If institutions failed to comply they would not receive Commonwealth funding in 1982 or beyond.

According to the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, “the federal government’s decisions were a surprise to all concerned with the planning of post- secondary education”. In light of this blatant misuse of the “Commonwealth’s power of the tax base” the Victorian Government had no option but to implement the required mergers.5

The fact that the Victorian Government appeared to capitulate so speedily to the Commonwealth’s demands simply confirms the ability of the Commonwealth to enforce its decisions regardless of the views of the States. It is also conceivable that the decisive intervention by the Commonwealth also enabled the Victorian Government to effect amalgamations, whilst allowing most of the anger to be directed at the Commonwealth, a politically desirable situation from the point of view of the Victorian Government.

As we have seen, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission had been under very great pressure from the Advanced Education Council to implement substantial reductions in teacher education numbers for some years. Its failure to make reductions on the scale desired by the Commonwealth, now meant that Victoria needed to achieve these “major adjustments (an overall reduction of 2000 EFTS) during the 1982-84 triennium”. This was a daunting task because it represented “two-thirds of the estimated net total reduction in Teacher Education across Australia”.6 Once this occurred, the longer-term viability of a number of teacher-

56 education institutions was dubious, given the failure of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission to convince the Tertiary Education Commission to abandon its current policy and allow these institutions to introduce courses in other fields of study.

Except in the case of the planned merger between SCV Toorak and Prahran College of Advanced Education, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission had been singularly unsuccessful in its attempts to rationalise arrangements in the advanced education sector. The proposed amalgamation between SCV Coburg and Melbourne State College had been strenuously opposed by both colleges. Similarly, Lincoln Institute had successfully resisted moves to relocate some of its courses to the campus of Melbourne State College. Notwithstanding the rumour and speculation that had been rife for some years, the particular combinations of colleges mandated for institutional merger in Victoria took many by surprise.

In any event, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission had finalised its plan for the establishment of multi-campus institutions at a Commission meeting held on 8 April 1981, mindful of the attitude of the Advanced Education Council and the Tertiary Education Commission “that reduction in the number of separate institutions was desirable”.7 Whether because normal processes were overtaken by events, or because the Commission feared institutional resistance, no formal consultation took place with the governing bodies of the institutions identified for consolidation.

The events of May 1981 Institutions do not appear to have been informed about the impending mergers until just before the Victorian Minister made his Statement on the Future of Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education in Parliament on 5 May 1981. Chief executives of the affected institutions were summoned to a late afternoon meeting at the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission headquarters at Invergowrie where each was given a long white envelope that contained a “secret” copy of the Minister’s statement. As one of those present at the meeting recalls: We were called to Invergowrie and Dr. Allen, Chairman of VPSEC was accompanied by Mike Selway and a couple of other people and we were all handed a white envelope. We were told that as a result of a State government decision - there was also a reference to the Razor Gang - the Minister had decided that there would be a number of mergers and that our mergers were in the envelope and that the debate which was then to follow, the discussion which was then to follow, was not about whether there would be such mergers, but about how they were to be implemented. I think it wasn't very long before Graham Allen decided the

57 best thing to do was to open the cabinet and pour us all a drink. Fortunately, there was no shouting and screaming, we were all a bit numb. 8

Some weeks previously, in mid April, SCV Rusden had held an Extraordinary Council meeting to consider the implications of the most recent Tertiary Education Commission Report and the possibility of consolidation with other institutions. This meeting endorsed a number of strategies, most of which were aimed at preserving the College’s independence. Thus for Rusden, which perceived itself as “not a typical teachers’ college”, the decision that it was to merge with two colleges largely devoted to primary teacher education and the maverick CAE in Prahran was certainly not welcomed. 9 Paul Wisch, after coming out of the meeting at which he was utterly shocked, rang his Senior Vice Principal, Ben Roennfeldt. He swore Ben to secrecy and I think he wanted time to recover himself and think about what he would say. Ben came and told me that it was bad news and that he couldn’t tell me what it was. He said Paul would say something the following day. It was an occasion when Principals alone were assembled and given these envelopes, and given time to read them and hopefully a fairly stiff whisky or something.10

Immediate Reactions After recovering somewhat from the shock of finding itself targeted for “consolidation”, each institution took steps to reassert its autonomy and to improve its negotiating position. As we saw in the last chapter, a deputation from SCV Toorak met with the Minister for Education, who had explained the necessity for the government to act immediately to “show that action was being taken and to counteract the wild rumours of permanent closure of institutions”. He had agreed, however, that “the lack of consultation with the colleges was most unfortunate”.11 The Council of Burwood State College wrote to the Victorian Minister of Education seeking assurances that “all contracts of employment in force at the time of the dissolution of the present council” would be honoured.12 All colleges wrote to the Federal Minister for Education, Mr Fyfe, protesting about the proposed introduction of student fees.

Closer to the city, Prahran College of Advanced Education held a meeting of all staff on Thursday 7 May and convened a special meeting of its Council for 21 May to prepare a response to the Commonwealth and Victorian Ministers of Education. There is nothing so certain to unite usually opposing groups as a common enemy. Thus, in a rare accolade, the Academic Staff Representative on Council reported that the meeting “was something of a triumph”.13 Council, he wrote, “probably for the first time in its history”, has embarked on a course of action “that includes arguing with the Government to achieve better and more rational mergers” than those now proposed. He went on to congratulate “Noel Watkins who

58 chaired the meeting”, Pat Reynolds (Assistant Director, TAFE) and the Director “for the way they orchestrated the meeting”. The Director had collated the numerous submissions into a single working document which was so subtly worded that to oppose it would have branded you as an enemy of Truth and Justice whereas to support it would commit you to political opposition to government decisions.14

In suburban Clayton, staff of SCV Rusden utilised their political savvy. By 19 August 1981 some 60 staff had been involved in 76 appointments with State and Commonwealth politicians, a lobby kit had been developed, and a fighting fund established which enabled a deputation, including the Principal and members of the College Council, to travel to Canberra to lobby for a reprieve. In addition, letters had been sent to all secondary schools and to each Rusden student explaining the situation and requesting their support.15

In spite of the political and other manoeuvres of the four colleges, the Government moved to implement the proposed mergers. The Acting Minister of Education, the Hon. Norman Lacy, MP, wrote to Colleges on 14 May 1981 requesting them to form Planning Committees, and appointed Mr J I Richardson, MP. as Ministerial representative to appoint and convene the Committee for the amalgamation of Burwood, Rusden and Toorak State Colleges and Prahran College of Advanced Education that was to form Victoria College.

A month later, on 23 June, the Victorian Minister of Education again wrote again to College Councils reiterating the earlier request that “no action be taken which may prejudice the considerations of the Planning Committee or of the new governing body”.16 Perhaps because he was concerned that Colleges might move to protect their staff, his letter stated that “the appointment or promotion of permanent staff, extension of contracts or the granting of tenure” were specific examples of these actions. Although, “the essential role of the Planning Committee” the letter continued, is to plan for rationalisation “within the financial restraints laid down”, its more immediate task is to “advise me by 31 August 1981 upon: 1. Any legislative action required during the Spring Session to facilitate any changes or give effect to any principles which the Committee has in mind; and 2. The broad composition of the new governing body and the details of its constitution, so that the new body can be appointed and in operation at the beginning of 1982.

The very next day the Ministerial Representative, John Richardson, Member of Parliament for Forest Hills, also wrote to the four College Councils inviting each of them to appoint three representatives to attend the inaugural meeting of the Planning Committee on Monday 6 July

59 1981.17 Given the need for “numerical restraint”, his letter directed that each College should be represented by the Chairman or his nominee, the Principal or Director and one other person, who might be a staff member, a student, or any other person. In spite of a previous request, he did not agree to the proposal that Prahran CAE should have additional TAFE representation. Further, recognising that students were unlikely to be included in the college delegations which had been limited to three persons, he advised that he proposed to “invite the chairmen of the four student representative Councils to nominate two students to represent students from the four colleges”.

The Principals strike back Shortly after the Minister’s statement, the four Principals commenced a series of regular meetings to discuss matters and to present a united position. It appears that they quickly decided that whatever their personal reservations about the proposed amalgamation of their four institutions, they needed to seize the initiative as a group and to exert their collective influence over the process and outcome of the merger.

Certainly by 21 May 1981, the Principals had been involved in several discussions. An “Aide Memoire” from their meeting of 21 May records that the four Principals agreed that “it was extremely important for the four colleges to reach a common agreement on the naming of a chairman for the planning committee”. 18

According to a hand written note from Alan Gregory “a cooperative spirit prevailed” at the meeting held at Toorak on 25 May 1981. This meeting was attended by Mr Justice Sir Murray McInerney (Toorak Chairman), Mr L Bell (Toorak Acting Principal), Dr Noel Watkins (Prahran Council), Dr Colin Campbell (Prahran Director), Mr Hugh Rogers (Chairman, Burwood), Mr Peter Nattrass (Principal, Burwood), Dr Paul Wisch (Principal, Rusden), and Dr Alan Gregory (Council, Rusden). The Notes of Meeting record that Mr Rogers indicated that he would take no further part in the Planning Committees due to his conflict of interest as a VPSEC Commissioner and Deputy Chairman of the newly formed TAFE Board. The meeting agreed that “a neutral chairman be proposed and approached” for the Planning Committee, even though Mr Richardson may convene the first meeting, and it was further agreed “that (1) Mr Swanson and (2) Mr Weber be approached by Hugh Rogers to be Chairman”.19

Although the four Principals had widely different backgrounds, they talked freely to each other.20 They also met frequently throughout the planning period. On 16 June 1981 they considered several papers for the first meeting of the Planning Committee and received

60 information outlining the division of student EFTS between the present colleges.21 At their next meeting on 19 June, the Principals agreed to establish a working group to consolidate the projected enrolments for each college for 1982-84 and compile a staffing profile for the four colleges. They agreed to “seek a meeting with Mr Weber before the inaugural meeting of the Planning Committee (Dr Curry to discuss with J I Richardson)” as well as agreeing to a reply to the letter of 15 June from Mr J I Richardson. This letter of reply to Mr Richardson referred to “the regular meetings of the Principals/Director of the four colleges”, noted that a working group had been “established some weeks ago to draft a constitution for the new college” and concluded: You may be assured that the Principals will continue to meet together and are willing to act as a source of advice to the Planning Committee.22

On 7 July, the meeting of Principals considered a number of staffing issues. Paul Wisch reported that there was …considerable pressure from staff to make contract appointments as it was feared that contract staff on one campus would be forced out by the need to place excess permanent staff from another campus.23

Over time of course, tensions arose in these meetings. There were “very bitter arguments between Paul Wisch and the rest of us because his college was Secondary [Education] and Secondary [Education] is superior”. Not unexpectedly, personality differences also surfaced: Principals usually met in Norm Curry’s office and frequently Norm took the chair. Clearly, Norm saw himself as the leading light and the ultimate occupant of the chief executive’s office. There were bitter battles between Norm and Paul.24 Although Dr Curry’s own recollections do not include an expectation that he would be appointed Principal of the new College, his relationship with Dr Wisch does appear to have been less than harmonious. Indeed, he still recalls a conversation with Dr Wisch in 1981 during which Dr Wisch informed him that “when I am appointed the Principal of the new College there will be no place for you”.25

First meeting of the Planning Committee The first meeting of the Planning Committee to Advise the Minister of Education on the Amalgamation of Prahran College of Advanced Education and State College of Victoria Burwood, Rusden and Toorak (the Planning Committee) was duly held on 6 July 1981 at Burwood State College. Sixteen accredited members attended, comprising three representatives of each of the four colleges, two student representatives, the Ministerial Representative (John Richardson) and Hermann Weber.26 Mr Weber, CBE, who

61 subsequently became the first President of the Victoria College Council, was appointed as the independent Chairman of the Planning Committee. 27

Still smarting from the previous lack of consultation, the Committee made one small but significant amendment to the wording of clause two of the terms of reference inserting the words “to consult with the College Councils” so that they then read: “To consult with the College Councils and to advise the Minister.” 28,

A delegation of some 20-30 students and one representative of non-academic staff were present at the start of the meeting. Since agreement had not been reached with the Ministerial Representative and the four student unions about the number of students to be placed on the Planning Committee, it was decided that Kelly Gardiner of Prahran and Chris Thompson of Rusden would be nominated to the Committee for purposes of the first meeting as voting and speaking members. It was also agreed that a student from Burwood and a student from Toorak would be present as observers during the discussion relating to observers. After it was agreed that the meetings of the Planning Committee would be open to observers, the remainder of the student delegation returned to the meeting.29

Although agreeing that observers would only be able to speak at the invitation of the Chairman, the Planning Committee also agreed to advise the Minister that it believed that two additional student representatives should be added to the Committee.

Members received copies of the draft constitution for discussion at the next meeting of the Planning Committee. The various drafts of this were developed by a working group consisting of Jack Tonge as Chairman, Ian Dunlop, Laurie Bell and Helen Boyd, who had been appointed by the four Principals soon after the Ministerial Statement had announced the formation of “Institution No.1”. The efficient early work of this group was probably the major reason why the Planning Committee was able to fulfil its task in the very short time allotted.

Managing the Planning Committee – the Principals’ Committee Also at this first meeting, the Ministerial representative indicated that he had established a Principals’ Committee to assist in the preparation of material for presentation to the Planning Committee using the resources of their Colleges to do this. As we have seen this group had been meeting regularly in the months since the Minister’s Statement and before the Planning Committee was established. In an article in Rusden’s internal Broadsheet, Paul Wisch, the Principal of SCV Rusden, wrote that the major activity of the Principals Committee “is

62 information gathering although some coordinating activity occurring for ensuring that as little as possible is done to prejudice the worthwhile development of Institution One”. It also attempted, he wrote, to “split the pie” to provide “some base, unofficial as it may have been, for planning the 1982 operations of Institution One”.30

According to Peter Nattrass, the “Principals met regularly” and “we talked about things like how should an amalgamated institution be organised”. I think that by the time we came to form Rubertop – we had a pretty clear idea about how a multi-campus organisation could be structured. There was a mixture of things that had to be campus-based and a mixture of structures that had to be across the board, almost a central office. These discussions certainly occupied a lot of our time.31

As Colin Campbell, another participant of this group, recalled We generally tended to meet in Stonnington, and I can remember at one stage lying on the floor in Norm Curry's office along with others, peering at white boards and talking about structures and reduction in numbers and what could be run centrally in a multi campus institution and what had to be run on each campus, even in a multi-campus institution. And remember at that stage there was no experience in Australia of multi-campus operations - these were the first institutions that had been “designed” to be multi-campus.32

In fact, most of the planning for the amalgamation appears to have been orchestrated by the Principals rather than the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee seems not to have been much involved in longer-term planning issues. It largely confined itself to developing the constitution for the new college and advising the Minister about legislative changes. Whether the Committee actively chose this role or was sidelined into this activity by the Principals is an issue where the recollections of participants are at variance. Certainly Don Gibb, one of the staff representatives from Rusden on the Committee, expressed a view that the Committee was less effective than it might have been and that the Chairman was “much more inclined to listen to the Council representatives or the Principals than to staff or students”.33 It is also possible that because academics at Rusden “were more involved in academic decision making”, the broader representation of the Planning Committee may have appeared less sympathetic to the views of the academic community from the perspective of a former Rusden academic.34 Whatever the situation, the Constitution was a major item discussed at each of the next fifteen meetings held between 16 July and 16 November 1981. This was certainly an exhausting schedule and the Committee did oversee the drafting of the constitution as well as recommending a name for the new institution.

63 Integrating TAFE in the new institution This is not say that the Committee did not make decisions about the future role of the new college. One of the more contentious issues considered by the Planning Committee was the role of the TAFE sector of Prahran College in the new institution. At the first meeting of the Planning Committee in July 1981, Peter Isaacson, the President of the Prahran College Council, moved that the question of representation for the TAFE component of Prahran College be an Agenda item for the next meeting. A document presented at the same meeting and signed by all four Principals reaffirmed their view that “the interests of the new college will best be served through the inclusion of the TAFE School of Prahran CAE”. 35 The document advised that in considering a name for the new college, “suitable terminology, which encompasses the multi-sector, multi-purpose nature of the new college,” would need to be used. In the meantime, the Principals had established a small “Names Committee”, consisting of Norman Baggaley as Chairman, Ken Dear, J Sweetman and Eric Unthank, to suggest possible names for “Institution No. 1”.

In July 1981 there were eight autonomous multi-level colleges that combined both advanced education and TAFE education programs within the one institution, however as events transpired, these were not propitious times for such institutions.36 In the previous year responsibility for technical and further education had moved from the Education Department to the Technical and Further Education Board, established under Section 15A of the Post- Secondary Education Act, with power provided through delegation from the Commission.37 Members of this Board included Frank Newman, OBE, who was its chairman and a Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commissioner, and Hugh Rogers, another Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commissioner, also President of Burwood College Council. Both were powerful advocates for TAFE, although both appear to have supported a greater emphasis on the technical training aspect of TAFE in preference to its further education role. The Williams Report, published in 1979, had also advocated an expansion of pre-employment training in TAFE, describing TAFE as being “more flexible in its approach to education and training than other post-secondary sectors”.38 This was a period in which TAFE colleges were being expanded, new courses developed and more students enrolled. Much of this expansion took place as TAFE increasingly took one providing much of the middle level vocational training that had been vacated by the CAEs as they converted diploma courses to degrees and introduced an increasing number of post-graduate programs.

In this environment, one can imagine how some TAFE schools within multi-sector institutions began to yearn for the greater freedoms and status that they imagined flowed from being an independent institution, especially when coupled with cut-backs to higher education

64 funding. The newly-established TAFE Board promptly set about reinforcing the distinctive nature of the sector, including developing a policy on Multi-Level Tertiary Institutions.39 A copy of the draft policy forwarded to Prahran CAE on June 1, was included amongst the papers considered at the second meeting of the Planning Committee on 16 July 1981. The draft document stated that “the single institution model is preferred as the normal situation for the provision of TAFE”. It put the view that a multi-level post-secondary education institution was considered acceptable provided a number of conditions were met. These eight conditions included that “the TAFE sector can be seen to be advantaged when compared with a single institution model for TAFE” and “the head of TAFE is accorded equal status with the head of the advanced education sector”.

The views of the TAFE Board were somewhat at odds with the Commission’s own policy on multi-sector institutions developed in early May 1981. In contrast to the TAFE Board policy, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission document, endorsed by the Commission at meeting 81/6, supported the “development or continuation of multi-level institutions [including] Prahran”.40 Not surprisingly, the TAFE/Advanced Education Committee, established for the express purpose of avoiding such situations, noted that “there appears to be a significant difference between the policies of the Commission and the TAFE Board in regard to multi-level institutions”.41 Shortly afterwards Mr H T Rogers, Deputy Chairman of the TAFE Board wrote to the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission informing him that the Board had resolved, at its meeting on August 19, 1981 that: the TAFE sectors of Bendigo College of Advanced Education, Caulfield Institute of Technology, Footscray Institute of Technology, Prahran College of Advanced Education and Preston Institute of Technology be formed into separate institutions with Orders in Council implemented under the VPSEC Act[and] that the institutions be notified of the Board’s view.42

An ad hoc Working Party convened by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission to consider the divergence of opinion between the two Boards, chaired by Dr Graham Allen, made its report to Commission meeting 81/14 in September 1981. The paper noted several potential benefits of multi-level institutions, including greater flexibility in meeting community needs, rationalisation of personnel, buildings, equipment, funds, student services and other resources as well as easier transfer across and between different levels of tertiary education. It also noted a number of possible disadvantages including the necessary complexity of governance, uneven influence on decision making and the difficulty in achieving an integrated set of objectives for the institution. Interestingly the strengths and

65 weaknesses identified appear very similar to those described as recently as August 2002 in relation to dual sector universities.43

Although seeking a review of a number of previous decisions about multi-sector institutions, the working party confirmed the previous advice of the TAFE Board regarding Prahran College of Advanced Education. It recommended that the TAFE activities of Prahran College of Advanced Education be separated and placed under an interim Council pending resolution of outstanding funding and management issues.

Notwithstanding the reluctance of the TAFE Board to support multi-sector institutions, the Council of Prahran was very certain about the desirability of retaining its TAFE sector within the new institution. However the other three merger partners had more mixed views about the inclusion of TAFE in the new institution. For example, on 20 July 1981 members of the Council of SCV Burwood spent some time considering the problems raised by the integration into or separation from the new institution of the Prahran TAFE component. Concerns were expressed about the guidelines about multi-level institutions produced by the TAFE Board. These appeared to affect the “autonomy of the College and to pre-empt many decisions which might affect its future”. Members discussed the possibility that the TAFE sector might become “an institution within an institution, with outside control of funding, different terms and conditions for staff, and different student clientele”. Nevertheless, Council resolved that “in spite of the difficulties” inclusion of TAFE was supported because it was consistent with Burwood’s aim of being “a multi-sectoral college giving the widest possible service to the community”.44

Item 4 on the Agenda for the twelfth meeting of the Planning Committee on 7 September 1981 set out the policy of the Council of Prahran College for the successful delivery of TAFE programmes in the new college. The conditions specified the representation of TAFE in the new College Council and determined that a TAFE Board of Studies be established separate to the Advanced Education Academic Board, with responsibility for TAFE academic matters. The meeting noted that this would require substantial alterations to the Constitution proposed for the new institution. The item was then deferred to the next meeting for consideration.

At the following and thirteenth meeting of the Planning Committee on 10 September 1981, the Chairman said although the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission had discussed the position of TAFE in multi-sector colleges the previous day, the policy was subject to ongoing deliberations. The Chairman then proposed that because of the lateness of the hour, the matter be deferred in order to allow adequate debate. However, members

66 pointed out that notice had been given at the previous meeting that paragraph 2 of the statement would require substantial alterations to the Constitution submitted to the Minister. Subsequently it was moved that clause 9.2 be amended to read: Constitute and appoint an Academic Board and a TAFE Board of Studies to advise the Council on the educational programmes of the two sectors of the College and to be responsible to the Council for the academic life of the College. Sadly, for those who viewed cross-sectoral arrangements as benefiting students, the minutes also record that “the motion was put and lost”.45

The decision of the Planning Committee no doubt reflects the concerns of the other colleges about how TAFE might affect the new institution. The view of Council of SCV Toorak is illustrative: Council believes that the conditions for inclusion of TAFE in Victoria College as set out by the Council of the Prahran CAE are such that they would destroy the unity of the new college and in providing for direct negotiation between the TAFE section and the TAFE Board could compromise the independence of the new Council.46

At a special meeting of the Prahran Council held on 23 September 1981, the TTUV (the TAFE Teachers Union) on behalf of TAFE staff presented a submission on the future of TAFE. The submission noted that the Planning Committee had not accepted any of the important basic conditions established for the inclusion of TAFE in the new College. It also described the results of a ballot held on 11 and 12 September in which 97 of the total 110 Prahran TAFE staff cast a vote; 89 members of staff voted in favour of a motion for a separate TAFE College if the Planning Committee failed to accept the main conditions for TAFE as agreed by Prahran Council on 27 August. Consequently, the submission from Keith Gove, President of the TTUV PCAE Branch, recommended that Council “request the TAFE Board to establish a Council and Constitution for an autonomous Prahran TAFE College”.47

One week later at meeting 14 of the Planning Committee on Thursday 29 September 1981, the Minutes record that the Chairman read a letter from the Prahran Council …informing the Minister of Education that since the Planning Committee had not agreed to accept the terms the Council had set for inclusion of Prahran TAFE in the new College, it would recommend to the Minister and the TAFE Board “that the Prahran TAFE component not become part of the new College.48

The failure to retain the TAFE sector within the new College was a great personal disappointment to Colin Campbell, Prahran’s Director, whose previous appointment had been Deputy Director-General (Operations) in the South Australian Department of Further

67 Education, the department responsible for administering TAFE Colleges. It had happened, he was to say later, …almost over my dead body, and you can quote that because I thought that the future lay with the multipurpose institutions involving TAFE and, as it then was, Advanced Education; and the linkages and the progress that students could make between courses across the intersectoral boundary. However, at the time there were a couple of factors working against us. First of all there was the perception at Prahran by the TAFE staff that they were supporting Advanced Education as Advanced Education ran into a period where its funding and numbers were being cut. Then secondly there was the role of the TAFE Board, which was looking for independence for TAFE institutions.49

In fact, Dr Campbell’s view in 1981 that the future lay with multi-purpose institutions proved accurate and in 1986 the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission circulated planning advice, which stated that The Commission is keen to promote an expansion of cross-sectoral arrangements as a way of freeing up the tertiary system and breaking down the barriers facing students wishing to move between the tertiary sectors. …. Particularly in outer metropolitan and regional areas, the Commission considers it generally inappropriate, both in educational and cost terms, to develop entirely separate facilities and courses for each sector without first considering the possible benefits of cross-sectoral arrangements.50

Naming the new College Soon after the Ministerial Statement on 5 May 1981 announcing the formation of Institution Number One or “Rubertop” convened a small Names Committee was convened to consider what the new college should be called. Writing in Steer Sheet, the News Sheet of Prahran College of Advanced Education, the Director Colin Campbell invited “all staff and students to exercise their minds” to recommending a name for the new college, offering a prize of one bottle of Veuve Cliquot “to the person who first suggests the name which is finally accepted by the Planning Committee and the Minister”.51

On 30 July 1981, the Names Committee presented its report to the third meeting of the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee eventually considered seven names because the Principals added two further suggestions to the five put forward by the Names Committee. The suggestions from the Principals were (1) Victoria Institute and (2) Phillip Institute. Ever cognisant of the sensitivities of their somewhat prickly TAFE colleagues, the Principals noted that “higher education in current terminology does not include TAFE and is therefore inappropriate”.52 The Names Committee reported that the possibilities had been considered

68 within three broad categories: geographical, aboriginal and names of distinguished persons. The suggestions in the first category were: Port Phillip Institute of Higher Education, South East Melbourne Institute of Higher Education and Yarra Institute of Higher Education; in the Aboriginal category, two names were suggested Yarra Institute of Higher Education and Warrigal Institute of Higher Education; and in the third category the name Bass Institute of Higher Education was proposed.53

Not everyone was enthusiastic about the eventual choice of name- Victoria College. A memorandum from Lyle Cullen, Registrar of Prahran College, informed the Director that the name Victoria College was “dull, unimaginative and very likely to lead to confusion”.54 Other colleges of advanced education wrote to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission requesting that the name of the new institution be reconsidered with a view “to choosing a title that is less suggestive of a special state role in advanced education than the role of other institutions of a kind”.55

On a lighter note the October 15 edition of Steer Sheet commenced edition 20 with the headline “The Name Game – A Winner!” The article stated: Readers with good memories may recall that a member of this College suggested this name – Victoria College – in the issue of 25 June 1981. Mind you, it was on the basis that anyone who survived amalgamation deserved the VC and that the initials were therefore appropriate.56

Working groups established by the Principals Committee By early August 1981, some members of the Planning Committee were expressing concerns about the role of the Principals’ Committee of Advice. The minutes of meeting 8/81 noted that the Principals were making decisions on a number of matters of future importance to the new institution, such as staffing, without reference to the Planning Committee. It was agreed that the Committee should be informed about matters currently being considered and a report was provided describing the working groups established to advise the Principals’ Committee at the next meeting.57 The report stated that the Names Committee had completed its work and that the Draft Constitution Committee was no longer meeting. The College Profile Committee, consisting of Des Taylor, Alan Trethewey, John Lawry and Lyle Cullen, had also completed the task of consolidating the projected enrolments at each College for 1982-84 and compiling a staffing profile for each College.

Other working groups were still meeting to provide advice to the four principals about how various functions were to be managed in the new institution. The Academic Planning Group was considering academic problems faced by the new College at the time of amalgamation

69 “along with possible structures within the new institution.58 Similarly, the Business Managers Committee advised on the principles governing financial matters.59 Urgent tasks included developing a common budget format and the development of a common payroll procedure to ensure that employees continued to be paid.

One of the important roles of the Registrarial Services Committee was to consider the arguments for and against the centralisation and decentralisation of administrative functions. In addition, this group was developing advice on academic structures (regulations, support services), graduation policies, contractual obligations, and staffing policy manuals.60 Other groups included the Computer Equipment Committee, the Educational Technology Committee, and the Chief Librarians Committee, which was considering ways to standardise the four library operations and the “pros and cons” of centralisation versus decentralisation. 61

Funding cuts at the time of the amalgamation From the time that the mergers first became known there was widespread concern regarding the future financial viability of the new institution. As the following table illustrates, not only was the newly merged institution subject to reductions in student load but the funding per EFT student was also reduced. Presumably, the rationale for reducing per capita funding was to take account of the savings that were imagined to flow from the new organisational arrangements.

Table 5.1 Proposed Student Load (EFTS) in Institution Number 1 1981 -1984 1981 1982 1983 1984 Student $ M $/EFTS Student $ M $/EFTS Student $ M $/EFTS Student $ M $/EFTS Load Load Load Load (EFTS) (EFTS) (EFTS) (EFTS) 5978 27,158 4543 5360 23,709 4423 5005 22,171 4430 5000 21,183 4237 *Source: Student Load in Fields of Study (EFTS) in Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education in 1982-84, VPSEC, BC 97/81, 6 July 1981

Table 5.2 Reductions in proposed student load and funding in Institution Number 1 1982-1984 1982 1983 1983

Reduction in Student load from previous year 596 355 5

Reduction in student load - cumulative 596 951 978

Reduction in funding $000s from previous year 3,490 $1,415 $1150

Reduction in funding $000s -cumulative $,490 $4,905 $6055 Source: R Riehm (1989) p.46

70 Numerous submissions to the relevant Ministers pointed out the difficulties confronting the new institution would be compounded by the contraction in funding. The four principals wrote to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission stating that the closer we move to amalgamation the more obvious the need for additional expenditure becomes. We can see no evidence in comparison with the funding of other institutions that these additional costs have been considered.62

In fact the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission did write to the Advanced Education Council requesting an additional $10M to enable the necessary adjustments to be spread throughout the triennium. In response Dr S Houston wrote that although “not unsympathetic” to Victoria’s problems, the Council had been encouraging Victorian authorities …to review advanced education provision, particularly in metropolitan Melbourne, as long ago as 1977; [and] earlier corrective action by the Victorian authorities therefore could have avoided or reduced the present necessity for a relatively large-scale re-allocation of resources to achieve a balanced provision of student places in advanced education.63

In addition, the Planning Committee appointed a delegation to meet with the Minister to outline the concerns regarding the funding cuts. The delegation was courteously received but was advised that there was little prospect of an increased allocation. Given that salaries account for around 80 per cent of expenditure in colleges of advanced education, the implication of the decreased funding was not lost on staff or management.

Although all of the four Principals had reservations about the impending amalgamation, they displayed a remarkable unity of purpose in acting to ensure the viability of the new institution. Shortly after receiving advice from the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission about student load and funding for the triennium, they issued a joint statement pointing out the seriousness of the funding cuts and proposing that staff should only be appointed where essential. A staffing agreement was developed in early July requiring the agreement of the four chief executive officers to any further appointment extending beyond December 1981. Unfortunately, the policy served to increase general anxiety, particularly that of contract staff, because college management did not feel able to give any undertakings until very late in 1981 about which, if any, contracts would be renewed.

A small ray of fiscal sunshine came in the form of the Ministerial Statement on Staffing and Superannuation Issues in Colleges of Advanced Education on 23 September 1981. The Statement from the Hon. A J Hunt, Victorian Minister of Education, requested that all post-

71 secondary institutions give priority when employing staff, all things being equal, to those likely to be made redundant because of the fiscal adjustments in colleges. The Government accepted responsibility for financing of the employer contribution for staff members in the State Superannuation scheme, an issue that had bedevilled colleges for some years. The provisions about salary maintenance, even when accepting a position at a lower level, and the introduction of superannuation for permanent part-time positions, were well received. In an environment of great uncertainty, staff felt somewhat reassured and College management likewise, albeit for different reasons.

Although assisting the Planning Committee to carry out the government’s wishes, colleges nevertheless continued to lobby politicians and the media in hopes of a last minute reprieve. An editorial in The Age dated 30 July 1981 was headlined: Prahran College – Part of Prahran.. but for how long? The article stated: .. the Government has given no educational rationale for its mergers decision, no estimate of the cost benefits, no indication that the community will be better off by forcing these shot-gun marriages on a hapless and dispirited college system…. Why for example, should Prahran College of Advanced Education, with its emphasis on innovation and community access, be forced to amalgamate with three teachers colleges? The Government should withdraw its demands and its threats and establish a proper investigation into the merits of the mergers it has proposed.

Several days later The Age featured an article entitled Cowyard confetti in which Lyle Cullen lamented that “a significant chapter in Victoria’s history will come to an end with the death of Prahran College of Advanced Education”. Why then does Prahran have to close, he asked. The pedant, the bureaucrat, the sophist will…say that it is not closing but merely merging…to provide..new and exciting possibilities… ‘Cowyard confetti’ my long deceased great uncle would have called it… And he would have been correct.64

Legislative basis of Victoria College The bureaucrats, however, were leaving nothing to chance. In late August, Dr Graham Allen, the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission and Mr P Thwaites, a Commissioner, met with the Minister of Education to discuss the constitutions of Councils of Amalgamated Institutions. At this meeting the Chairman informed the Minister of the Commission’s strong view that the Councils of amalgamated colleges should be established under Order in Council rather than by separate Acts of Parliament. It was the view of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission that this approach was necessary to retain flexibility in the system. It would also prevent the establishment of an undesirable precedent,

72 given the aspirations of other colleges of advanced education and the impending establishment of self-governing colleges of technical and further education.65

The Minister accepted the advice of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission about the legislative basis of the new institutions. He subsequently wrote to Mr Weber confirming that he had accepted the recommendation of the Planning Committee that the new institution be entitled “Victoria College”. However, he rejected the option of establishing Victoria College under an Act of Parliament. His letter proposed that “given the time constraints and the legislative burden that already faces the Parliament”, the Councils at SCV Burwood, SCV at Rusden and SCV at Toorak should “apply for incorporation under Section 23(1) of the Post-Secondary Education Act” and “thereafter to apply to the Commission under Section 25(1) to be amalgamated”.66

Consequently, like the majority of Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education, Victoria College was established by an Order in Council pursuant to the Post-Secondary Education Act 1978. The exceptions to this were the Victorian College of the Arts which was constituted under an Act of Parliament, and three colleges established under the Companies Act (Swinburne Institute of Technology, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and the College of Pharmacy). Orders in Council have the effect of constituting Councils for the purposes of managing and controlling the affairs of Colleges, but they do not constitute or establish the Colleges themselves. As the then Director of Lincoln Institute observed some time later repeated external threats and doubts do nothing to inculcate the necessary degree of regularity in an institution. the establishment of the Institute by an Act does go some little way towards providing a security for the college, its institutions and its activities.67

Certainly it would appear that colleges with their own Acts would be protected to some extent from any hasty decision by governments to close or amalgamate them with another institution, as this would require the passing of amending legislation.68

The legal basis on which the new college was established proved to be an important factor in events that would occur in the late 1980s. As Colin Campbell Victoria College’s Director was to state later: One of the interesting debates actually was whether there would be an act of parliament setting up Victoria College and if only I had known in advance what was coming I would have insisted on it. But it was actually an order in council, and as that turned out, as you will

73 no doubt discover, to be an absolute disaster for Victoria College. However, it was an order in council and the debate of the Planning Committee was fairly relaxed at the time.69

The final tasks of the Planning Committee At the same meeting that rejected the conditions for inclusion of TAFE in the new institution, the Planning Committee agreed on the final draft of the Constitution for the new college. On this day, Thursday 10 September, the Chairman told the meeting that he would forward it to the Minister early the following week and copies would be distributed to members as soon as possible.

Just before agreement was reached on the final draft of the Constitution however, the Committee considered a telegram from the Rusden Branch of VCSA urging “that PACT staff should be given equal representation with the academic staff”.70 This issue was debated at length. It was argued that the institution was an educational one, and that it was reasonable the staff running the educational programmes should have a substantial say in the running of them. The view was expressed, no doubt by a member of the academic staff, that the role of the general staff, however, was “to support the academic staff, performing work which did not really relate to the nature of the institution”.71 It was also pointed out that there were no general staff members on the Councils of existing colleges, but that general staff had considerable input to Council through its Committees.72

Having developed the constitution for the new college, the Planning Committee then turned its attention to arrangements for its future governance. The Chairman informed the next and fourteenth meeting of the Planning Committee that the Minister of Education had been strongly advised of the importance of establishing the new Council as quickly as possible. He advised that he believed that the Minister intended to appoint an Interim Council in the next few weeks and the members of the Interim Council should be as far as possible the members of the new Council. The Committee then resolved to authorise the Principal’s Committee to organise the necessary elections for staff and student members so that they could be held forthwith and members appointed to the Council of Victoria College immediately upon its inauguration.

Selecting a Chief Executive for Victoria College The early appointment of a new chief executive was considered by the four Principals shortly after they began meeting regularly. The “Aide Memoire” from their meeting of 21 May records that the four Principals “agreed that we would support the idea that arrangements for

74 a chief executive should be made as quickly as possible and that various options should be examined”. At their meeting on Friday June 5 the Principals again considered than an executive capacity be established as soon as possible. Various methods of appointing a chief executive were considered. Members supported the appointment of an existing principal on contract (with right of reversion), selected by Chairman of Councils, named as Principal Designate till new Council formed.73

Early in September 1981 the Principals made a submission to a meeting of Chairmen of Council and Principals recommending the appointment of a Principal Designate from within the staff of the amalgamating colleges. Shortly thereafter the Chairmen decided that the position of Principal should be advertised rather than an appointment being made from within the existing colleges without advertising. In response Dr Curry drafted a document outlining the views of the Principals on the matter. The appointment of a Principal-Designate is urgent, he wrote, because “decisions must be made that will mould the character of Victoria College for many decades”. Activities in the early stage of development will be of prime importance because it is “during this period that an educational philosophy underlying leadership activities must be determined and applied”. The appointment of a part-time Executive Chairman as proposed by the Chairman of Council “to conduct a holding operation” was seen as detrimental to the new College. It would conceivably lead to a number of problems, including pre-empting the appointment of other senior positions that needed to be made (such as Business Manager, Registrar, Chief Librarian) and in the absence of a Principal there was a real danger of “creating a power vacuum” that would lead to further complications.74

Nevertheless the Chairmen of Council remained resolved and after further discussion at the meeting of Chairmen and Principals held on Sunday 27 September, the Chairmen agreed to ask the Minister to adopt a timetable which would enable the process of advertisement, application and selection to be completed in order that the first Principal of Victoria College could take up office no later than 4 January 1982.

At the Planning Committee held on 29 September 1981 questions were raised about how the interests of the four directors or principals were being protected. The Chairman said that the Minister of Education had been alerted to the need to appoint the chief executive officer of the Victoria College as soon as possible. It was pointed out that if the position were to be advertised externally this should already have occurred some time ago. However, as the Committee noted, according the draft Constitution that had just been approved, the new Council was responsible for appointing the chief executive. It was then suggested that the Minister might consider making an interim appointment for a limited term until the Council

75 could carry out this task. The Chairman agreed that he would write to the Minister and when presenting the letter would take the opportunity to discuss the matter of the appointment of the chief executive officer and to discover his intentions in the matter.

Subsequently Paul Wisch “at the request of the Chairmen of the four Colleges that will be amalgamated to create Victoria College and with the concurrence of the three Principals”, forwarded a number of materials to Alan Hunt, the Minister of Education for his consideration. It was suggested that these items, which included an advertisement for the position of Principal-Designate, Victoria College, a Duty Statement for Principal-Designate, A Program Profile of the four Colleges being amalgamated and a “copy of the Constitution submitted to you by the Planning Committee for Institution One” should be made available to applicants.75

At this point the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Graham Allen, intervened and convened a meeting with the Minister and the four Chairmen of Council on 8 October 1981. Those present at the meeting were the Minister, Alan Hunt, Dr G Allen, Chairman, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, the Hon. Sir Murray McInerney (Toorak), Mr Peter Isaacson (Prahran), Mr L Wilson (Burwood), Mr H P Weber (Chairman, Planning Committee) and Mr J I Richardson, MP (Ministerial Representative). A document entitled “Proposed Victoria College” records: The meeting agreed that major positions in a restructure of this magnitude should normally be advertised, but in the special circumstances of the case, determined that an appointment of Director of the new institution from amongst the Principals of the amalgamating colleges was on balance in the best interests of harmonious completion of arrangements in this case.76

The meeting also agreed that all necessary steps to complete a recommendation of a Director to the incoming Council should be effected as rapidly as possible. It was agreed that the Planning Committee could now be wound up and a Committee of five, comprising Mr Weber as Chairman and the respective Chairmen of the existing Councils would be established to complete all outstanding business including the appointment of a Selection Advisory Committee.77

When the Planning Committee next met on 16 November 1981 Mr Weber advised members that a Selection Advisory Committee had been set up to consider the appointment of the Principal, and would recommend on this matter to the incoming Council. Members of the Council would be nominated well before Christmas. 78 In response to a question Mr Weber said that the members of the Selection Committee for the appointment of the Principal were

76 the Chairmen of the four College Councils (Mr Wilson acting for Mr Rogers), Mr Weber himself, Mr Hartley Halstead, Dr B Smith (RMIT), Professor Kwong Lee Dow (University of Melbourne), and Professor J Scott (Vice Chancellor, La Trobe University). It had been thought that no member of staff of the Colleges should be a member and that Mr Halstead’s qualifications and background would enable him to represent a staff viewpoint.

At this meeting Mr Weber also informed members that the three State Colleges had applied for incorporation under the Post Secondary Education Act, and as soon as the “applications had been processed they would apply for amalgamation. Prahran was already incorporated under the Act, and had applied for amalgamation”.79 It was expected that all formalities would be concluded by the end of the year and the new College Council would take over on 1 January 1982.

Mr Weber then outlined arrangements to be made about employment of general staff at Prahran because of the separation of the TAFE sector. The following advice was provided in response to concerns expressed about the situation of general staff of Prahran College: lists of positions, if any, available in Victoria College and the Prahran TAFE College would be produced not later than 31 March 1982 and general staff members would be given the opportunity of expressing a preference for employment in one College or the other up to 28 days after notice of the available positions had been given.

It was agreed not to fix a further meeting date for the Committee at this stage. The Chairman thanked all members for their efforts. The meeting expressed the hope that the chairman would continue his association with Victoria College.

Subsequently the four Principals were invited to submit applications for the position of Principal-Designate to the Selection Committee which would then conduct interviews. However, before the interview process was completed, Dr Norman Curry, whom some had seen as the front runner for the job of Principal-Designate, had been appointed Director- General of Education in Victoria, which left the remaining three incumbents – Colin Campbell, Paul Wisch and Peter Nattrass – as contenders. According to Colin Campbell the result of the selection process was communicated some time in early December by “Herman Weber, bless his soul, who came to one of the lying on the floor meetings. He came in and he said I have news from the Ministerial Committee. The Ministerial Committee has decided to recommend the employment of Colin Campbell as Principal-Designate”.80

77 A Notice to All Staff at Prahran College of Advanced Education dated 10 December 1981 announced that In the Victorian Parliament yesterday, the Minister of Education announced that the Selection Committee had agreed to recommend to the Council of Victoria College the appointment of Dr C Campbell as principal. I am sure staff will join with me in offering our warmest congratulations to Dr Campbell on this appointment and in wishing him every success in a very exciting but daunting task. [Signed] Lyle Cullen, Registrar.81

The academic year had ended. With it had gone any hopes of a last minute stay of execution for the four colleges. In December Dr Paul Wisch resigned from SCV Rusden and returned to the United States and Dr Curry went off to Treasury Place to head up the Ministry of Education. In the same month the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission endorsed a recommendation from its Courses Approval Committee that “those courses currently approved for operation at SCV Burwood, SCV Rusden, SCV Toorak and Prahran College of Advanced Education be approved for operation at Victoria College in 1982.” These programs would be supplemented by the seven new courses approved for introduction in 1982 by the Planning Committee82.

On 9 December 1981 the TAFE component of Prahran College of Advanced Education became a separate college under its own Order-in-Council and Dr Colin Woodrow, recently returned from a two-year secondment as Principal of Goulburn College of Advanced Education, took up the position of Principal of the Prahran College of TAFE. Victoria College came into being at midnight on Tuesday 22 December 1981 and held its first Council meeting at 8.00 a.m. the next morning. Although “Burwood”, “Prahran”, “Toorak” and “Rusden” were no longer legal entities, they would remain campus titles and it would be some years before members of staff ceased to identify themselves in such terms. Creating a sense of identity was to be one of the biggest challenges for the new institution.

78 Chapter 6 Integrating and managing a merged institution

When the Victorian Government announced the formation of Victoria College through the amalgamation of four previously separate institutions it made it clear that the new institution was to be a single, unified college rather than a federation. Developing a structure that gave effect to an agreement that campuses should be equal in status and perceived to be so, presented a major challenge for the new management team and for the Victoria College Council. This chapter describes how Victoria College approached major management issue, particularly in the years 1982-1986, including the development of an organisational structure for the College and the challenges in managing a merged, multi-campus institution.

During the first five years of its existence, Victoria College was preoccupied with post- amalgamation financial, organisational and operational adjustments. The operational adjustments formally commenced when Victoria College became a legal entity on 22 December 1981 following the signing of its Order in Council by the Governor of Victoria.1 At 8.00am the next morning Victoria College Council held its first meeting and elected Herman Weber as its Chairman.

Governance arrangements within higher education institutions In 1981, most Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education were governed by Orders in Council pursuant to the Post-Secondary Education Act 1978, which had the effect of constituting Councils for the purposes of managing and controlling the affairs of Colleges, but they did not constitute or establish the Colleges themselves. The College Council was the governing body of the institution with ultimate authority and responsibility for academic, financial and property matters.

Victoria College’s constitution set out the specific powers given the Council to manage and control effectively. In exercising its powers, the Victoria College Council, like the Council of most other colleges in Victoria, performed a number of functions, including the general oversight of administrative and financial affairs and the procurement and use of resources. Although the Council was the ultimate source of authority in the College, given the part-time nature of its membership and the complexity of activities, it was not practicable for Council to undertake the day-to-day management of affairs. Similarly, although the Council also established and approved academic policy, it relied on the specialised knowledge and experience of staff and the Academic Board to assist in this role. In this respect the role of

79 the Victoria College Council resembled that of other higher education institutions at the time, including universities.

Following a review undertaken in 1983 the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission published guidelines regarding the membership of Councils of Colleges of Advanced Education. These guidelines established a number of principles for membership, including that Councils should “encompass a spread of age and sex and draw upon persons with background and experience relevant to the activities of the college” and that the “primary criteria” for appointing a person to Council should be “the personal qualities, knowledge and experience of the person”.2 The review also established that College Councils should have a minimum of 20 persons drawn from two categories of membership. The first of these categories, set at 40 per cent of total membership, was to be comprised of members from the college community, including the chief executive office and members drawn from the academic staff, general staff, Academic Board, and the student community. In addition a further 60 per cent of members would be drawn from the wider community and might include employers, professional bodies, unions, government, local groups, and graduates of the college.3

Clearly the selection and commitment of the external members of the College Council was important in a number of ways. These members might bring to the College expertise not readily available internally or may hold positions which enabled them to influence decision- makers in government and/or industry for the benefit of the College. Consequently establishing good relationships between the senior staff and Council members was critical for enabling the smooth operation of the institution.

Victoria College Council and institutional governance Like that of other Colleges, membership of the Victoria College Council was broadly representative. Although the new Council had a large number of members drawn from the Councils of the former Colleges, they represented a diverse range of interests and expertise. Some such as the Chairman, Herman Weber, formerly the Managing Director of Massey Ferguson, Laurie Wilson, chief executive of the Bowater Company (SCV Burwood) (who succeeded Mr Weber as Council President), Robert Sessions, Publishing Editor of Thomas Nelsons (Prahran CAE), and Peter Hardie, Managing Director of Biro Bic (SCV Rusden) had a strong management and commercial orientation. Other members such as Simon Crean, the Secretary, Storeman and Packers Union (a former Council Member of Prahran CAE and now Leader of the Australian Labor Party) and Mrs Denise King, a solicitor and former member of the Council of SCV Burwood, who became President of the Victoria College Council after

80 Laurie Wilson, brought complementary skills in negotiation and law. In addition, elections held in the preceding month, ensured that staff were represented by three members on the 21 member Council - Dr Stan van Hooft, lecturer in Philosophy (Prahran) Barry Brazier, lecturer in Food Science (Rusden) and Elaine Dooley, Senior Administrative Officer (Rusden) - and the College’s students by Kelly Gardiner, President of the Student Union (Prahran) and Peter Kirley, President of the Student Union (Rusden).

As might be expected, the greater managerial and commercial orientation of the external members of Council sometimes led to conflicts with the internal members and with the Staff Associations. Tensions arose early. The second issue of the Victoria College News Sheet carried a report from Stan van Hooft, the academic staff representative on the Victoria College Council, of the Council Meeting held on January 26, 1982. This report welcomed the decision by Council to admit observers to its meetings, but also recorded that the “ethos of the business world was fairly strongly present in the new Council …[and consequently] it does not seem clear to many Councillors that academic staff are not functionaries to be directed into tasks as managers see fit, but autonomous professionals who direct their own professional lives in partnership with the facilitating activities of management”.4

Stan van Hooft’s assertion that the Victoria College staff were autonomous professionals derives from the proposition that those engaged in academic work possess extensive and highly specialised knowledge bases acquired after lengthy periods of education. The claims for professional expertise rest on these foundations. Traditionally both the authority and loyalty of academics are derived from and owed to the profession – typically expressed in terms of ‘disciplines’ rather than institutions. It is also from this source that are derived associated claims for professional self-regulation and control by peers rather than ‘managers’. Accordingly, the structures of control in the classic university – or the institutions modelled on it - have been mediated by professional claims for autonomy and academic freedom. The organisational structures of all higher education institutions tend to reflect these claims, with the academic disciplines, either singly or, as in faculties, collectively arranged to provide the basic building blocks of university organisation.5

Perhaps not surprisingly, the issue of professional autonomy and its relationship to institutional management prompted a response from the President of Council, Herman Weber. In the March 4 issue of Victoria College’s News Sheet, he questioned the narrowness of the concept that the function of College ‘management’ was simply to facilitate the teaching staff “in directing their own professional lives”. “It seems to disassociate the teaching staff from ‘management’ - a situation I cannot accept”, wrote Mr Weber, and

81 …Autonomy’ - like ‘freedom’ - exists only within the limitation of society’s rules. A member of academic staff enjoys some degree of autonomy in his approach to his subject matter, in his contribution to the development of the academic life of the College, and towards his own personal development. However, he always remains a member of a team which is dedicated to the provision of teaching services designed to satisfy the educational needs of the community. To pretend otherwise would be a nonsense which could only bring the College into disrepute.6

If the views of the academic staff represented notions of academic and institutional autonomy that had evolved and been nourished in the traditional university setting, the response by Herman Weber foreshadowed the more managerialist approach that was later to be advocated by Minister Dawkins.

Establishing effective College management arrangements was critical to the ability new Council to perform its duties. Consequently, the appointment of the College’s chief executive was one of its first tasks. Although as outlined in the previous chapter, a recommendation had already been made by the Ministerial Committee, the ultimate responsibility lay with the institution’s governing body. Accordingly, at its first meeting the Victoria College Council turned its attention to this matter. The minutes record that Dr Campbell left the meeting during this item and following some preliminary discussion of the matter, there was a request for information on Dr Campbell’s professional experience and credentials to be made available to members. As Dr Campbell recalls I was sitting outside the Council Room at Toorak, then somebody rushed out of the meeting, and said “have you got your CV because one of the Council members has asked what your background is?” I don't know who it was that rushed out. I mean it was a perfectly legitimate question. I don't know where he got the CV from but somebody must have had it. It was all rather bizarre. Then about half an hour later I was invited to come in and they said you will be pleased to know we have ratified your appointment as principal, congratulations, please sit next to the President, or words to that effect.7

Having approved the appointment of Dr Campbell as the first chief executive of Victoria College, the meeting then considered and approved the proposed interim administrative structure for a period of one year, appointed Mr Peter Nattrass, former Principal of Burwood State College, as Head of Campus (Rusden) and Director of Academic Programs and authorised Dr Campbell to issue internal advertisements for the remaining senior positions. A representative selection panel for these positions was established. This panel was comprised of the President of Council or his nominee, one other external member of Council (L Wilson), one academic staff member of Council (S van Hooft), one general staff member of Council (E

82 Dooley) one student member of Council (P Kirley), the Principal/Chief Executive officer and one co-opted external member of Council at the discretion of the Principal.!

Cooperative working relations were quickly established between the College’s senior staff and its Council. In the first year or two of operations a great deal was required of Council members by way of time committed to selection committees and to the many sub-committees and working groups charged with developing the policies and procedures required for the new institution. Indeed, Victoria College seems to have been very fortunate with its Council Presidents and members throughout its existence: Council was always extremely helpful and supportive. In the early days, Herman Weber who had been a Managing Director of a major company was an extremely valuable Chairman. He was autocratic in Council meetings. He wouldn't any stand any “bull” in Council meetings, and he said to me very early on, ‘your job is to run the Institution, Council's job is to approve policy and to look over your shoulder, and if you stuff it up you are sacked (or words to that effect).8

Developing a structure for a multi-campus institution At that time of the merger that formed Victoria College, there was little experience in Australia of managing multi-campus institutions. Although there had been several previous mergers such as those involving colleges at Ballarat and Bendigo, these were smaller amalgamations in the sense that they involved fewer campuses and therefore provided little direction about how to manage an institution with five campuses. However, the particular difficulty of the multi-campus institution had been recognised in other countries, such as the United States, where it had been suggested that it is “almost inevitably more bureaucratic, more slow to move; is less collegial in management and less personal in approach.9

From shortly after the merger announcement the four Principals had begun meeting to discuss what sort of structure would be needed in an organisation with multiple campuses. Recognising that there is no such thing as a universally applicable organisational structure, the group spent some time considering what arrangements might best support the development of a single College rather than a loose federation of semi-autonomous institutes.

! The terminology used for the most senior positions immediately following amalgamation was Principal (Chief Executive Officer) and Directors of Academic Programs, Administration, Educational Services. This was changed in 1985 to Director (Chief Executive Officer) and Associate Directors of (Academic Programs, Administration, Educational Services). Except when quoting from original College documents the later terminology is used.

83 Because the international models of multi-campus operation generally applied to systems rather than to single institutions, they provided limited guidance. We certainly had the advantage of information about both British and American multi-campus operation, but that none of them seemed particularly apposite. I mean we knew about the University of California and the University of Wisconsin and so forth but they didn't seem quite right and we felt we were virtually on our own in what we did.10

It is clear from the brief notes of the meetings of the Principals’ Committee held during the planning period that the future structure of the new college was an issue that received early and considerable attention. The notes of the meeting of the Principals held on 5 June 1981, a mere month after the announcement of the merger, record: The broad institutional concept was considered. Various models were put forward. It was agreed that the existing colleges should retain identity (at least during interim period) and a measure of local autonomy. The feasibility of integrating both the functional and administrative requirements was discussed and generally supported.11

As the previous chapter records, one of the working parties established under the auspices of the Principals’ Committee was an Academic Planning Group to consider possible structures for the new institution. As with all other working groups established to plan for the new institution, the composition of the Academic Planning Group reflected the agreement that each of the four institutions would participate as full and equal partners in the merger, so that each was equally represented in the decision-making processes.

The basic structural principles for the multi-campus administration that were developed during these early Principals’ meetings and subsequently refined by Victoria College’s management are described by the Director as follows: We spread those functions we had decided to centralise amongst the campuses. And we had decided that there were certain functions that couldn't be centralised. They had to be on each campus. For example, Student Administration, day to day administration, was to be on each campus. The finance office also had to be on each campus, but we would centralise Student Administration and Admissions on one campus and we would centralise the Finance Department, accounting, payroll and budget on another campus.

So there were certain things that had to function on each campus and weren't centralised, but those functions we wanted to centralise and rationalise and save a lot of money on, we would do that, but then we would locate them around the campuses. We wouldn't have them all in one spot so there was one gigantic head office.

84 That was to try and inculcate the feeling on the campuses that they weren't just an outpost, that they actually were part of it all – still part of one College.12

No doubt after considerable discussion and compromise, by 11 December 1981 a paper entitled “Victoria College – Functions and Possible Structures” had emerged. This paper, over the signatures of Colin Campbell, Norman Curry, Peter Nattrass and Paul Wisch, was distributed widely for discussion and comment by staff of each of the four colleges. The document proposed that the new Council be requested to adopt an interim structure (for a period of 12 months commencing in March 1982) along the lines described in the paper because “an administrative model cannot be finalised until the academic structure has been settled”.13 Although it was an interim structure, the model reflected a number of fundamental assumptions, such as a unified academic structure with a single Academic Board, common academic procedures and college-wide cross-campus faculties as well as cost-centres that operated on an inter-campus basis. It also assumed that the new College would have a unified administrative structure with college-wide policies and procedures applied to each campus.

Not that the proposed structure was without its critics. Although the proposals developed by the Academic Task Force had been previously circulated and discussed by staff within the four institutions, a meeting of staff held on 15 December 1981 expressed concern about “too much haste, we must have time to consider the issues”.14 The document also expressed the view that “the administrative structure must support the academic functions of the College”.15

In spite of these misgivings the interim administrative structure was adopted at the inaugural meeting of the Victoria College Council for a period of one year (March 1982-March 1983) with provision for a review following the development of educational goals and an academic structure. No doubt in recognition of the considerable anxiety that mergers generate among staff, the Council Paper set out a number of objectives of the interim administrative structure. These included that it should not pre-empt future decisions on the ultimate academic and administrative structures for Victoria College and that it should allow academic programs to continue on their present campuses. Although the paper also suggested that the structure should also “immediately engender a spirit of collegiality”, this seems to have been written more in hope than expectation. It would be reasonable to assume that the Director and other senior staff were aware of the previous research into mergers which indicated that “it is no exaggeration to say that most mergers take about ten years for the wounds to heal and for the new realities to be generally acceptable and workable for faculty, students and staff’.16

85 Under this structure administrative functions and support services were centralised in a functional sense and were accountable to one of three directorates – academic programs, administration and educational services. Specialised functions such as student administration, finance, student services were made the responsibility of departments that operated across the whole College.17 It was “recognised that a spirit of collegiality would appear slowly and was unlikely to have taken real hold until about five years had elapsed”; consequently, the creation of cross-college functions, both academic and administrative, “would be important in fostering this collegiality of purpose”.18

However the very great difficulties of actually achieving this were the subject of an address to Victoria College staff on 15 April 1982 by Dr Patrick Nuttgens, Director of Leeds Polytechnic who spoke of the “trauma, heartache, suspicion and intolerance” he had experienced “in masterminding the complex merger of seven colleges in Yorkshire”. When asked how long the amalgamation took to accomplish Dr Nuttgens replied that it took at least two years to “scramble out of this appalling situation” and another three for the academics to settle down, with a further five to six years required for everything to sort itself out”.19

Implementing the administrative structure Studies of other merger processes have also found that organisational issues produce considerable tensions because the new structures tend to be not well understood by staff.20 This was certainly true of Victoria College in its first year as a merged institution. 1982 was a specially difficult year for all staff because of the necessary transition to new positions and new structures as well as the need to learn and adapt to new lines of authority and changed workloads.21 It is clear that the College management endeavoured to introduce the interim structure using fair and transparent processes to minimise staff anxieties. All positions in the new structure were advertised internally and appointments were made through a selection panel process that included a right of appeal against procedures. Although this was a time consuming way to fill positions and many administrative staff found the interview process anxiety provoking, it was generally regarded as ‘democratic’ and resulted in relatively few appeals.

Centralisation of administrative functions meant that approximately one third of the existing administrative staff changed campuses to take up new appointments during 1982, so to some extent the initial impact of the merger was felt more by administrative than academic staff. Implementation of the interim structure was something of an herculean task for the 11.5 equivalent full time staff of the College’s Personnel Department responsible for providing the

86 services required to enable staff to be appointed to the 334 positions in the Interim Administrative Structure.22

Reflecting on the formation of Sydney College of Advanced Education, Koder and McLintock concluded that …throughout the formative period of an amalgamation, the focus of the new institution is almost exclusively inward looking with massive amounts of time diverted from normal academic and administrative activity to resolution of problems and conflicts.23

This was certainly also true for Victoria College during the period 1982 to 1985 where considerable energy was devoted to reviewing structure and processes. Although such reviews involved genuine attempts to consult with staff they inevitably identified the problems that the literature would predict, such as perceptions of less satisfying organisational arrangements and reduced levels of autonomy. A first review of the interim structure undertaken in October 1982, identified concern over the nature of the new structure, including “its complexity, bureaucracy, inflexibility, remoteness and impersonal nature”.24 However a 1984 survey of the mental and physical well-being of staff and students at the Victoria College Rusden Campus concluded that overall the percentage of both staff and students “reporting marked potential stress is somewhat lower than in 1982”.25

The 1982 report also noted that the “negative aspects of imposed amalgamation will persist for some considerable time” and that any expectations of positive outcomes from the rationalisation of the former separate administrative structures are only likely to be realised in the longer term. It concluded that largely the ‘success’ of the interim administrative structure could be seen by “its capacity, against great odds, to enable the courses on five campuses to operate effectively throughout 1982”. It recommended a number of minor adjustments to the structure and that “the Director of Administration be authorised to conduct further reviews” during 1983 and 1984.26

In 1984, a further more extensive investigation was undertaken to “determine how well aspects of the administrative structure function in relation to each other and how effectively and efficiently they operate to support the teaching function of the College”.27 This inquiry found that although a number of pressure points were identified, a basic reorganisation was not required and whereas problems of stress were apparent in the College, there was little evidence that the major fault existed in the organisational structure itself. Further, the report from this investigation found that many staff members considered that decision-making processes within the College were “unnecessarily complex and consequently unnecessarily

87 slow”, concluding that while attention does need to be given to mechanisms for consultation and communication, these problems were not caused by the organisational structure per se but by the dispersed nature of its operation.28

According to Dr G Beeson, the former Associate Director of Administration, one of Victoria College’s biggest contributions to higher education was, in fact, to have “established lasting and working principles for amalgamation and for integrating a multi-campus organisation”.29

Academic Structure In June 1982, the Victoria College Council considered a document entitled Functions and Future Directions of Victoria College, which recommended that there would be six faculties, based on awards and the establishment of an Academic Board. Total membership of the Academic Board was 26 persons of which twelve were elected positions, comprising seven teaching staff one general staff and four students. The Principal [Director] and President of Council were ex officio members.

In addition, a Faculty Board was to be established for each Faculty, with membership drawn from full-time and part-time members of the academic staff and students enrolled in courses taught by the Faculty.30

The academic structure adopted by Council in June 1982 provided for six faculties based on awards, and a Dean responsible to the Director of Academic Programs headed each. The faculties were Applied Science, Arts, Art and Design, Business, Special Education and Paramedical Studies, and Teacher Education.31 Because this last faculty was so large, containing 62 per cent of the College’s students, it was divided into two Schools, Primary Teacher Education and Secondary Teacher Education, each directed by a Head of School.32 Three of the Faculties, namely the Faculties of Arts, Art and Design, Business, were based on the former Prahran Faculties of General Studies, Arts and Design and Business. This meant that the only cross campus academic unit at that time was Primary Teacher Education which operated on the Burwood and Toorak campuses. All the others were single campus faculties and that turned out to be very useful because we discovered that operating cross campus faculties was in fact quite difficult.33

Although it was certainly difficult to operate cross-campus faculties at least one member of the academic staff believed that the “softly-softly” approach “allowed campuses to continue to operate as separate institutions”. Moreover it may have helped to “break down barriers”

88 earlier if joint courses had been developed earlier and there had been greater movement of staff between campuses”.34

However the fact that Victoria College also used disciplines as the basic organising framework of its academic structure reproduced the sort of structure that is typical of higher education institutions, one which leads typically leads to fragmentation. Such arrangements, it is contended, enable disciplinary specialists, largely insulated from the rest of the organisation, to use their autonomy and expertise to perform the basic activities of a higher education institution.”35 Moreover, according to theorists such as Burton Clark, this organisational fragmentation explains the remarkable adaptability of higher education institutions. Because decision-making power is diffused, this results in institutions operating rather like a federal system in which semi-autonomous departments, faculties and schools “act like small sovereign states as they pursue distinctive self-interests and stand over against the authority of the whole”36.

Some early strategies to foster institutional integration A number of studies have documented the processes and problems associated with amalgamations in higher education and this literature also makes a clear distinction between the processes of amalgamation and institutional integration.37

A number of strategies used by Victoria College to promote institutional integration were thoughtfully analysed by one of its Associate Directors, Dr Geoff Beeson, in a paper delivered to a conference on institutional amalgamations in 1986.38 The first of these was to “weaken old institutional loyalties and build new ones” by relocating senior managers, including the Director*, from their “old” campus to a different one, while at the same time ensuring that there was a very senior administrator on each campus with responsibility for day to day campus matters. As Dr Campbell reported After I had been appointed as Principal [Director] I also decided on another few strategies to make this work, and one that was that we would have Heads of Campus and that those Heads of Campus would be responsible for the day to day activities of that campus without having to come to a central point to get a decision, and they would be senior people and that they would have a dual function. They would not only be Heads of Campus, but they would also hold a cross institutional portfolio, and also somewhat like Machiavelli, I decided that nobody who had been on that campus pre merger would be the head of that campus post merger.39

89 The second was to “make organisational changes sooner rather than later” so that the new College would become an integrated and identifiable whole; the most traumatic events could be dispensed with quickly and the period of uncertainty for staff and students kept to a minimum. Nevertheless the implementation of the changes was traumatic for staff who continued to believe that the “amalgamation has been a complete shambles” for several years.40

Campus consolidation At the time of the merger and for some time thereafter the Government’s policy was that “Victoria College should consolidate on three campuses: Toorak, Burwood and Rusden”. Although accepting the necessity for an “ultimate reduction in the number of campuses”, the College’s position statement on campus usage developed in April 1982 outlined the College’s belief that quick moves beyond those already begun taken to vacate the Armadale campus, were not possible. It suggested that it would be necessary to retain courses in Business Studies and Art and Design on the Prahran campus “for some considerable time” both because of the College’s “special relationships and needs within the inner metropolitan area” and also because of the “high costs of moving the programs”. It concluded that its current planning anticipated that course development would focus on secondary teacher education, Applied Science and Science education at Rusden; the current programs plus Business Studies, Performing Arts, and Social Science at Burwood; primary teacher education, Arts and part of Business at Malvern.41

Some twelve months later the future of Prahran returned to the agenda when on 21 April 1983 the Vic Majzner wrote an impassioned letter to Dr Allen on behalf of the staff and students of the Prahran Faculty of Art and Design, Victoria College. The letter stated: We are alarmed at the implications that may result from the recent VPSEC recommendation to transfer our Faculty from Prahran campus. We believe that if this recommendation is adopted it will effectively destroy one of Australia’s oldest and most effective art schools.

The letter went on to inform the Commission that a general meeting of staff and students had unanimously adopted a number of recommendations rejecting the proposed transfer of the Faculty and deploring the “deplorable state of our present facilities”.

Traditionally, because of our central, inner metropolitan location at Prahran this Faculty has attracted students from wide socio/economic and geographic groupings which have contributed to the vitality and educational diversity which this faculty is renown for. By a

90 change in location (outside the City of Prahran) a fundamental change in everything that this Faculty stands for will result.42

In June 1983 the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission agreed to review its position on campus consolidation.43 Following this review in October 1983 the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission revised its existing policy to enable the College to retain “its advanced education facilities and land at the Prahran campus”.44

The Commission outlined several reasons for the policy change, including the strong educational rationale for the retention of the Prahran campus because of its long-standing role in enabling TAFE students at the site to access advanced education courses. It also accepted the College’s view that, although not assisting in reducing further recurrent costs, retaining the campus “will result in a significant reduction in capital requirements” for additional buildings on the Toorak and Burwood campuses of the College.45

Notwithstanding the impassioned pleas of the Prahran staff, it is likely that the cost of consolidation was the major factor in the Government’s change of heart. The Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission had estimated that approximately $3,000,000 would be required to move Art and Design from the Prahran campus to the Toorak campus and that “the likelihood of the provision of buildings for the effective movement of advanced education from Prahran would not be before 1990, given that the project is No. 7 in the Commission priorities with $34,000,000 of buildings in a higher priority order”.46

So the Faculty of Art and Design remained at Prahran and, in time, its ‘deplorable facilities’ were somewhat improved. The minutes of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission meeting held in February 1984 revealed that the Minister was seeking the views of the TAFE Board on the Commission’s recommendation that Victoria College be enabled to remain at the Prahran site. Subsequently the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission recommended that Victoria College retain certain capital facilities and land at Prahran and funds were allocated for the proposed construction of an art and design building on this site, followed by a sculpture building jointly developed with TAFE.47

When the new Sculpture Studios at the Prahran Campus were officially opened by National Gallery Director Patrick McCaughey in August 1985 the Dean, Norman Baggaley, praised the efforts of College management in securing funding for “any kind of new building in these hard times”. He noted that Dr Eric Unthank,

91 …using admirably pragmatic psychology, had deposited a plastic bag containing large and potentially lethal pieces of plaster, fallen from the ceiling of the previous decaying premises on the desk of the VPSEC’s executive director. .. It is to the eternal credit of our masters at the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission that they reacted positively and helpfully to such a blunt hint.”48

By 1985 it was apparent that there were also limitations on the capacity of the Toorak and Rusden campuses to support the College in its “development of programs to serve the Eastern and North-eastern suburbs of Melbourne”. Accordingly, in 1985 the Commission was advised that the Minister for Education had asked the Education Department to discuss with the Commission the future use of the site occupied by Victoria College, Burwood High School and Bennettswood State School.49

Thus, the College continued to operate across its four campuses, using the Head of Campus role to enable authoritative decisions about local matters to be made relatively speedily. According to one former Head of Campus at Victoria College: I am firmly convinced that Heads of Campus were a good thing, and it is good that Colin didn't feel threatened. I know that he set some ground rules early on …[and having sort of sorted out the boundaries a bit I think there is not much doubt that Heads of Campus were a pretty useful part of the organisation. What I was interested in, as soon as John Hay came over [as Vice-Chancellor] when we became part of Deakin, he was petrified of Head of Campus. Got rid of them as soon as possible, or downgraded us as soon as possible.50

Integration of systems and functions was gradually achieved, a number such as electronic inter-campus communications system, were only made possible with the aid of targeted minor works funding from the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission.

Responding to the expectations and concerns of staff Although the structural model implemented did not subject most of the academic staff at Victoria College to the stresses of moving to a new campus, there were other stresses, problems and anxieties. Following a review of merger studies, Goedegebuure concluded that in the majority of mergers individual tensions “are considered to have a long lasting effect on the evolution of the new institution”.51 Again, Victoria College was no exception. A study of concerns and expectations of staff undertaken in December 1981 found that the most commonly expressed personal concern for all staff across all campuses was related to job security and working conditions.52 Other personal concerns identified by staff at Victoria College included loss of commitment and job satisfaction due to existing uncertainties;

92 whereas management concerns mentioned most frequently related to the need for effective staff input into the decision-making process of the College.

Such problems were not unanticipated at the time. Indeed in May 1982 the specific problems of merged institutions such as Victoria College were recognised by the Conference of Chairmen of Post-Secondary Coordinating Authorities, who considered that the circumstances can be expected “to produce increased industrial militancy aimed at preserving employment conditions and limiting the capacity of management optimally to redeploy personnel resources”. Furthermore the rationalisation of courses in teacher education may lead to significant academic staff redundancy, under-employment and dissatisfaction, and reduce opportunities for professional development, progression and promotion. Similarly, forced savings in administration and provision of services within a multi-campus institution may reduce opportunities and expectations of non-academic staff. Moreover, this will occur in circumstances where similar new employment opportunities elsewhere will be very limited. 53

In such circumstances, the development of generally good industrial relations across the four campuses of Victoria College is testament to the good will and cooperation of staff and management alike. Establishing effective consultation processes with staff was also made very much easier by the early decisions of the academic and general staff associations on each campus to amalgamate. As the Academic Staff Association noted in its 1982 Report, while the groundwork for effective consultation with the Principal [Director] and the College Council was laid during 1982 continued efforts will need to be made to ensure that regular and earlier participation in decision making takes place.54

Early agreements were reached on basic issues such as the transfer of staff members from one campus to another. Representatives of the staff associations were involved in all working parties about staffing policies, particularly those on terms and conditions of employment.55 Also the Director held regular meetings with the Executives of the staff associations and regularly visited each campus: I had meetings with staff on each campus to talk to them [the staff] about structure when Council had approved it, which I think it did fairly early on. I have to say the Staff Associations were very cooperative on the staffing bit. They couldn't really come up with an alternative to the selection panel procedure and they were happy to be involved.

Consequently, in the first years following amalgamation a large number of “difficult and contentious staffing issues were resolved, not always without difficulty, but by and large through reasoned negotiation”.56 By contrast, other amalgamations in some other states were

93 so acrimonious that staffing issues were reported in the local press and questions were raised in Parliament.

Certainly integration seems to have been successful in the case of the Academic Staff Association according to its then President, Dr Robin Matthews who wrote one of the most pleasing and interesting features of the work of the Executive in 1982 has been that campus-based allegiances have disappeared.57

Good relationships were also developed with the Victoria College VCSA (Victorian Colleges Staff Association) representing the interests of professional, administrative, clerical, technical and general staff.58 During 1983 the existing four VCSA branches were also consolidated into a single Victoria College branch which was responsible for liaising with the Principal and senior College staff as well as with the Academic Staff Association. As the President reported in 1983 VCSA has pursued a conscious policy, based on the Japanese and West German models, of working co-operatively with the College management. We believe that the interests of PACT staff ..are best served by discussion with an orientation to positive solutions (rather than to problems) and we are pleased that the Principal [Director] has encouraged this approach.59

Certainly, the College actively pursued a consultative approach to management as is evidenced by the record of Victoria College’s discussions with the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission on 13 November 1985. The notes of this meeting record that Victoria College was represented by the Deputy President of Council, the Director, the three Associate Directors, the Head of Institutional Planning, the Business manager, President, Academic Staff Association, President, VCSA, President Burwood Student Council, and the Deans of Business, Special Education and Paramedical Studies, Teacher Education and the Acting Head of School, Primary Education.60

Communications Strategies Effective communication is important in any organisation, however communication channels are much more complicated in a multi-campus situation and require continual thought and planning. The importance of mechanisms for keeping staff informed was recognised early at Victoria College with the establishment of an internal news sheet distributed to staff at all of Victoria College’s campuses from immediately after the merger took effect. There were initially five campuses but these reduced to four after 1983 when Home Economics at Larnook was relocated to the Rusden campus.

94 The first issue of the Victoria College News Sheet dated 15 January 1982 carried a message from the new Director setting out the major tasks for the coming year. It was to be, he stated, “a planning year, during which academic goals and structures will be determined”. He acknowledged the inevitable uncertainties arising from a tough budget and declining student numbers and proposed to use the College Newsletter as a way of keeping staff informed of developments. Although, as his message stated, “many may question the political rationale which led to the foundation of Victoria College,… the merger gives us an opportunity to consolidate the expertise of the four colleges and to develop in new directions”.61

From that time forward the News Sheet, was to play an important role in disseminating information to staff, providing details of Council Meetings, administrative arrangements and new policy directions as well as advertisements for positions and news from around the campuses and from academic departments. Edited by Morna Sturrock until November 1988, the News Sheet was an important means of bringing the “widest variety of relevant news to the entire College community”, including, as we have seen, being a vehicle for the exchange and airing of different views, such as that between the Chairman of the College Council and one of the elected staff representatives.62

Under the heading, “Having You Seen This Man?”, Issue No. 3 of the Victoria College News Sheet announced the intention of the Director, Dr Colin Campbell (now located at the Toorak campus), to schedule regular visits to the Burwood, Prahran and Rusden campuses on a monthly schedule published in the news sheet. These visits would be conducted on a “please drop in” basis but staff were advised that “if your time is at a premium, please ring the Principal’s [Director] secretary”.63 Not only did the Director endeavour to be accessible to staff at each campus but he also made a great effort to communicate significant issues personally through meetings convened at each campus with staff and groups of staff and students. In spite of these efforts to encourage staff to feel part of the new institution, many felt unable to relinquish their old institutional loyalties. Nevertheless, at least in the view of Peter Nattrass, the former Associate Director (Academic Programs), the strategy worked and …actually Colin did have a lot of success in bringing together the four sets of staff; although that was never going to be perfect, except with generational change. It was one of the things he had to work at and he did work at very hard. If anything came up he would be off on his four lectures –one per campus. He was always very determined to make sure everyone got the facts and they got a personal explanation from the boss. In the circumstances, this was tremendously important.64

95 The success of this strategy was also acknowledged in the report entitled Victoria College – 2000, which said Many staff members have reported a lessening in what they otherwise perceive as widespread distrust of an unseen central administration after each address to staff from the Principal [Director]. Therefore, contact with the Principal [Director] is a useful measure. But few people attend these addresses and those most distrustful of the administration may not seek an interview with the Principal when he is periodically present on each campus.65

The timing of the merger which took effect just prior to Christmas 1981 had provided the College with “a couple of months breathing time before staff came back to work from the Christmas vacation”. This enabled “simple things like having newsletters and note paper with Victoria College written on it on their desks and new telephone directories” to occur.66 However, the College had as yet not developed a corporate identity. Consequently, early in 1982, staff were invited to submit ideas on the “corporate image” for Victoria College, including a distinctive but versatile College logo; design for letterheads and other College stationary and cover, format and style for a general information brochure used to introduce Victoria College to the public.67

Institutional Image The former Director of the Sydney College of Advanced Education, also a multi-campus institution formed through merger, observed that “the formation of an identity for the new institution is a slow process of attitude change, rather than a process that can be accomplished by edict”.68 This is in turn relates to a further problem of image described by Lynn Meek which is that when we think of a university we tend to imagine a free-standing, geographically-specific institution: Cambridge, Harvard, Yale.69 Image becomes particularly problematic in an institution such as Victoria College, which not only lacks a flagship campus (because each of the institutions had to be a full and equal partner in the new College) but is also based on the four campuses of the four previously autonomous institutions, each of which was a relatively reluctant participant in the amalgamation.

The document Victoria College: Functions and Future Directions of Victoria College drafted by the Director and amended to take account of the views of a wide range of groups and individuals, made it clear that The College must establish its identity as a single entity at the local, State, and national level so that students and staff identify with the College first and the particular campus second. This must be done without sacrificing the essential community links built up over the years by

96 the former Colleges and it is for this reason that the names of the campuses should remain unchanged.70

However this seems to have been slow to take effect as is evidenced by an extract a report entitled Victoria College – 2000 forwarded to the President of Victoria College Council from in December 1984 by Myer Mirsky, the Convenor of a special working party set up to recommend on future directions for the College, which stated: Before Victoria College can clearly envisage its future state it must confront its present state: viz, a loosely joined but unintegrated set of disparate bodies each of which prefer to continue an independent existence.71

A major criticism levelled at the College by the consultants C Hulls and W Mellor in their 1985 report into income, expenditure and quality of education at Victoria College was the lack of a corporate image. The report was the subject of extensive discussions between Heads of School and Faculty Deans and their staff, leading to the preparation of a consolidated response which began by noting a general disappointment with the report beyond the recognition that the College is seriously under-funded. In response to the recommendation that the “College needs to develop a clear identity and unity and to “institute a corporate planning process”, the Paper acknowledged that it had “not yet achieved a high degree of unity”. However it also noted that the idea of a single College direction and the “concept of a total unit are perhaps unrealistic given the faculties’ disparate educational tasks”. Moreover in regard to the “Hulls and Mellor enthusiasm” for master planning, the paper noted that since 1982 there had been “numerous task forces, think tanks and academic master planning exercises” and what needed to be understood was the way the system worked. Institutions are not completely free to chart their own course. They are highly dependent on external environment influences. Government priorities emerge, coordinating authorities reveal plans and expectations. No institution wanders aimlessly through these minefields. Much has been done since amalgamation to develop a Victoria College identity and much is continuing to be done.72

Indeed one of the perennial complaints of the colleges of advanced education, including Victoria College, was that the difficulties of negotiating these minefields and the perception that they were subject to a great deal of bureaucratic regulation whereas universities seemed not to be so prescribed. As one Victoria College submission to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission noted: …from a college vantage point, it appears that, in practice, the universities are scarcely subject to Commission coordination at all. For example, whereas a college proposing a new course or a fundamental change to a course must engage in negotiations which can last for

97 years, a university can, if it wishes, act quickly and autonomously. A recent case in point concerns the specially funded Community Languages programs at Victoria College. For Victoria College in particular, treating a Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission change of campus as a fundamental change in a course while simultaneously pressing the college to vacate some campuses is an added burden, as instanced in the case of Business Studies on the College’s Prahran campus.73

A further issue for Victoria College as a multi-campus institution was in establishing where its ‘local community’ was. One of the distinctive features of colleges of advanced education was the extensive relationships which they developed with the local community, the influence that this has had on the identification of needs, the program of courses offered to meet these needs and the consequential employment of graduates. A conscious decision was taken by Victoria College to retain the names of the former colleges as campus titles in an effort to maintain these community linkages as well the efforts of members of staff to maintain these links, through such organisations as the “friends of Stonnington”. However, it seems inevitable that over time a large multi-campus institution will become more remote from the local communities hitherto identified with the individual colleges. In addition, the consolidation of the institution very substantially reduced the total number of members of the community involved with Victoria College. When four College Councils were consolidated into one this considerably decreased the number of individuals, usually distinguished in their own right, who would not only participate in the affairs and governance of the college, but who could advocate for it in other forums.

In addition the College believed that the presence of an Associate Director, as Head of Campus, on each of the larger campuses was desirable both from the point of view of its staff and of the external community. Its advantage in the multi-campus situation is that it provides the College with an opportunity to pursue the College’s interests over a wider area and it is felt to be essential that communication with adjacent communities is carried out at a high level.74

A revised structure for a new higher education system In 1988, the publication of the Commonwealth Government’s White Paper Higher Education – A Policy Statement released in July 1988 led to considerable tumult in the higher education sector. The demise of the binary system, which removed the distinctions between Universities and the College sector, was the first of many changes ushered in by the creation of the Unified National System. However to qualify for membership of the new system an

98 institution had to meet certain criteria relating to institutional size. Indeed as Victoria College’s Director pointed out size seems to have become the over-riding factor in determining the long-term viability of a higher education institution and this has resulted in a scramble by all institutions across Australia to seek amalgamation or affiliation with neighbouring institutions. Not only has this led to the possibility of some irrational and unsuitable combinations but it has caused the evolution of the ‘mega-institution’ of up to 30,000 EFT students.75

A further review of the College’s management structure occurred in 1988 when Peter Nattrass, the Associate Director (Academic Programs) and former Principal of SCV Burwood, announced his intention to retire. Given the possibility of amalgamation, a decision was taken not to fill the position of Associate Director (Academic Programs) on a permanent basis but to make an acting appointment pending the outcome of merger discussions. These proved much more difficult than initially envisaged and in 1989 the Victoria College Council agreed to a new senior staffing structure with two Associate Directors rather than three. An important element of the new structure was the retention of the nexus between Associate/Assistant Directors and Head of Campus. In addition, the Deans of the College’s eight faculties (Faculties of Nursing and Psychiatric Nursing having been added to the original six) reported directly to the Director, a move described as clarifying the prime academic function of the College.

A research coordination function was added to the accreditation and academic programs portfolio to strengthen this area as befitted a Unified National System (UNS) institution and Dr Beeson was confirmed as the Associate Director (Academic) and Head of Campus (Rusden). Buildings and Grounds became the responsibility of the Corporate Planning and Services function, with Mr Taylor appointed as Assistant Director (Corporate Planning and Services) and Head of Campus (Toorak). Computer services moved to became the responsibility of Dr Mackay as Associate Director (Administration) and Head of Campus (Burwood). A Council Secretariat was created within the Office of the Director and Mr Trethewey was appointed Dean, Faculty of Teacher Education and Head of School (Secondary), following the retirement of John Lawry as head of the School of Secondary Teacher Education at the end of 1989. Although somewhat streamlined, the revised structure nevertheless retained the initial basic principles of multi-campus management that had been determined by the four Principals in 1981 and which were seen to have served the College well until this time.

99 Whether the new structure reflected the introduction of a more managerialist approach as proposed by the Dawkins’ White Paper it is difficult to say. Certainly at least one study of higher education institutions had found that CAEs were already perceived to be more managerialist than universities, with college chief executives seen to have assumed direct authority and executive control over a wider range of matters than was usual in universities.76 Dawkins believed that in an era of rapid change, institutional quality and efficiency would require “both innovative policy-making by institutional governing bodies and strong decisive implementation of those policies by institutional managers. Effective management at the institutional level will be the key to achieving many of the Government’s objectives.”77 It seems highly likely that the senior managers at Victoria College believed that they had, in fact, displayed all of these qualities in steering the institution though the amalgamation process to achieve the Government’s objectives of establishing a multi-disciplinary, multi- campus higher education with a substantial reduction in teacher education load.

Although teaching was a significant activity for academics, especially those in the CAEs, it does not bring national recognition and esteem. Moreover, because the binary system discouraged most staff in Australian CAEs from undertaking research, they were denied access to the traditional reward structures of academia, namely access to professorial titles. In academia these have long been the main source of prestige and status for individuals, notwithstanding the rhetoric regarding the importance of excellence in teaching. Consequently, there would have been many staff who had a vested interest in the appointment of Victoria College’s Foundation Professoriate on 30 July 1991. Of course this action can be interpreted as yet a further example of both the pervasiveness and durability of academic norms and values. However, given the impending merger with Deakin University, it is likely that this move was also aimed at ensuring that Victoria College staff were not disadvantaged in the forthcoming round of appointments to positions within the new structures. Certainly, the College Council exercised considerable restraint in approving only eight appointments to the position of Professor and 17 appointments to that of Associate Professor.78 In a College with some 519 teaching staff, this number of professorial appointments was conservative, representing less than five per cent of the teaching staff.

During 1989 and 1990 Victoria College sought to maintain the strengths it had so carefully built up since 1981, strengths that had been achieved at considerable personal and financial cost, in the face of renewed pressure to merge with another institution. As the next chapter will show, the development of Victoria College throughout its short life was constrained by the seriousness of its financial position. It is a sad irony that at the very moment when the College was poised to capitalise on its achievements, having survived funding cuts of

100 horrendous proportions, the implementation of the unified national system meant that its survival was once again under threat. By 1989 it would become clear that the likely options were either dismemberment or merger.

101 Chapter 7: Coping with the funding cuts

The institutional amalgamations in 1981 were accompanied by severe cuts in both funding and student numbers. These were focused on significantly reducing teacher education load, so that Victoria College, with some three-quarters of its students enrolled in teaching courses, was particularly hard hit. While some minor economies of scale resulted from the amalgamation of four previously separate institutions, additional costs were incurred because of the multi-campus nature of Victoria College. For over six years the College experienced a parlous financial situation, forced to operate under deficit budgets. It is ironic that in 1988, the first year that the College could claim to be in a somewhat better financial position, the Commonwealth Minister for Education, Employment and Training released his discussion paper which supported further institutional consolidation partly on the basis of the “significant cost savings” achieved through the institutional amalgamations of 1981 and 1982. This chapter outlines how Victoria College attempted to deal with its financial difficulties. It also highlights the complex relationships and roles of the Commonwealth and State coordinating commissions in relation to individual institutions as well as how the Commonwealth government assumed increasingly more direct control over higher education policy after 1981.

Throughout its almost ten year existence, Victoria College faced opportunities and problems that were unique amongst educational institutions in Victoria. From 1982 onwards, it was the second largest College in the State as well as having the largest teacher education component. It was spread over four campuses from the near-city to the outer eastern suburbs and yet because of the funding reductions made at the time of the amalgamation, it attracted one of the lowest funding levels per student, considerably lower than that of comparable institutions both in Victoria and in other States. By far the most critical issue influencing its early development was the financial problems that beset it.

Impact of the 1981 funding reductions on the amalgamated institutions At the same time as the Commonwealth Government had mandated the consolidation of the 30 former teachers colleges in 1981, including those that were to merge to become Victoria College, it also introduced funding cuts in response to its own budgetary problems. Within Victoria, the Colleges subjected to the most severe “rationalisation” were the Melbourne College of Advanced Education and Victoria College, but all the merged institutions suffered budget reductions as the following table shows.

102 Table 7.1. Funding reductions in merged colleges 1982-1986.1 Colleges 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 Sydney College of Advanced 26,628 25,770 25,462 24,753 23,793 24,409 Education (NSW) Melbourne College of Advanced 24,453 20,438 19,793 18,730 19,526 19,846 Education (Vic) Victoria College 32,515 28,093 26,313 26,613 27,676 27,577 Brisbane College of Advanced 32,585 31,522 30,995 31,344 33,093 34,843 Education (Qld) Western Australian College of 30,877 30,643 30,459 30,975 32,846 34,277 Advanced Education South Australian College of 42,728 40,579 39,270 38,680 40,208 40,405 Advanced Education TOTAL 189,786 177,045 172,292 171,095 CHANGE OVER 1981 12,741 17,494 18,691

A comparison based on approved student load showed substantial reductions to the per student funding rate from 1981 to 1984, with the reduction for Victoria College (in 1982 outturn prices) being $320 or -7.0 per cent for each Equivalent Full Time Student (EFTS).2 The total number of students was also reduced, with Victoria College’s student load for 1984 being reduced by 978 EFTS (-16.4 per cent) over 1981 levels.3 Given that staffing and related costs generally accounted for over 80 per cent of total expenditure in colleges of advanced education, it is not surprising that staff of the new Victoria College were apprehensive about their future.

It also became apparent outside the College that, in the short term at least, the problems generated by the very process of the forced consolidations in 1981 were likely to outweigh any of the proposed educational advantages expected to flow from them. As early as May 1982 the Conference of Chairmen of Post-Secondary Coordinating Authorities in the various Australian States noted that the current round of institutional consolidations and course rationalisations generated a need for additional capital works which were not being recognised by the Commonwealth’s capital and recurrent funding decisions.4

The impact of the funding reductions on the new College was immediate, notwithstanding earlier efforts by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission to obtain the Commonwealth’s agreement to phase in the adjustments over the triennium. In 1982, the first full year of operations, Victoria College received $3.378 million less in recurrent funds than the four former colleges had received in total for 1981; by 1983 the reduction was over $5 million. As such the Victoria College Council had had no option but to approve the formulation of deficit budgets for 1982, 1983 and 1984. Stringent economies were required

103 to ensure that the recurrent grant deficits of $1,976,346 and of $1,732,274 in 1982 and 1983 respectively, could be financed from interest earnings and surpluses accumulated from previous years.5 Nevertheless, in May 1984 the President of Council wrote to the Federal Minister informing her that by the end of 1984, the College would have “no remaining reserve funds to subsidise its annual grant”, having already “reduced the quality of its teaching, with fewer tutorials and bigger classes, and allowed student services and maintenance of plant to decline”.6

Managing the funding cuts at Victoria College The financial difficulties were of course directly linked to the Commonwealth Government’s requirement that teacher education enrolments be substantially reduced from 1982 onwards. The staffing difficulties that flowed from the 1982 reductions in teacher education load followed many years during which policies of containment and reduction of salary costs had been undertaken by the former, now amalgamated, colleges. Although these policies were successful in achieving greater staff flexibility through a relatively high number of fixed-term contract staff, these same staff were also the key personnel in a number of programs. This situation forced Victoria College to develop strategies to reduce the number of academic staff engaged in teacher education, not only to meet the reduced funding levels but to free up resources to enable the College to develop courses in other fields of study.

Not unexpectedly this was difficult in an institution where staff were “still reeling from the shock of all this”, nevertheless in July 1982 the Victoria College Council approved an Academic Staffing Strategies policy aimed at reducing salary costs.7 At the same time it appointed a Committee, which involved the Academic Staff Association, to coordinate and implement the policy. Although termination payments of $1.36 million had been made to 17 members of the academic staff by the end of 1993, the College lacked the financial capacity to make substantial changes in its staffing profile through this means. The institution was also constrained by earlier decisions taken to provide employment guarantees to permanent staff of the consolidated colleges and required that they continue to be employed at previous salary levels even if their jobs changed. Since the College lacked the resources to pay out full-time staff, this left contract staff as the primary victims of its constrained finances.

As the previous experiences of Toorak and Prahran Colleges had revealed, the Government’s expectations regarding the financial savings to be made were unlikely to be fully realised. By the end of 1983 the Director reported that although it was “possible to operate a merged multi-campus College at a lower administrative cost than the cost of operating four separate institutions”, it was also very clear

104 that the costs of such a multi-campus College are higher than a similar institution operating on a single site. It is estimated that multi-campus costs add over $1,000,000 per year to Victoria College’s recurrent expenditure.8

Not surprisingly, the additional costs of multi-campus operation and the impact of the very severe funding cuts on the operations of Victoria College were the subject of repeated communication with the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission. Certainly, the Commission was sympathetic. A briefing from the Chairman to the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet regarding the forthcoming Premiers’ Conference dated 12 June 1984, noted that Victoria requires short term funding assistance for Melbourne College of Advanced Education and Victoria College, which are amalgamated colleges, a legacy of previous Commonwealth government policy.9

Unfortunately, the Commission’s lack of financial power meant that its assistance was limited to attempts to influence the Commonwealth through the triennial submission process or, as in this case, other political arenas. Not that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission was unaware of the problems of the consolidated colleges. In its Report for the 1985-87 Triennium the Commission noted that “some time will elapse before any significant economies of scales are available” because of “the adverse effects of funding reductions and the lack of any provision for “the establishment costs of amalgamations”.10 It concluded that by the end of 1987 the “patterns of efficient resource allocation and diversified educational provisions” should have been established.11

Attempts to develop an equitable funding formula Though the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission did not decide the total allocation of funds to Victoria, it did have primary responsibility for recommending to the Advanced Education Council and to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission on the distribution of the State’s advanced education sector funds between institutions. Accordingly, early in 1984 the Victorian coordinating authority invited the Victorian Conference of Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education (VCOP) to prepare advice to the Commission on “a system for the equitable distribution” of recurrent funds for the 1985-86 triennium.12

As perhaps might be expected, since any new formula implied “winners’ and “losers”, the working party established by the Victorian Conference of Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education was unable to gain agreement on a proposed formula. This left the Victorian Post-

105 Secondary Education Commission to develop a preliminary formula itself. This it did after visiting each institution and consulting with staff associations and other important interest groups. On 25 May 1984 the preliminary formula was discussed at a meeting of all chief executives of Victoria’s advanced education colleges, who were then invited to make written comments. Several weeks later the revised formula was again circulated to all institutions, together with copies of all correspondence received, and a further meeting was held.

The proposed formula presented to chief executives of Victoria’s colleges of advanced education in June 1984 contained seven factors, which collectively accounted for approximately nine per cent of funds. Of particular relevance to Victoria College was the Multi-campus factor, described as “an attempt to compensate for the additional costs associated with the operation of a multi-campus institution, based on the number of campuses, funds being determined as a percentage of non-salary expenditure, and apportioned on the basis of enrolments”. The proposed formula also contained a stability factor, described as an amount provided to Victoria College and Melbourne College of Advanced Education in recognition of serious funding difficulties which resulted from a significant loss of funds and student load by these institutions during the 1982-84 triennium. The amount will reduce over the three years of the triennium.13

On 9 August 1984 the Commission Chairman again met with college chief executives to ensure that they all clearly understood “the approach being adopted by the Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission towards recommendations on allocation of recurrent grants for the 1985-87 triennium.”14 The Chairman explained that he was not “seeking a vote on whether the approach is correct” for he was aware that there were many different points of view and that “no formula can produce an incontestable result”.15 He went on to advise the meeting that the formula used by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commissioners to calculate recurrent funding levels for the 1985-87 triennium had “been trimmed down to keep special factors to a minimum” and now numbered only five: superannuation costs, leasing costs, multi-campus factor, regional factor and administrative core factor. The balance and bulk of funds had been distributed according to weighted student load.

The “stability factor” to support Victoria College and Melbourne College of Advanced Education had disappeared from the formula and the case for special one-off additional funds was now the subject of a special submission to the Commonwealth.

106 In its Triennial Submission to the Commonwealth, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission noted that: The Commission acknowledges the difficult task required of Victoria College in consolidating its activities without provision of additional funds to assist in the task. Amalgamation without real financial support has caused many unnecessary difficulties in terms of disruption to staff, students and academic programs.16

In July 1984, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission forwarded the State’s recommendations to the Advanced Education Council regarding the distribution of recurrent grants to individual institutions for the 1985-1987 triennium. Because these proposals were based on the formula recently developed by the Commission in consultation with the colleges to enable a more “equitable distribution” of funds, the resulting allocation involved some redistribution of funds between institutions over the triennium. This attempt to transfer resources from relatively better-funded institutions to several other cash-strapped institutions, such as Victoria College, soon ran into trouble when the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology became aware that the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission’s formula had resulted in a reduction to its recurrent grant. The events that ensued provide an interesting insight into the complex relationships between the State and the Commonwealth and individual institutions. They also serve as a powerful reminder that whatever the constitutional rights of Australia’s States may be in relation to higher education, the financial power of the Commonwealth inevitably enables it to impose its will, even in the face of strong protests from the State.

To understand the events that transpired it is perhaps timely to quickly review the process by which Commonwealth funds found their way to institutions such as Victoria College. Commonwealth funding was coordinated through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC), which had been established in 1977 to facilitate the more balanced development of the nation’s tertiary institutions. Sectoral identities were preserved through the appointment of three subordinate advisory councils – the Universities Council, the Advanced Education Council and the Technical and Further Education Council. In addition to its Chairman and seven commissioners, the Commission had a staff of around 120 persons. The Commission and its Councils worked through a sophisticated consultative process for each triennium involving all the important stakeholders, including institutions themselves, and relevant state and federal authorities. At the start of each three-year planning cycle, state authorities and institutions prepared forward proposals, which were then submitted to the relevant sectoral Council for consideration. The reports highlighted capital and recurrent funding issues as well as course mix, demographic and economic information. The three

107 Councils then developed their own recommendations which were incorporated into a comprehensive policy statement published by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, which was known as Volume 1 and submitted to the Commonwealth Minister of Education. Following consultations with his or her State Ministerial counterparts, the Minister submitted final proposals to Cabinet, including the amount of funds to be provided to each sector in each State. These became known as “guidelines” and were subject to still further negotiations before being finalised in Volume 2, which outlined the implementation procedures for all proposals.17 The States then distributed these funds according to their own local formulae.

Funding issues – Victoria, the Commonwealth, and RMIT The chronology of this particular altercation with the Commonwealth over the proposed reduction of funds to RMIT was summarised for Victoria’s Post-Secondary Education Commissioners as follows: 1. Smooth Sailing – VPSEC recommendations to Advanced Education Council/CTEC; 2. Hurricane – CTEC interposes on behalf of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; 3. Becalmed – CTEC Advice on post-secondary education provided to Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs; 4. Victualling – Victoria College, Melbourne College of Advanced Education.18

The recommendations which the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission notified to the Advanced Education Council in late July 1984, followed “an exhaustive round of consultations with individual colleges, with staff associations, and with chief executives as a group” and after “careful consideration of the impact on individual institutions”.19 Subsequently, and following joint meetings with officers of the Advanced Education Council, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Universities Council and with the understanding that the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission recommendations would hold, VPSEC proceeded to write to individual institutions informing them of the changes to previous allocations. Thus ended the smooth sailing phase of the process.

On 16 August, the hurricane began. Horrified by the prospect of progressive reductions over the coming three years, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) contacted the Commonwealth Government directly seeking to have its funding levels restored to previously expected levels.20 Shortly thereafter the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission advised that the recommendations concerning RMIT were not acceptable to CTEC. Five days later, following advice from the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, the Hon.

108 Robert Fordham, Victoria’s Minister of Education, resolved that the State would stand firm on its recommendations.

No doubt furious at the flouting of its authority by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission sought legal advice in the matter. The advice received indicated that although RMIT had breached section 22 (1) of the Post-Secondary Education Act 1978 by directly approaching the Commonwealth, the Act did not provide any sanctions for such a breach.21

From 21 August to 11 September 1984, a series of meetings, innumerable telephone conversations and written communications, including a State compromise proposal, failed to break the impasse. On 10 September the Advanced Education Council (AEC) completed its Advice to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, which included restoring funding to RMIT and the consequential reduction to the grants of seven other Victorian institutions, including Victoria College. The next day the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission accepted the AEC Advice.

In the analysis presented to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commissioners shortly afterwards, the Executive Director, Michael Selway, pointed out that the decision of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission had not only “disadvantaged those institutions which are increasing participation [of] disadvantaged students” but had also led to RMIT being “identifiably and significantly over-funded in relation to other institutions in the State”.22 Commenting on long term issues, the paper drew attention to the inappropriateness of the planning process then operating, suggested that institutional profiles be developed without delay as the basis for future planning, and noted that the delivery to the Advanced Education Council of the State recommendations after 2_ years of submissions, evaluation, consultation, re-submissions, re-evaluation, etc. must have cost in the vicinity of $1.5 million and is not a very profitable exercise.23

The development of academic profiles for institutions had previously been proposed by the Advanced Education Council in its December 1982 Discussion Paper.24 These profiles, to be developed through a process of consultation between the State coordinating authorities, the Council and individual colleges, would provide clearly defined parameters within which colleges could offer courses but would not be as restrictive as a list of approved courses. Thus colleges would have greater flexibility to respond to student and community need and demand. Subsequently, the a refinement of the profiles approach was a recommendation from the Commonwealth’s 1986 Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education

109 and was then taken up as an important feature of the Dawkin’s reforms first proposed in 1987 Green Paper. Under this model colleges and universities are funded according to their performance in terms of ‘educational profile’ negotiated with the Commonwealth Government. The profile sets out the aims of each institution in such areas as “the projected number of students, scope of research activities, equity arrangements and participation and graduation rates” and is a procedure that gives the Department, and therefore the Minister, “substantial broad control over the direction and activities of institutions.25

Unsuccessful attempts to address Victoria College’s financial crisis On the day the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Report was presented to Parliament (4 October 1984), the Director of Victoria College issued a Media Release stating that the Commonwealth’s recommendations clearly favoured “the haves at the expense of the have nots”.26 However, Victoria College’s Director was not the only voice raised on behalf of the College. In July 1984 the Student Union Board at the Rusden Campus wrote to the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission requesting additional funding for the College to improve library services at the Rusden Campus identified in the enclosed report.27

At the same time (13 August 1984) and intertwined with Victoria’s Triennial Submission, the Victorian Minister of Education, in conjunction with his South Australian colleague, made an initial approach to the Commonwealth Minister seeking additional funds for the South Australian College of Advanced Education, the Melbourne College of Advanced Education and Victoria College. After a request for further information from the Advanced Education Council, the Victorian and South Australian Ministers for Education again wrote jointly to Senator Ryan, the Commonwealth Minister for Education, on 11 September 1984, outlining the seriousness of the financial position of the three colleges. The joint submission which requested that a special one-off grant be made to the three colleges, included details of actions taken by each of the institutions to deal with funding cuts, including reductions in staff numbers.28

Table 7.2: Reductions in Staff 1981-1984 Victoria College Melbourne CAE SACAE Teaching Activities (EFT) 123 77 77 Non-Teaching Activities (EFT) 39 48 +21 Total 162 115 56

110 It also noted the worsening teaching staff:student ratios in each of the colleges, with that of Victoria College moving from 1:11.7 in 1981 to 1:13.8 in 1984. By contrast, the staff:student ratio at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology improved from 1:12.14 in 1981 to 1:11.6 in 1984.29

Although responding sympathetically to the submissions, no additional funding was forthcoming from the Commonwealth Government and in February 1985 the Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission again recommended that the financial assistance claim for Victoria College (and the other two colleges) which had been investigated by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, should immediately be accepted and the funds made available.30

In March of 1985 the consultants C A Hulls and W L Mellor, engaged by Victoria College on the recommendation of the State Education Minister Mr Fordham, presented their report on Income, Expenditure and Quality of Education at Victoria College.31 The report found that compared to other colleges both within and outside Victoria, Victoria College was in a most “unfavourable financial position”. As the following figure shows, recurrent grants for Brisbane CAE and the South Australian CAE, colleges with a similar student mix, “were $550 and $570 per FTE student respectively higher than Victoria College”.32

Figure 7.1: Recurrent Grant per F.T.E. Student (December 1982 cost levels)

$5,200 $5,000 $4,800 $4,600 1983 $4,400 $4,200 $4,000 $3,800 S.A. CAE Brisbane CAE Education Melbourne CAE Australian CAEs Victoria College Institute of Catholic

Source Hulls & Mellor Report (1985): 58

The report also argued that the 1985 formula developed by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission to distribute Commonwealth funds to colleges disadvantaged Victoria College in a number of ways. The grant component targeted for administration was a

111 constant amount for all colleges and therefore substantially disadvantaged “Victoria College where total administrative costs were much greater” than in other colleges, given its estimated “additional multi-campus costs in excess of $1 million per annum”.33

The report recommended that Victoria College should seek a “higher level of recurrent funding on the basis of comparison with similar colleges in other States” and “a more equitable level of recurrent funding from VPSEC to compensate for the greater administrative difficulties and costs imposed by multi-campus operations” together with once-only financial assistance to facilitate multi-campus integration: The College should present a case to VPSEC stressing the importance of multi-campus integration and requesting that the computer and telecommunications priorities be advanced to 1985. This would require special funding supplementation for equipment and minor works urgently. In addition assistance is needed to complete the adjustments to staffing caused by major reductions in teacher education student load during the early stages of amalgamation.34

After the final presentation of the report to the College Council at its meeting on 14 May 1985, the College President, Mr Laurie Wilson, wrote to Ian Cathie, the Victorian Education Minister, requesting him to approach Senator Ryan (the Commonwealth Education Minister) reaffirming the need for one-off financial assistance of $2.277 million.35 The letter also requested the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission to consider additional recurrent funding for Victoria College of $300 per student. In spite of these findings the College was “extremely disappointed” to be advised on 22 August 1985 that “the special funding recommended by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission” would not “materialise in 1986 and possibly in 1987”.36 In a communication to the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission the Director suggested that budget breakeven might be achieved in 1988 “provided the additional student numbers materialise” but that the College was still “totally dependent on favourable interest rates to maintain essential ongoing services” even though by the end of 1985 the College would have spent “five years of cutting its previous year’s expenditure”.37

Although the College welcomed the independent recognition that the College was seriously under-funded, other sections of the report were less well received by the academic community. There is concern that Hulls and Mellor have not appreciated the meaning of the funding cuts introduced in 1982 to teaching functions, the very real achievements involved in effecting the amalgamation (which include the resolution of problems unknown to persons unfamiliar with the nature of multi-campus operations). The report does not seem to recognise the draconian

112 measures that have been taken to reduce operational costs to present levels which include major constraints upon staff in the conduct of their duties, increased professional commitments and decreased professional opportunities. Above all, what does not seem to be recognised by the authors is that quality courses have been maintained.38

Two days before Christmas in 1985, the Gregor Ramsey, the Chairman of the Advanced Education Council, wrote to the Director of Victoria College informing him that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission had introduced “student planning ranges” and requesting the College to inform him, “after discussing the matter with VPSEC” whether the “proposed planning ranges for your institution are satisfactory”.39

This correspondence further inflamed the strained relationship between the Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission (VPSEC) and the Commonwealth which had arisen following the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission’s decision some months earlier “to restore funds to the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology at the expense of a number of other colleges”.40 In January 1986, the Chairman of VPSEC wrote to Hugh Hudson, Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, protesting about these letters written directly to individual colleges by Gregor Ramsey, as Chairman of the Advanced Education Council. This, he said, was quite at odds with the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States that correspondence on planning issues would be directed to the relevant State coordinating authority, concluding that “unilateral actions of this type” seriously undermined Victoria’s confidence in the current consultative arrangements which had been “developed after some early difficulties”.41 It is unlikely that Dr Ramsey’s terse response dated 24 January 1986 did much to mollify Victoria’s Chairman, especially his comment “that we find it hard it to see how informing individual institutions of Commonwealth Government decisions can be interpreted as a planning issue”.42

By 1986 Victoria College had experienced a total reduction of $16.5m in grants across the 1982-1984 triennium with an average reduction of 11 per cent per student.43 It continued to implement a financial strategy based on ‘trading out’ of its annual operating deficit by increasing student load in areas where this could lead to reduced unit costs, and by reducing unit costs through consolidation and co-location where it was academically sound to do so. It also noted in its Triennial Submission in 1986 that with respect to the use of interest earnings: Victoria College, unlike many institutions, is obliged to use all available amounts in its normal recurrent budget. This is a precarious financial position because of the uncertainty of continued high interest rates and diminution of the College’s capacity to earn interest by [the Commonwealth’s] recent decision to shorten grant payment periods [from two months to one

113 month]. This latter decision has cost an appreciable amount of income, which is now no longer available to augment the College’s recurrent grant.44

The previous requests for special one-off funding for Melbourne College of Advanced Education and Victoria College had failed to elicit any additional dollars from the Commonwealth. Accordingly, in August 1986 the Directors of the two institutions wrote to Dr G J Allen, Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission requesting that he once again support their request for additional funds on the basis that the difficulties which gave rise to the earlier submissions still existed. The letter outlined the reductions to per capita recurrent grant funds in 1984($) as follows:

Table7.3: Victoria College Recurrent Grant Per Capita (Constant 1984 $) 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1986Melbourne CAE

Grant $32.5m $28.1m $26.3m $26.6m $27.7m $27.6m $20.0m

EFTS 5956 5662 5678 5520 5512 5742 3990

$/EFTS $5457 $4863 $4632 $4819 $5052 $4807 $5012

$/EFTS % 100% 91% 85% 88% 92% 88% 86% Source: Victoria College Submission on 1988-1990, Appendix 5

An appendix to this letter enumerated the strategies adopted by Victoria College to accommodate the funding cuts, including the closure of the Larnook campus, program rationalisation and the phasing out of 27 courses between 1982 and 1986. In addition, 162 staff were shed between 1981 and 1984, no internal promotions were approved between 1982 and 1986 and “staff development funds so limited that many staff who should undertake development are prevented from doing so”.45

Although educational institutions are unlikely ever to perceive themselves as adequately funded, a situation that exists to the present day, it would be true to say that throughout its ten year existence Victoria College was subject to much greater financial difficulties than other Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education. Certainly many of the problems associated with amalgamation were exacerbated by the funding crisis which accompanied it. This no doubt accounts for the views of staff that senior management was preoccupied with “balancing the budget” at the expense of the College’s academic program and that if the amalgamated colleges had been funded to the same level as the previous constituent colleges, the situation would not be as bad as it is.46

114 1986: Changing relationships with State and Commonwealth authorities. After 1986, relationships with the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission changed when Mr Michael Selway moved to the Victorian Department of Education shortly before Dr Graham Allen took up the position of chief executive. The departure of these two men was a particular loss to post-secondary education in Victoria, and was keenly felt by the Director of Victoria College who had developed close working relationships with both men. The new Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Dr Ron Cullen, was a career bureaucrat and probably more closely typified the “managerialists within the newly formed Executive Service”, so eloquently described by Michael Pusey, who tended “to see the world in terms that neutralise and then reduce the norms of public policy to those of private enterprise.”47 As well as having a long career in the public service, including a term as Chairman of the Public Sector Board, Dr Cullen had recently returned from a senior management position in a large organisation in the commercial finance sector. It is certainly true that he lacked the long association with and experience of higher education institutions, which had given both Graham Allen and Michael Selway such a profound depth of understanding in their dealings with higher education institutions. The new Chairman’s lack of involvement in the emotionally fraught events of 1981 and the years immediately thereafter may also have caused him to be less sympathetic to the difficulties of institutions such as Victoria College than his predecessor who had been closely involved in the process.

Moreover, circumstances were changing at the federal level also. As Michael Pusey has pointed out, since the late 1970s many programs of state and public sector reform became driven by a largely conservative agenda which followed a similar pattern of moving coordination away from states and bureaucracies to economies and markets. The rationale for these reforms has generally included the familiar rhetoric of ‘eliminating waste and efficiency’, ‘saving the taxpayer’s dollar’, ‘streamlining the public sector’ to ‘make it lean and strong’ and so on.48 In Australia, the Liberal (conservative) government of Prime Minister Fraser that held power in Canberra from the end of 1975 to March 1983, prepared the groundwork for both economic and public sector reform. Indeed, the Razor Gang report is a clear example of this reform agenda in action. Subsequently a further series of economic and public sector reforms were “designed and prosecuted not by the liberals, who had traditionally been the party of business interests, but rather by a succession of Labor governments led by Robert (Bob) Hawke that ruled in Canberra from 1983 and into the 1990s”.49

Since that time in the mid 1980s there has been an ever intensifying push by the Commonwealth Government towards institutional competition, de-regulation and

115 privatisation, which has reached new heights in the current Government’s recent report “Our Universities: Backing Australia’s Future”.50 Further, this economic agenda had many supporters outside the bureaucracy. On 1 June 1985 Victoria College held two graduation ceremonies, one of which was addressed by Mr Adolph Hanich, director of the management- consulting firm of IBIS-DH&S. His address outlined a number of suggestions to aid Australia’s transition to a post industrial society, including: We must bring the human services industries back into the market economy. In particular, the education and health care industries must be de-regulated. We must begin to realise that it is no longer sensible to pay for those services exclusively through the tax system. …We must open to competition the education industry in particular.51

The 1980s also saw the relationship between higher education institutions and governments increasingly characterised by the dual processes of financial stringency and increased emphasis on accountability.52 The ascendancy of economic rationalism as a major driver of government policy in Canberra together with the necessity of mass higher education; limited and declining levels of public funding; credential creep and emerging information and communications technology, all combined to encourage the government to intervene more directly in education and to use funding as a deliberate means of influencing institutional priorities.

In 1985 the Labor government initiated a review aimed at obtaining greater efficiency and effectiveness from the public funds devoted to higher education. The review chaired by Hugh Hudson, then chair of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, drew attention to the major achievements of higher education, including the diversity of courses and institutions, the increased levels of student participation and rationalisation in the use of resources. Although suggesting that there should be some relaxation of the rigidities of the binary divide it recommended that the system be retained.53 At a visit to Victoria College on 26 September 1985, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Hugh Hudson, told senior staff that “despite the autonomy of institutions, both accountability and responsiveness to government policy” was required.54

Subsequently the publication of the Green Paper setting out Minister Dawkins’ proposals for system reform reflected a conviction that economic competitiveness and thus, Australia’s future prosperity, was linked to scientific research, technological innovation and a highly trained labour force. The abolition of the binary divide, which occurred in 1988, coincided with the elimination of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission as a “buffer agency” and the broadening of the mandate of the responsible department. Since that time,

116 the Australian Government’s belief in the importance of education and science to economic competitiveness has been reflected in the name of the responsible department – variously, the Department of Employment, Education and Training and more latterly Department of Education Science and Training.

The introduction of the unified national system of higher education in 1989 and the abolition of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission required new arrangements for regulating and funding institutions. This was achieved through the introduction of the educational profile, an agreement directly negotiated between the institution and the Commonwealth Department, a process that gives a greatly increased power in setting priorities and distributing resources to bureaucrats of the Minister’s department. The areas covered under the educational profile agreement include the institution’s mission and objectives, its research plan, its contribution to meeting government objectives, its funding options, its performance measures, and the level at which the government will provide funds.

In 1989 the College’s ongoing concern about the constraints imposed by its continued financial difficulties were justified when the Commonwealth Government’s Relative Funding Model recognised that even in that year Victoria College was under-funded by over 7 per cent relative to other Australian institutions. The relative funding model was a formula developed by the Commonwealth Government to ensure that “institutions in the new system of higher education are funded equitably from year to year according to an agreed profile covering existing teaching and research activities” rather than on the basis of historical precedent or arbitrary classification.55 According to Des Taylor, the College’s head of planning, the model showed …the truth of what we have protested since the College’s inception, that Victoria College is under-funded to a serious extent relative to the majority of Australian higher education institutions”.56 By comparison, Deakin University, under this formula, was over-funded by 10.55 per cent relative to other Australian higher education institutions in 1989.

Financial outcomes of the merger So did the mergers achieve the greater resource efficiency that the Commonwealth anticipated? The Commonwealth Minister, John Dawkins, was later to claim that the institutional amalgamations of 1981 and 1982 had led to “significant costs savings”.57 Certainly, under the Tertiary Education Commission’s Recommended Grants for 1982-84, funding to Victoria College was reduced by $14.45 million over the triennium. This was a significant amount, representing a 13 per cent cut in funds in the College’s first year of

117 operations. By 1984 the annual grant had been reduced by 22 per cent on 1981 levels.58 Moreover, from 1982 onwards, levels of government funding to all higher education institutions fell, so that not until 1994 did average per capita funding again reach 1981 levels.59

Although Victoria College did manage to obtain some operational efficiencies, these were limited by the need to offer programs on four campuses. Indeed, an analysis of the changes in average costs per student and staff ratios at selected CAEs, including Victoria College, suggested that Victoria College initially experienced an increase in administrative costs per student, although these reduced after 1985.60 As the College itself had argued in its submissions to government, administrative costs rose because of the need to operate across four campuses and to unify the four college’s separate financial and administrative systems. This issue was recognised in subsequent mergers. Those institutions that amalgamated after 1988 in response to the Commonwealth’s White Paper, received additional one-off funding to enable the redevelopment of systems and other tasks required to achieve operational efficiency.

Overall the objectives of the Government seem to have been met. It is concluded that although savings directly attributable to economies of size may have been less than anticipated, Victoria College did achieve a substantial shift of resources away from teacher education into other discipline areas.

As the next chapter will show, although the financial difficulties experienced by Victoria College limited the speed with which it could respond to the new opportunities and challenges associated with a multi-campus, multi-disciplinary institution, it was successful in establishing a new academic vision for the institution, for achieving these objectives and increasing the diversity of its educational programs.

118 Chapter 8 Establishing an academic strategy for Victoria College

The creation of Victoria College as a multi-campus, multi-disciplinary institution arose primarily from the need to reduce teacher education numbers. Little guidance was provided by way of an educational rationale or vision for the new college. This chapter describes how Victoria College developed an academic strategy and established future directions for the institution. It is argued that the College was successful in meeting its own objectives as well as those of both State and Federal Governments. In doing so the College remained true to the spirit of the advanced education sector as envisaged by the Martin Committee in ensuring that its courses were vocationally relevant and that they enhanced the programmatic diversity of higher education in Victoria.

In addition to coping with post-amalgamation financial and organisational adjustments, one of the most pressing early tasks for Victoria College was to develop an academic strategy for the organisation. As the former Head of Institutional Planning at Victoria College observed: Institutional vision is a hard thing to produce and it a hard thing to recognise once it has been produced. You can hardly blame the CEO at the time for not being able to produce a perfectly clear cut logical, straightforward thing in the way of a statement when what we had was a cobbled together set of leftovers that were embarrassing in their own right and had to be put together. You know you don’t lump all your old socks in a bag and give them to somebody and say, now make a vision for this bag of old socks.1

The Government policy context 1982-1986 As noted earlier, higher education in Australia is a government-funded enterprise within a federal system. At the time that Victoria College was created both the States and the Commonwealth had considerable influence on higher education institutions. At the State level, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission exerted substantial influence over Victoria College’s academic program through its approval, accreditation and planning processes. The policy and funding guidelines of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission also had a significant influence.

Consequently, as a college of advanced education, Victoria College was constrained both by the Governments’ vision of this sector’s role within the binary system and the current policy settings of each. Of course, the College also had its own history and view of its place in the scheme of things, including the aspirations of its academic staff.

119 As highlighted in Chapter One of this thesis, from shortly after the establishment of the binary system, colleges of advanced education had begun to offer undergraduate degree programs. By the time that Victoria College was established in 1981 not only had the degree become the major focus of undergraduate education but many colleges had developed post-graduate programs as well. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Report for the 1982- 84 Triennium set out the Commission’s revised policy guidelines for masters and other higher degrees in advanced education.2 The guidelines reiterated the role of colleges of advanced education in providing vocationally-oriented courses at the associate diploma, diploma, degree and post-graduate diploma level, noting that “this role is complemented by the provision of masters programs of an applied nature in some colleges”. Although cautioning that such programs “should not duplicate activities in universities”, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission gave its approval for State coordinating authorities to approve the introduction of masters degree programs in CAEs.3 It went on to state that Ph.D degrees and other doctorates should not be offered by CAEs. Overall, the Commonwealth Government further reduced the differences between the college sector and the university sector of Australia’s binary system.

In addition to supporting vocationally-courses, the government guidelines at the time were focused on increasing enrolments in business and technology courses while reducing those in teacher education. It was within this policy context that Victoria College sought to develop an academic strategy for the new institution.

The development of an academic strategy for Victoria College - 1981 When the Victorian Government announced the formation of the new multi-disciplinary institution to be known as Victoria College, it was clear that one of the required objectives of the new institution was to reduce its teacher education load and to expand into other discipline areas. However, little guidance was forthcoming from either the Victorian or the Commonwealth coordinating authorities about how this might be achieved.

According to the Director of Victoria College, establishing the academic direction for the College was quite a challenge because, after all, we were about 70 per cent Teacher Education students at the time of the merger, the rest being Arts, Business and Art and Design. The Teacher Education numbers were being cut enormously. The question was what could we develop as new directions that would get us those numbers back again in the future? We had to think laterally about new programs and also to consider where we had staff expertise.4

120 Shortly after the compulsory amalgamation had been announced, the four Principals established an Academic Planning Group to provide advice on academic matters. As part of its advice, this group recommended that a study be conducted to develop course priorities for Victoria College in the period 1983-1987. The Principals accepted this advice and in November 1981 appointed Dr Elaine Atkinson (Burwood) and Mr Des Taylor (Rusden) to develop a report for presentation to the new Academic Board by March 1982. Working in conjunction with an Advisory Committee nominated by the Principals, the project officers were asked to provide an assessment of current and future community needs in each of the designated fields of study and to establish priorities for the introduction of new courses within these fields.5 The study was also to take account of current resources of Victoria College, both human and physical, planned directions in neighbouring institutions and the directions of Australian society in the next ten years.

Emerging trends in 1981 In spite of warning that forecasting was a road “paved with the bones of statisticians, economists and social astrologists buried in the act of trend-gazing”6, the project team sought to identify global and national trends that would impact on Victorian society, and hence the new College, in the years ahead. With commendable prescience the Academic Task Force report identified the information explosion, the increasing pace of change and the primacy of social problems such as pollution, aging, crime, terrorism and energy use as major issues to be faced in the future.7 The report also predicted that the new and emerging communications facilities would markedly change the role of teachers as well as having a major impact on employment more generally. As we now know, the introduction of electronic information technology has radically changed the nature of the workplace, eliminating a large percentage of clerical workers in both public and private sector enterprises and ushered in the global economy.

As a precursor to formulating a strategy, the project team identified the major opportunities and threats confronting the new Victoria College. The list of threats was lengthy, including “the current trend of the government to reducing public sector expenditure” and the feeling of “community disillusionment with higher education”. It also noted with concern the Federal Government’s obsession with vocationalism in education, implicitly based on an assumption that unemployment is a product of non-utilitarian education rather then of economic uncertainty and the continuing march of labour-displacing technology. 8

121 Student demand In addition to identifying environmental trends that might produce opportunities for future growth, the project investigated course supply and demand issues as indicated by student first preference applications through the Victorian Universities Admissions Centre (VUAC).9 Areas of strong demand were identified by calculating “student pressure” for course places within various fields of study in Victorian colleges and universities over the period 1979- 1982.10 As the document noted, marked changes were apparent in the number of qualified applicants applying for courses over this period, including a 25 per cent rise in the number of students applying for Business Studies, compared with a decrease of -2 per cent for places in Teacher Education courses. Relative demand pressures in 1981 are shown in the following figure.

Figure 8.1: Student pressure (number of first preferences divided by the number of places in courses) for places within selected fields of study in all Victorian higher education institutions 1981.

Ratio of applications to places 1981

2.5 2 University 1.5 College 1 All 0.5

App Sci Bus Studs Education Art & Design Lib Studies

Source: Towards an Academic profile for Victoria College

For Victoria College, courses identified as having greatest pressure included Drama and Dance (Rusden) [5.94]; Physical Education (Rusden) [3.95]; Art and Design (Prahran) [2.36]; and Business-Accounting (Prahran) [2.33]. Consequently the proposed Academic Strategy was designed to build on the strengths and reputations brought together in the amalgamation, and within the sustained public policy that the purpose of the colleges is to train students so that immediately after graduation they may play an effective role in commerce, industry, the public service or the arts..11

Because maximising staff input was considered a critical strategy at this stage of the merger integration process, a number of formal and informal consultations were conducted on each of the four campuses and staff comment actively sought. Most staff wanted to see some new

122 course developments but generally considered it was most important to consolidate excellence and build on the strengths.

Strengths and weaknesses The strengths and weaknesses of the new College were identified to help provide a basis on which to build confidently for the future and weaknesses which would need to be rectified or borne. The strengths described included those of geography (close to suburbs which had a large number of potential tertiary students); staff resources (a large staff, with a wide range of expertise, including non-teacher education areas such as science, business, environmental studies and computing); a well known and strongly established Art and Design School; an increasingly popular Business School; the potential for developments in performing arts through existing expertise and resources in music, drama, dance and media studies; together with the extensive set of accredited courses in Teacher education, Liberal Studies, Business Studies and Fine Arts.

Weaknesses identified included the considerable distances between campuses which significantly increased the costs and difficulties of internal communication; the imbalance of student load with teacher education representing 75 per cent in 1982; as well as the variability of facilities across the four campuses, such as inadequate library space and absence of strong science facilities at Burwood. The view by its staff that the Art and Design School would be unable to thrive on another site, for cultural reasons, was seen as creating a potential lack of flexibility.

The potential student load for the College was considered in terms of the physical capacity of the campuses and a formula developed to determine that the maximum capacities of each campus, noting that in 1981 the Prahran and Toorak campuses had high evening usage, Burwood had proportionally less and Rusden least. Toorak’s evening usage was, however, restricted by pressure from nearby residents and although it was considered that Burwood’s evening usage could be raised, the current library accommodation was an impediment to achieving this.

Victoria College Academic Strategy 1982 -1987 After taking all these factors into account, the Strategy concluded by proposing that a desired position in a decade hence would be for the College to have a target size of 7000 EFTS, with enrolments distributed according to the following table. The overall increase was based on a number of assumptions including the predicted increase in the population, increasing student

123 demand for formal educational qualifications in a technological society, and from the position of the Burwood and Rusden campuses on residential and industrial growth corridors.

Table 8.1: Proposed Enrolments at Victoria College by field of study, 1982-1992 Field of Study 1982 1983 1984 1988 1992 Teacher Education 3955 3570 3550 3500 3500

Business Studies 670 765 835 1100 1400

Applied Science and 50 120 185 600 1000 Paramedical Art and Design and 300 320 335 550 600 Performing Arts Liberal Studies 385 385 380 450 500

5360 5160 5285 6200 7000

Its recommendation for increased load in Applied Science was influenced by factors such as developments in microelectronic technology and the increasing use of computers in society; the priority assigned by the Commonwealth to these areas; an emerging need for courses in community sports, health, fitness and recreation; together with the expertise in environmental studies and physical education already present in the College.

In May 1982, fifty copies of the document Towards an Academic Profile for Victoria College 1983-1987 were distributed on each campus. As the item in Issue No. 16 of the College News Sheet advised, the document was intended as a contribution to forward planning and to provide the basis for further discussion as a result of its distribution.

Soon after, in June 1982, the Victoria College Council considered a document entitled Functions and Future Directions of Victoria College which stressed that the teaching function of the College in providing high quality vocationally oriented courses at a professional and sub-professional level.12 This paper, originally drafted by the Director, stressed that, in the coming years, therefore the College should not depart from its primary thrust of provision of vocationally oriented programs, with research being of a more applied nature, and teaching the prime function.13

The major planning strategies outlined in the paper were the development of additional programs in applied science and business studies and the reallocation of student places from teacher education to these areas.

124 The Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission seems not to have responded particularly positively to the College’s planning efforts as the following excerpt from correspondence indicates: Victoria College, in particular, is conscious of a lack of explicit discussion about institutional missions perhaps because it is most deeply involved in change. The issue centres around the State planning context which led to the College’s foundation and the questions which arise have to do with what higher education network was desired to arise out of the reconstruction. As the College itself did not initiate the reconstruction, it cannot be expected to find the long- term educational motivation obvious. Thus far the College has been asked to propose a future, been told that various features of its response are not acceptable and been asked to make revisions.14

Nevertheless, the College acted to implement the directions it had determined and to make these the basis of its future planning and funding submissions.

Submission on the 1985-1987 Triennium On 30 April 1982 the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission forwarded a letter to institutions regarding planning for the 1985-87 triennium and inviting submissions. In an attachment to the letter, the Chairman noted that under existing plans, student load for Victoria College would stabilise at around 5000 EFTS. It noted that the Commission’s Planning Group, consisting of Dr G Allen, Mr L Bell, Mr I Predl and Mr M Selway, would be interested in discussing a possible justification for a modest increase in this planned student load and for a possible shift in student load from teacher education to other fields of study, as well as the College’s views on the relationship between its academic activities and those of Swinburne Institute of Technology. The consolidation of the College’s academic activities and the use of the Prahran campus were also identified as items of interest to the Commission.15

When, later in 1982, the College prepared the Victoria College Submission on the 1985-1987 Triennium in response to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission’s request, it relied substantially on the Future Directions and Academic Strategy documents and the subsequent discussion of their planning parameters to frame its comments. The College’s submission highlighted the unprecedented nature of the challenges facing the new institution resulting from the “major effort of amalgamation” and its implementation in “an extremely short time”, such that no other institution in Victoria “has been subject to such a complete and penetrating change”.16 Nevertheless, it described its principal objective during the

125 forthcoming triennium as obtaining a more balanced academic program so that by 1987 student load would be distributed as outlined in the following table.

Table 8.2 Proposed changes in student load 1982-1987 1987 per cent 1982 per cent Applied Science 4.7 0.4 Paramedical Studies 2.1 0.6 Art and Design 5.9 5.6 Commerce & Business Studies 19.5 12.5 Liberal Studies 9.2 7.4 Teacher Education 58.6 73.6

The Submission articulated the College’s long-term objective of providing studies in a wide range of disciplines. This, it stated, would better equip it to meet the vocational education needs of people living in the fast-growing eastern and south-eastern sectors of Melbourne, in which many areas, such as Lilydale, Cranbourne Knox, Doncaster and Templestowe, had grown by over 10 per cent in the five years to 1981.

Not only did the Submission set out the College’s perceived responsibility for higher education in the eastern and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne; it also examined trends in employment growth as a basis for proposed new courses. It noted that between 1972 and 1976 half of Melbourne’s employment growth (62,000 jobs) had been in white-collar jobs with over two thirds of these jobs (44,000) being created in the outer metropolitan areas.17 Consequently, its proposed increases in Business Studies and Applied Science on the College’s outer metropolitan campuses were intended to “broaden the range of courses available in newer concentrations of population and industry” as well as catering for the “significantly more youthful population” in these areas. The College explained that specific courses under development were those in the emerging areas of information management (computer-based information transfer, data retrieval, storage and presentation) and environmental management (emphasising land management in a social context). These developments, it observed, would possibly attract school-leaver, full-time students which would change the College’s student load pattern, however the Submission also reiterated the College’s commitment to providing a “bridging course” that would enable people “who have not taken science and mathematics subjects throughout secondary school” to enter “applied science and technology programs”.18

126 As would be expected, the College’s Submission also noted that these planned developments were constrained by problems involving teaching staff as well as the reduction of $15 million over the triennium (compared to the 1981 budgets of the four merged colleges). The amalgamation had proved to be a time of major change and upheaval for staff throughout the College, but felt most heavily by teaching staff associated with Teacher Education, which had already been subject to policies of containment and reduction of salary costs for several years prior to the amalgamation. The funding cuts during 1982-84 meant that further staff reductions were unavoidable, making it difficult to maintain “the zest and professional commitment” that had characterised staff response during previous triennia. 19

In regard to operating funds, the Victoria College Submission noted that costs were not reduced simply because of a formal increase in size and the anticipated economies of scale had been dissipated because Victoria College had many campuses and they were far apart. These ‘many’ and ‘far apart’ aspects had significantly added to costs, both because of increased communication costs and the need to duplicate, at a lower level, a number of services on each campus, such as finance, student administration, student counselling, and library facilities. The Submission also stressed that a new administrative structure had been implemented to cope with the complexities of a large, multi-campus college and savings had been made wherever possible.20

In terms of opportunities for women, the Submission stated that Victoria College had a particular concern to offer viable opportunities for female students in light of the major reduction in the College’s quota for teacher education places, traditionally an area with high female enrolments. The College’s developments in Business courses, particularly accountancy and personnel management, as well as those in Secretarial Studies, involving a rationalisation of courses in this area with Swinburne Institute of Technology, were all designed to strengthen areas of predominantly female employment.

Late in 1983 the Principal’s Advisory Group, consisting of the Director and the Assistant Directors, received a paper entitled Student Load by Campus by Faculty: The New Domino Theory which outlined the proposed student load at Victoria College of 5500 EFTSU in 1985 and 5700 EFTSU in 1987. In the inimitable style of the College’s Head of Planning, Des Taylor, the paper summarised government policy for the next period as: To have a greater proportion of the school-leaver population, and perhaps other age segments, in tertiary education; To direct the increased participation away from more affluent population segments, middle and upper social groups and speakers of English.21

127 It also suggested that it would probably be easier to gain approval for new course developments at Burwood “because it is an outer suburban campus (or the nearest thing there is to outer suburban) on the east side of Melbourne”. This meeting also considered the advice from the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission that the Commonwealth had allocated 450 additional EFTSU to Victoria in the period 1984-1987, of which Victoria College would receive an additional 65 EFTSU to enable “new courses to commence in 1983 and to be continued”.22

At the same meeting, the priorities for course development as outlined in draft 3 of the Victoria College Academic Master Plan were discussed. With the addition of growth in paramedical courses at Burwood, the College maintained these priorities for new course developments until the end of the decade. First: growth in Business Studies at Burwood Second: growth in Applied Science Third: increased diversity in courses at Burwood Fourth: growth in Humanities and Social Science Fifth: increased diversity of courses at Rusden.23

New course developments 1982-1985 Like other CAEs and the polytechnics in England, Victoria College began to develop courses with distinctive characteristics and in areas that had not previously been offered. By 1983 the College’s 1983 Annual Report reported the accreditation of several new courses including the Bachelor of Applied Science in Environmental Use and the Bachelor of Applied Science in Land Use Policy – two specialty programs that were to underpin the newly established Faculty of Applied Science. In the Faculty of Business, new courses in Human Resource Development and Risk Management were at the forefront of developments in business education.

The College also sought to establish its role as a major provider of community languages. In addition to courses in Modern Greek, Spanish, and Italian, in 1983 a Bachelor of Arts in Interpreting and Translating in Serbian/Croatian was accredited followed by the Bachelor of Arts (Multidisciplinary) degree in 1984 which had a major sequence in Turkish Language and Culture. Subsequently language courses in Vietnamese, Indonesian and Chinese were introduced. The Bachelor of Arts in Interpreting and Translating also received accreditation from the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters, so that graduate from the Victoria College courses obtained key positions in language services both in Australia and overseas. These courses were unique because Victoria College was the only

128 provider of interpreter and translator education at the professional level in Victoria and one of only two such providers in Australia.24

In 1985 a further five new courses were accredited, including Graduate Diplomas in Health Education, and Policy Studies. In the same year, the College Council decided to work towards Declaration under the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Act (which would enable the College to be self-accrediting, just as universities already were).

Credentialism and professional training - education and nursing Inflation of education credentials appears to be the result of organised attempts by workers already in employment to protect and to upgrade their status.25 Freidson argues that for professionals education therefore becomes a means of restricting entry to a profession and hence limiting competition within it.26 Moreover, credentials confer a substantial advantage on those that hold them with labour force participation rising at the higher levels of credential. Following the establishment of the CAEs there was a great expansion in credentialism, with the number of people in the labour force holding degrees rising by 405.7 per cent between 1966 and 1986.27 At the same time, there was a progressive decline in the income associated with qualifications relative to all incomes.28 In addition to an expansion in the number of people holding degree-level qualifications, the period after 1980 also saw an expansion of those studying postgraduate awards which were seen as helpful to careers and supporting an individual’s quest for managerial positions in an increasingly competitive labour market.29

During the 1980s, both nursing and primary teacher education endeavoured to upgrade their status through extending the credentials required for entry to the profession. Victoria College was involved with educational programs for both of these occupations.

Teacher Education issues While many occupations had been increasing the qualifications required for entry to positions within a profession, primary teacher education had remained a three-year qualification. In July 1984, Professor H Beare, Chairman of the Consultative Group on Teacher Supply and Demand, forwarded the Group’s Second Interim Report to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, confirming the group’s unanimous support for the phasing in of four- year pre-service training courses for primary teachers at the earliest possible opportunity.30

Subsequently, in October 1985 the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission affirmed its policy that colleges of advanced education be able to offer a four year pre-service Bachelor of Education (Primary) course. It agreed to establish an ad hoc group of four people (Dr B

129 McGaw, Director, Australian Council for Educational Research, Dr B Sheehan, Director, Melbourne College of Advanced Education, Mr R Whitman, Victoria College and Mrs M Wallace, Commission), to draw up detailed proposals for the introduction of a 4 year Bachelor of Education program.31

The following year Dr Allen, Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission wrote to Ian Cathie, Victorian Minister for Education, enclosing a paper for the Australian Education Council outlining the commitment of the Victorian Government to the introduction of four years of pre-service teacher education for primary teachers. The letter pointed out that this approach had been supported both by a National Inquiry (the Auchmuty Committee) and by a Victorian Inquiry (the Asche Committee), as well as by the Victorian Teachers Union, The Victorian Primary Teachers’ Registration Board and the Victorian Conference of Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education.32

During a visit to the Victoria College in September 1985, Hugh Hudson, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, told senior staff that the Commission would not support changing pre-service Primary Teacher education courses from three years to four, because “to do so would adversely affect its higher education priority of maximising the number of people in higher education”.33 Despite subsequent efforts by teacher educators, primary teaching remains a three-year degree level course in most institutions to this day.

Moreover both institutional and professional accreditation processes continued to work counter to programmatic diversity, in teacher education as well as in other discipline areas. Despite the efforts of Victoria College to “take the lead in generating a climate of change” in teacher education, according to Dick Wittman, the Head of School of Primary Teacher Education, the education system was “so regulated that it was virtually impossible for an institution to come up with an innovative approach, and it was therefore virtually impossible therefore for change to come out of an educational institution”.34 As previously indicated, the accreditation process was a powerfully homogenising force which pushed courses towards the status quo. As another member of the College management team explained it : The requirements for accreditation were such that institutions had no choice but to become more like the old universities. Accreditation was judged on how much like Monash and Melbourne’s BA you were. This meant we had to recruit staff who had research training and people who had research degrees if we were going to get accreditation – and those people were expecting to be able to continue doing their research and so they were looking for funds. And so the accreditation process in my view drove the CAEs to look more and more like the universities.35

130 Nursing Until the 1980s the majority of basic nurse training was provided in hospitals, funded by the States. The Commonwealth decided in 1980 not to support the expansion of basic nurse education in colleges of advanced education, but rather the upgrading and rationalisation of hospital-based nursing schools, together with the development and improvement of post-basic nurse education programs in colleges of advanced education.

Pressure continued, particularly from nursing associations, for the transfer of basic nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education, and in 1984 the Government announced that there would be a transfer of responsibilities for basic nurse education to colleges of advanced education, under cost-sharing arrangements with the States, with the transfer to be completed by the end of 1993.

During 1985, a Working Party set up to advise the Advanced Education Council about a number of unresolved issues, received submissions from nursing organisations advocating that the basic award should be at UG1 degree level. Although noting that “good arguments could be mounted for supporting the degree as a basic award, the working party believed that there were overriding “political and economic reasons” why this could not be supported at the present time”.36 Accordingly it recommended that the basic award in nurse education be a UG1 Diploma of Applied Science (Nursing) with the degree model being similar to that of the Bachelor of Education: 3 years plus experience plus a further one year.

By 1986, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission had outlined its plans for the Burwood campus of Victoria College to become one of the major metropolitan centres for the training of nurses.37 It proposed that intakes in nurse education would commence in 1988 so that by 1991 520 EFTS places would be attending the campus. This would considerably add to the overall growth already planned for the Burwood campus. Under these plans, the student load of 1634 EFTS in 1985 would grow to 2600 EFTS by 1990/91, and the acquisition of Burwood High School land and buildings was considered to be the only feasible solution to the space problems of the campus.38

It has been suggested that the survival of the multi-campus colleges owed much to the major Commonwealth-State initiative to introduce nursing as a new professional field of study into higher education. In national terms, it was a large and well-developed field of employment, second to education.39 Certainly, there were synergies between nursing and the education and special education courses already being delivered at Victoria College. No doubt the

131 introduction of nursing greatly assisted the College to diversify its course profile whilst enabling it to use some its existing staff expertise. Had the Dawkins’ reforms not intervened it is conceivable that the introduction of nursing and other health-related fields might have led to the development of Victoria College (together with some of the other multi-campus institutions) as an institution with a focus on human studies as opposed to the technological studies orientation to be found in the major institutes of technology. It appears that government policy makers at the time failed to take account of what could have been the beginning of a more genuinely diversified system of higher education institutions than that which was being maintained through the “equal but different” philosophy of the binary system.

Corporate Plan - 1985 The possible development of Victoria College as a liberal-arts or human studies institution was not part of the issues considered by the College’s senior managers in late 1985, when they embarked on a further strategic planning exercise. Doubtless, this exercise was designed, in part at least, to address key issues such as those identified in the Consultant’s Report presented to the College Council earlier that year which had posed the question: …what is the overall direction of the College? Despite the work that has been done to date, Victoria College still presents as four separate campuses rather than as a total integrated unit. It appears to have no clear corporate identity or direction to which all staff are committed.40

There are, of course, many reasons why it had been difficult to establish an agreed and overarching direction for Victoria College, quite apart from the tensions inherent in its initial creation through forced consolidation of separate institutions. One of the major reasons, and one that applies to academic institutions in general, as well as to Victoria College in particular, is that to a large extent, universities and colleges are staffed by highly trained specialists who are dedicated to the furtherance of their own particular field of expertise. The immediate orientation of individual members of staff is often not so much to the success of the organisation in which they work as to their discipline, because to a large extent the discipline is the major source of status and satisfaction for academic staff. Consequently, as one of the planning documents stated, Victoria College needed a corporate strategy because Individual staff and faculties and departments often perceive the institution as little more than a vehicle to enable people to travel to their own chosen destinations. I am reminded of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Law says, roughly, that a system of molecules tends to behave increasingly randomly unless there is an input of energy to the system to keep order. The corporate strategy is the input of energy to ensure coherent direction in the College’s detailed plans and actions.41

132 The “ThinkTank” held in December 1985, which began the strategic planning exercise, considered a similar range of issues to those canvassed in the previous strategy exercise in late 1981 and early 1982. These included workshop participants’ perceptions of the College’s external environment, likely threats and opportunities, the College’s corporate objectives, its strengths and weaknesses, its critical success factors and the strategies required to implement the chosen objectives. Because the development of corporate goals was envisaged by the Director as being part of the leadership role of senior staff, there was broad participation in the process. Participants in the “ThinkTank” were the Director and his professional assistant, the Associate Directors, the Deans, the Heads of Schools, the Business Manager, the Presidents of the academic and PACT staff associations, the President and Deputy President of the Victoria College Council.

Dr Graham Allen, former VPSEC Chairman and now chief executive of the Ministry of Education, and Mr Adolf Hanich (a Director of IBIS-DH&S, a well-regarded “futurology” company addressed the “ThinkTank”. The latter’s presentation was entitled The Future External Environment 1985-1995 and predicted a number of key changes in the coming decade including an ageing society, a rising incidence of crime, and a search for leadership – all leading Australia into a more conservative era. Changes that we now know have occurred. The paper also noted labour market trends such as the …polarisation of incomes into more well off and more low-income households with corresponding decline in the proportion of the legendary middle class dominance.42

The disappearance of many male jobs from the middle of the Australian earnings distribution has been well documented elsewhere.43 Similarly, the growth in nominated industries in the 1980s - community services, recreation and personal services, and those of the 1990s - business services, transport and communication – largely occurred as predicted by Ibis, as did the deregulation and general competition in the increasingly sophisticated finance industry noted for “its rapid deployment of EDP and EFT”.44

Not surprisingly the College’s principal strengths as identified through the 1985 exercise were remarkably similar to those identified through the earlier strategy development exercise, such as the expertise of staff and the existing strong reputation of some courses together with the strong and diverse community representation on course advisory committees. Interestingly the multi-campus, multi-purpose nature of the College and its ability to deploy resources across these, were now included among its strengths. On the other hand, the shortage of physical resources, the need to replicate certain equipment and facilities on different

133 campuses and the additional costs imposed by multi-campus operation were all identified as major weaknesses of Victoria College. So too the College’s weak financial state was regarded as a constraint. This was compounded by lack of financial reserves and a lack of income from sources other than the recurrent grant, a situation that the ThinkTank identified as tending to be self-perpetuating because of the College’s course profile to the service sector of the economy rather than to the goods-producing sector.

Poor internal communication, excessive committee work and inflexibility of procedures were also identified as major weaknesses of Victoria College. This led the College to identify “establishing an efficient College administration to support the academic operation” as one of its major goals for the next planning cycle.45

The statement of Corporate Strategy went through many iterations, following a process that saw many drafts considered at senior management level and by staff throughout the institution. A penultimate draft was circulated to all staff late in 1986 and staff and groups were invited to comment. The final statement, described as “the overall guideline for detailed planning and action by many sections of the College”, was developed by revising the circulated draft after noting all comments received.

The resulting Corporate Strategy document endorsed by the Victoria College Council in June 1987, proposed that a number of functional areas within the College (such as Academic Board, Finance Committee) would develop supporting plans for consideration by Council and that these would be reviewed and up-dated annually. Although considerable effort had been expended to ensure that there was widespread consultation, as one document from the Strategy planning exercise indicated, arranging for informed participation and consultation is often very difficult, because …unfortunately, as Euclid said to King Ptolemy I in 300 BC, “there is no royal road”. (Ptolemy wanted to learn Geometry in a hurry, to impress his dinner guests the next evening, and Euclid had just published the definitive papyrus of the subject.) Similarly, there is no effortless way to effective participation in planning and decision-making.46

The Victoria College Council adopted the College mission identified in the Corporate Strategy in July 1987. This described Victoria College as: committed to the intellectual and personal growth and the career development of its students, to the discovery and advancement of knowledge, to service to the community, to high standards of quality in education and to freedom of thought and enquiry.

134 The mission of the College is to make quality higher education in a diverse range of fields as accessible as possible to the Australian and international communities.47

In addition the Strategy affirmed the College’s medium term (two triennia) intentions to expand enrolments in applied science, business, interpreting and translating, business and community languages, design and science and mathematics teaching to meet community and employer needs and improve the balance and diversity of the College’s course profile.

Diversification of course profile- 1985-1991 According to the comments provided by the Victorian Post-Secondary Commission in July 1988 in support of Victoria College’s Profile Submission, the major strengths of the College now lay in special education, languages, and business courses with a special focus on international languages and computing.48

The College’s expertise in language teaching was further strengthened in 1988 by a grant from the Victorian Education Foundation of $541,789 to fund new Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Arabic streams in its Graduate Diploma in Interpreting and Translating and a combined Bachelor of Arts (Chinese)/Bachelor of Business (Overseas Trade), which was the first of its kind in Australia.49

By 1990 Victoria College had also achieved a substantial diversification into para-medical studies. In accordance with State plans for the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to higher education, Victoria College took its initial intake in basic nursing in 1988, its first intakes in intellectual disability nursing in 1989 and its first psychiatric nursing students in 1990. On 25 July 1990 the Premier of Victoria, John Cain and the Minister for Education Joan Kirner opened the A J P Nattrass Building on the Burwood campus. This new building, costing some $4.3 million, was built to accommodate the 668 students enrolled in intellectual disability, psychiatric nursing or general nursing courses at the College in 1990. At the same time the College was also successful in acquiring the Allambie site which was contiguous with the Burwood campus. Previously a children’s home run by the Victorian Department of Community Services, the site provided the potential for further consolidation of academic activities at Burwood and for vacating one of the other campuses.

Educational Innovations One of the great strengths of Victoria College, and indeed the college sector as a whole, was the system of course advisory committees that underpinned the course accreditation processes. Membership included staff drawn from the Faculty and/or as designated by

135 Academic Board, enrolled students, external members from employer groups, professional associations, academics, practitioners and graduates. In all cases, external members of these Committees constituted a majority of members and they played a critical role in enabling the College to develop courses that met “the needs of the professions, business, industry, schools, government and the community”.50 This ensured that new courses were vocationally relevant and at the forefront of industry practice.

The use of course advisory committees appears to have been one of the casualties of the introduction of the unified national system. According to a former member of staff who worked at the institution through three of its iterations: My recollection is that these [course advisory committees] were important in the State College of Victoria (Rusden) and Victoria College, [but] there is now too much 'leadership' initiative and approval I think. Specifically, on committees, Deakin talks about advisory committees but I can only comment on what the Arts Faculty does or does not do. Some Masters by coursework programs have effective committees but I'm not aware of any continuing successful committees at undergraduate level.51

Victoria College was also at the forefront of higher education institutions in terms of developing relationships with local TAFE Colleges in order to maximise access to high quality post-secondary education. Possibly because of the earlier relationship of Prahran and its TAFE component, from its earliest days the College accepted TAFE certificates for entry to most of its degree courses, particularly in the areas of Applied Science and Business.52 In addition when upgrading sub-degree programs, every effort was made to facilitate student mobility. For example, when Victoria College’s Associate Diploma in Community Work was replaced with a Bachelor of Arts in Community Development, the course was designed to enable graduates of TAFE associate diplomas in this field to advance to the new degree with appropriate transferred credit.

Bowater Faculty of Business As we have noted earlier, business studies was one of the fields of study identified for expansion by the new College in its planning document Towards an Academic Profile for Victoria College 1983-1987. In 1982 approved student load in business at Victoria College was 670 with the institution proposing to double this by 199253 The expansion was to be achieved by building on the undergraduate courses in accounting, public finance, insurance, personnel administration and data processing of the former Prahran College of Advanced Education and developing additional courses in credit management.

136 An early decision by Victoria College management was to offer business programs at its Burwood campus, with an initial 80 EFTS in 1983 rising to 600 EFTS in 1985, based on a transfer of resources initially at its Prahran campus. Three years later the College had also established a Centre for Japanese Business and Management, developed a course in business Chinese, and signed staff and student exchange agreements with three Chinese universities and the University of Waterloo in Canada.

By 1988 there were 1816 students (1322 EFTSU) enrolled in Faculty of Business courses held at the Prahran, Burwood and Lilydale campuses. However, the major highlight of that year involved the $250,000 endowment of the faculty of Business by the Bowater Corporation of Australia. Senator the Hon. John Button, Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce announced the endowment and the naming of the Bowater Faculty of Business on 29 March at Victoria College. This was indeed a unique educational and business venture and was the first time that an Australian higher education faculty had taken the name of a sponsoring corporation. A press release issued at the time stated that: The Endowment relationship will provide ongoing access to Bowater as a working company model for staff and students of the Faculty of Business, with reciprocal access for Bowater staff. Mr Laurie Wilson, Managing Director of Bowater explained that Bowater had decided on this innovative approach as one of its special gestures for Australia’s Bicentennial. “We see this endowment as enabling the Faculty to expand into areas it could not otherwise contemplate, at a time when education funding is limited” he said.54

In addition to the Endowment, Bowater also supported two major awards to be made annually, the H S Archdall Medal presented to “Graduate of the Year’ and the H S Archdall Grant, initially $10,000, enabled a graduate of the Faculty to undertake a specific research project. Both awards were established to honour Mr H S Archdall, a former Bowater Chairman who was for many years the driving force and inspiration behind the company in Australia. In addition, the endowment monies were used to sponsor an annual lecture by an eminent Australian or an international authority on a contemporary business or education issue. The Inaugural Distinguished Lecture was delivered by the Hon. Justice Michael Kirby on 1 July, 1988.55

The Bowater Faculty of Business, under the leadership of its new Dean continued to be innovative, aggressively entrepreneurial and to develop education programs in response to emerging needs. The new Dean was Darrell Mahoney having replaced John Milton-Smith in 1985. In 1990 it introduced a Bachelor of Business (Sports Management) and was the recipient of a grant of $458,789 from the Victorian Education Foundation to conduct a

137 combined four year double degree where students gained a Bachelor of Arts (Arabic) and Bachelor of Business. As the Middle East accounts for almost half of Australia’s valuable wheat exports, the development of a course which gave students both language and business skills was strongly supported by the Australian Wheat Board. Consistent with the College’s policy of using its course advisory committees to ensure the vocational relevance of its courses, this advisory committee was headed up by a representative of the Australian-Arab Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Faculty of Applied Science and the Technology Management program In an interview in 1999 the former Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Dr Graham Allen, said that among the many achievements of Victoria College were the Bowater Faculty of Business, the College’s success in reducing its teacher education load despite its financial difficulties and the development of the technology management course.

On 14 December 1989 the Victorian Treasurer, the Hon Robert Jolley, presented Victoria College with a major Educational Innovation Award from the Victorian Education Foundation to assist with the development of the Bachelor of Applied Science (Technology Management). The proposed course, to be delivered in cooperation with Box Hill TAFE, was supported by Ford Australia and Nissan Australia, whose staff were to be the pilot students for the course.56

The program, designed for adults working in a technological environment, had three levels of award: certificate, associate diploma and degree. The methods of course delivery were designed to provide maximum flexibility for the students, including self-paced learning, a modular structure of print-based materials, work place tutorials, electronic mail and computer-managed learning. The first students commenced the course in March 1990. In an innovation unusual at this time, though now quite widespread, the students used a laptop computer to access the College’s central computer which facilitated computer managed learning and electronic mail.

The program was evaluated under the Commonwealth’s Evaluations and Investigations program to assess the extent to which “the course and its methods of delivery satisfied the needs of students and of the employers who were supporting their study”. The evaluation found that, overwhelmingly, students, client companies and the staff involved with the course endorsed the effectiveness and suitability of the delivery methods used… The flexibility of time and

138 place of study, together with the ability to work at their own rates and to have relevant prior learning credited, allowed many of the students to “get back into study” towards a formal award. [The study] concluded that, in principle, there was no reason why the approach to course delivery used in the technology management program, or adaptations of it, should not be applied to other courses and contexts in tertiary education.57

In 1991, technology management was the only Victorian program to win one of the seven Technology Productivity Awards for education and training. Evaluated by a Federal Government committee, the technology management program was judged to be the best work-based training program leading to more efficient practices in the public sector.58

Student progress It should not be thought that in diversifying its profile Victoria College reduced its academic standards. Data analysed by the College showed that students performed well across all discipline areas.

Figure 8.2: Student Results by Faculty 1987-1989, Percentage of Enrolled EFTSU Successful

100 90 80 70 1987% 60 50 1988% 40 Percent 30 1989% 20 10 0

Arts

Business Nursing Art & Design Applied Science Special EducationPrimary Education Secondary Educa...

Source: Victoria College Reports prepared by Institutional Planning59

As figure 8.2 shows, of the total students at Victoria College in 1987, 1988 and 1989, 79.39 per cent, 80 per cent and 87 per cent of enrolled EFTSU respectively obtained a grade of pass or higher. Of those students actually examined in 1987, 1988 and 1989, 90 per cent obtained a pass grade or higher.

In 1989, of total students enrolled in the Diploma of Tertiary Studies only 69 per cent were successful as a percentage of students enrolled; 71 per cent of those examined were successful.

139 According to an analysis of academic performance carried out by the Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission, a comparison of Victoria College with other Victorian higher education institutions showed that Victoria College was is in the top group of institutions on completion rates and the middle group of institutions on program size.60 Moreover on 7 November 1988 the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission recommended The Victoria College be declared in the terms of Section 32(1) of the Post-Secondary Education Act 1978 as qualified to recommend to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Accreditation Board that any courses of study that is offered or proposed to introduced by the College should be registered as accredited.61

The Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission confirmed that it had approved declaration effective from 1 December 1988 in a letter to the Director dated 6 December.62 This gave Victoria College the same standing in developing its courses as the universities had always enjoyed.

Achievement against the 1982 academic strategy How successful was the initial strategy established in 1982? As can be seen in the following table, courses that had attracted a high number of first preferences in 1981 continued to perform strongly. Student pressure, calculated as the number of first preference applications divided by the number of places in courses is compared for 1981 and 1990.

Table 8.3: Student Pressure for selected courses Victoria College 1981 and 1990 1981 1990 B Accounting (Prahran) 2.33 B Bus (Accounting) 2.22 B Ed (Sec) Drama & Dance 5.94 B Ed (Sec) Drama & Dance 10.17 B Ed (Sec) Media Studies 1.61 B Ed (Sec) Media Studies 3.42 B Ed (Sec) Physical Education 3.35 B Ed (Sec) Physical Education 3.5 B A General Studies (Prahran) 1.18 B Arts (Lit & Prof Writing) 4.58 Diploma Art & Design 2.36 Dip Arts (Graphic Design) 2.81 63 Source: Victoria College

By 1990 most courses were experiencing higher levels of student pressure as measured by the number of first preference applications divided by the number of commencing places in courses. Some courses in strong demand, such as the Bachelor of Business (Personnel Management) with 4.25 applications for each available place, replaced courses previously offered on a part-time basis at Associate Diploma level. Others, such as the Diploma in Applied Science (Nursing) represented growth in areas identified by the strategy.

140 Not only did demand for various courses remain high but overall Victoria College attracted over six per cent of total first preferences submitted through the Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre between 1988 and 1990.

Figure 8.3 Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre (VTAC) Application levels – institutional percentage of total first preferences after change of preference

20.00 15.00 1988 10.00 1989 5.00 1990 0.00

RMIT Phillip Monash Chisholm La tTobe Footscray Swinburne Victoria C...

Source: Adapted from data in Victoria College News Issue 6: 3.

In 1988, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission also undertook an analysis of student demand. A student demand score was derived for each Victorian institution by weighting the mean VCE scores for students in each course by the number of students offered places in that course and assigning institutions to an upper, middle or lower group. Predicably perhaps, institutions in the upper group included the University of Melbourne and Monash University, whereas Victoria College, Deakin University and Swinburne Institute of Technology fell within the middle group. Ballarat, Bendigo, Footscray and Gippsland were amongst those institutions assigned to the lower group.64

Another way to judge the success of the Victoria College in reducing the proportion of teacher education load is in comparison with Brisbane College of Advanced Education and the South Australian College of Advanced Education (S.A.CAE), both multi-campus former teacher education institutions created through amalgamation in 1981-1982. As the following figure shows, between 1982 and 1988 both Victoria College and S.A.CAE were successful in reducing the proportion of teacher education load to just over half of total student load, although Victoria College started with a slightly greater proportion in 1982.

141 Figure 8.4: Percentage of student load in teacher education at Victoria College, Brisbane College of Advanced Education, South Australian College of Advanced Education 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1988.

100 80 Victoria College 60 Brisbane CAE 40 S.A. CAE 20 0 % % % % 1982 1983 1984 1988

Source: Hulls Mellor (1985), NBEET (1989) Appendix 4.

As far as academic courses were concerned, there was a steady reduction in the number of award courses offered, from 67 in 1982 to 38 in 1986. In particular, a new Diploma of Teaching (Primary) course and a Bachelor of Education (Primary) courses were developed and commenced in 1986, replacing the two earlier courses based on the Toorak and Burwood campuses.65 The College’s policy of course rationalisation had led to the discontinuation of twenty-three courses by 1987 and a consolidation into four of a further thirteen courses.

As the following figure shows Victoria College was very successful in moving its student load in the directions planned and agreed in 1982. That it achieved this in a relatively short period of time and within an environment of marked financial constraint and limited expansion of funded student numbers is a substantial accomplishment.

Figure 8.5: Planned versus actual student load by broad field of study 1982-1988.

80 70 60 50 1982 40 Proposed 1988 30 Actual 1988

Percentage 20 10 0

Education Business Art & Design Liberal Studs

AppSci & Paramed

Source: Victoria College Towards an Academic Profile for Victoria College, 1982 and VPSEC Statistical Bulletin 1988

142 Research The 1982 academic strategy had not included a research role for Victoria College because prior to 1987 Government policies and funding provisions had actively discouraged colleges of advanced education from engaging in research in a significant way. The fact that universities received funding to support a research infrastructure of libraries, scientific equipment, support staff and senior academic staff, meant that on average, for a given faculty mix, universities were funded at levels about 30 per cent higher than CAEs.66 Moreover, it was this funding support as well as institutional ambition that made the colleges argue for their right to undertake research.

Unlike many other CAEs, Victoria College did not enrol its first student in a Masters Degree by Research program until 1985 and this was not, in fact, a traditional research program. The student, George Aslanis, was a graduate in Ceramics from the Prahran Faculty of Art and Design. His Masters degree program involved a two-year studio-based individual research program culminating in a major solo exhibition of his ceramics and the submission of a written research paper reflecting on “a related technological aspect of his exhibited work”.67

Although Victoria College had among its staff many who were trained for and who wished to undertake research, the lack of research infrastructure in a cash-strapped institution together with a focus on teaching, had not encouraged the development of a widespread research culture. Nevertheless, small pockets of research expertise did emerge early in the life of the College largely because of the idiosyncratic interests and/or expertise of staff members. For example, the Archaeology Research Unit grew out of the interest of a group of Victoria College academics based in the Art Department at Burwood campus. The unit was coordinated by Ian Edwards, a senior lecturer in the Art Department, who had been extensively involved in field work and research into ancient pottery technology in a number of countries including Crete and Jordan. Other members of the unit were Ralph Segnit, formerly Senior Principal Research Scientist in the CSIRO, well known in the technical ceramics area, and Colin Hope, an Egyptologist whose main areas of research focus was the study of ancient Egyptian ceramics. In a report to the College Council in 1985 Ian Hope made the point that because his involvement “in field work and research has been directly relevant to my actual College lecturing in the history, practice and theory of Ceramics and Art History” these experiences have been very beneficial to me professionally.68

Shortly thereafter the College’s Research and Development Committee, formed by interested staff members in March 1985, announced its intention to publish a directory “describing all of the active and innovative research programs going on within the College” and requested staff

143 to respond to the questionnaire it had developed.69 At the end of 1985, two Victoria College staff (Dr Neil Brewer and Dr Tony Sparrow) in the Faculty of Special Education and Paramedical Studies were successful in gaining research funds under the Australian Research Grants Scheme. This was a significant achievement given that, of the total of $27.54 million dollars allocated under the Australian Research Grants Scheme, $26.5 million or 96.4 per cent went to universities. Of the remainder, only 12 grants totalling between them $151,241 went to CAEs, two of which were to Dr. Brewer and Dr. Sparrow at Victoria College.70 In the following year, Noel Gough was invited to succeed Professor Malcolm Skilbeck and Barry Fraser as Australasian Editor of the Journal of Curriculum Studies. Although his appointment clearly reflected his own standing in the field of Australian curriculum scholarship, Noel was reported as being adamant that “Victoria College’s reputation for excellence in a number of areas of curriculum study, research and development was equally significant to the acceptance of his nomination”.71

Whilst the College continued to focus primarily on its role as a teaching institution, by 1987 a small research program in targeted areas was emerging. Victoria College’s strategy was “to build on existing strengths where these are compatible with Commonwealth and State economic and social justice strategies”.72

One particular area of expertise was in the Faculty of Applied Science which had begun a series of studies in Applied Australian Ecological Research directed at developing strategies for managing endangered species and ecological sites. The Faculty had also developed a number of research projects in Information Systems in Environmental Monitoring for Land Management, which were concerned with the development and application of geographic information systems to the wine industry, natural disaster management and other particular users. Considering the large number of staff and students involved in areas of education, it is not surprising that there were also a substantial number of research studies underway in this area. These included a study of the factors influencing science learning in primary children, using computers to enhance children’s learning, and improving the quality of learning in mathematics in pre-service teacher education.73

The Faculties of Applied Science, Special Education and Paramedical Studies, and Teacher Education (Primary and Secondary) showed the greatest interest in developing research expertise. Other areas of the College, such as Business, Design and the Arts continued to emphasise consulting and development more than research as usually defined.

144 Was Victoria College a success? Obviously, the answer to this question depends on how success is defined. Certainly, for 10 years the College educated students at a much lower cost than universities or other colleges, it managed to keep its courses full and most of its graduates obtained full-time employment. It achieved the objectives that it had established in 1982 to diversify its course profile while retaining quality educational programs. It substantially reduced the proportion of teacher education within its student load. By all those criteria it was highly successful and, as the next chapter will show, Victoria College also provided educational opportunities to students from a range of groups which had been traditionally under-represented in higher education.74

145 Chapter 9: Students at Victoria College

One of the objectives of the Commonwealth Government in establishing the non- university college sector was to make participation in higher education accessible to a greater number of Australians from all walks of life. However, despite the great expansion in the number of students after 1965, the social composition of education remained relatively narrow. From 1982, successive governments introduced policies explicitly aimed at increasing the numbers of students from disadvantaged groups participating in tertiary education. Partly because of its history and partly by design, Victoria College catered for students from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds. This chapter provides some insight into how the characteristics of the student body at Victoria College changed in the years 1982 to 1991 including changes to its socio- economic composition. What sort of students attended the College and how did they differ from students at others colleges of advanced education?

Writing in the first half of the 1960s, the Martin Committee believed that the establishment of non-university colleges would provide “a wider diversity of tertiary education”, one that would meet the untapped reservoir of tertiary ability in Australia, particularly among students from “lower status families”.1 However, despite the substantial growth in the student population, research published in 1982 indicated that few students from lower status families were attending universities and colleges.2 Indeed, writing in 1983, Anderson and Vervoorn concluded from research covering 50 years that “higher education in general and universities in particular remain socially elite institutions” and that the under-representation of those of lower socio-economic background had remained constant since 1950.3

This led the Commonwealth Government to strengthen its efforts to increase the participation of groups perceived to be under-represented in tertiary education. In making its Recommendations for the 1985-1987 Triennium in June 1984, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission recommended that institutions adopt policies with regard to intakes of new students in the 1985-87 triennium which pay special attention to improving access to advanced education for those groups identified by the Government as disadvantaged (R3.2). 4 Groups identified as educationally disadvantaged were immigrants, Aborigines, outer metropolitan and rural residents, low income earners and women.

146 Socio-economic status of students Educational researchers have measured social background in a variety of ways. Father’s occupation, parent’s education and country of origin have all been found to be important determinants of educational aspiration and participation in higher education. Higher occupational status, having a father with a tertiary education, and attendance at a non-Catholic private school are all correlated positively with entry into higher education.5 Nevertheless, research also suggested that the socio-economic composition of the intake of Colleges of Advanced Education was closer to the population in general than the intake of the universities, although it remained above the population average.6 The findings of Bassett, which have been confirmed many times since, show that although trainee teachers were less likely than university students to have fathers in professional occupations and to be drawn from middle ranked occupations, the children of unskilled workers seldom gained entry to tertiary education, even to teachers’ colleges.7

Given that the teaching profession has traditionally been responsible for bringing marginal groups into higher education, it could be expected that there would be greater participation of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds at Victoria College than at other tertiary institutions. This appears to be the case. Data on social characteristics of commencing students collected by SCV Rusden in 1976 (one of the four institutions amalgamated to form Victoria College) and Victoria College in 1990 were compared with that reported by Anderson and Vervoorn for female university students in 1976.8

Figure 9.1: Occupational background of commencing students at SCV Rusden 1976, Victoria College 1990 and female university students 1976.

Occupational background of fathers of commencing students 1976, 1990 (percentages)

35 30 25 Rusden 1976 20 Uni 1976 15 10 VicColl 1990 5 0

Other Manager

Professional

Non-manual/Clerical Semi/Skilled worker Foreman'skiled worker

Adapted from C B Kings (1976) Table 36, Anderson and Vervoorn (1983) Table 10.8, Victoria College Survey of Students (1990)

147 As this figure shows, as late as 1990 students commencing studies at Victoria College were less likely to have fathers in managerial or professional occupations than female students who commenced undergraduate studies at an Australian university in 1976.9

As part of its commitment to increasing participation of disadvantaged students, in 1984 the College initiated a survey to provide some base data on the socio-economic, educational and cultural composition of its student population. The survey, consisting of 24 multiple choice or short answer questions, was administered on enrolment day to all new entrants. The information provided by the 400 commencing students (representing 251 full-time and 149 part-time students) generated profiles of typical new students entering Victoria College in 1984. The first of these profiles, characterising the majority of the respondents to the survey, was described in the survey report as a female, 19 years of age, Australian-born, speaking English as a first language, and enrolled full-time in her first post-secondary qualification, probably in education. In the case of such a woman enrolling in a Bachelor degree course, both parents are likely to have received some post-compulsory education and to be employed in a professional or managerial capacity. Alternatively, if this prototypical entrant enrols at the Diploma level the SES of her family is likely to be lower and somewhat closer to the national norm. Both parents probably did not proceed beyond four years of secondary education and she will represent the first generation of her family to participate in tertiary education. Her father, may be employed in a clerical, non- manual or skilled occupation and she expects to rely on TEAS for financial support while studying.10

Another commonly used indicator of social background is the type of school attended, based on the assumption that families, other than Catholics, which sent their children to private (independent) schools tended to come from the high income groups within the community, while children from families of lower or average incomes tended to come from public or state schools. At the beginning of the 1990s some 68 per cent of school students in Victoria attended government schools, 22 per cent went to Catholic schools, 10 per cent to independent and other schools.11 Data collected by the College show that not only did Victoria College students come from families that were more representative of the occupational distribution found in the general population, but they also came from school backgrounds that were very similar to the actual distribution of Victoria’s secondary school population. By comparison, a much higher percentage of Monash University students had attended non-Catholic independent

148 schools, suggesting that colleges such as Victoria College did play a significant role in providing educational opportunities for students from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds.12

Figure 9.2: Enrolments at SCV Rusden, Victoria College and Monash University by type of school attended 1976 and 1990.

70 60 50 Rusden 1976 40 30 VicColl 1990 20 Monash 1990 percentage 10 0

Governme.. Catholic S... Independe...

Adapted from C B Kings (1976) Table 23, Victoria College Survey of Students (1990), Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1993): 204

Mature Age and Part-time Students Colleges of Advanced Education were also an important route for “non-standard” students to gain tertiary education, as opposed to those “standard” students who continued on in formal education straight from school. Victoria College, like many tertiary institutions in Australia, admitted students who did not satisfy normal tertiary education requirements, who were often housewives, mothers and working individuals. Such entrants, typically mature-aged, had been found to perform as well as, or better than, those students who entered tertiary studies from school. A 1982 study by Chisholm Institute of Technology, another Victorian college of advanced education, found that both the pressures of children and domestic responsibilities as well as employment demands had a detrimental effect upon student progress.13 Moreover, it was suggested that because special entry and mature-age students had spent several years outside formal education before enrolling at the College, they needed systematic assistance in study techniques and writing skills to improve their chances of successfully completing their tertiary studies.

Consequently, during mid 1984 the College surveyed students who had enrolled in their first year of study in selected courses in March 1983 to identify important variables associated with an initially successful or unsuccessful tertiary experience.14 Consistent with previous findings that older students tend to be intrinsically more motivated than younger ones, this Survey found that older matriculated students outperformed those under 23 years of age. However,

149 contrary to expectations, it was found that non-matriculated, mature-aged students and those who gained admission to the College under special selection procedures, were characterised by very poor performance. The report suggested that this poor performance was indeed influenced by a lack of recent experience of formal education, including fears of examinations, inappropriate study methods and lack of self-confidence. It concluded that intensive study skills programs and an extended orientation course would assist such students to have a more successful tertiary experience. Subsequently a number of programs were introduced to support disadvantaged students, including a study skills centre operated in the library at the Burwood campus, and a supplementary study skills course and a number of student support programs run by the School of Nursing and the Faculties of Teacher Education, Arts and Applied Science.

In addition, compared with the State as a whole, Victoria College continued to enrol a relatively high proportion of students in Graduate Diplomas, primarily in Education. This may partly explain why Victoria College continued to provide greater access to mature age students than other institutions in Victoria.

Figure 9.3: Age of students at Victoria College compared with all students in higher education in Victoria, 1990.

50 40

30 Vic Coll % 20 Victoria % Percentage 10 0 16-20 21-25 26-40 41+ Years Years Years Years

*Source: Final Report of the 1990 Survey of Students, Victoria College; Statistical Bulletin, Higher Education in Victoria, 1990.

Similarly, throughout its 10-year life, Victoria College continued to enrol more part-time students than other colleges in Victoria as shown in figure 9.4 below. The relatively high proportion of part-time students was also revealed in the College’s survey of students enrolling in March 1984.15 The report described two quite distinct minority groups within the college that were significantly represented by the survey data. The first of these was of a man between 26 and 25 years of age who enrols part-time in a Bachelor of Business or Graduate Diploma course, possibly at Prahran campus. His parents probably did not proceed beyond secondary school and it is possible that his father is no longer a member of the

150 workforce. This entrant has previous work experience and intends to continue to support himself by his earnings from full-time employment…He believes the content of his course to be relevant to his work experience and may be undertaking this course of study to upgrade his existing qualifications or to gain an initial tertiary qualification which he hopes will enhance his further career prospects.16

This case study further strengthens the proposition that Victoria College did indeed provide access to vocationally relevant tertiary education to students who may not have otherwise had the opportunity to undertake such studies.

Similar to the trend in the Polytechnics in the United Kingdom, enrolments of part-time students in Victoria’s colleges of advanced education declined markedly during the 1980s, although in Australia this occurred partly as a result of Government policies aimed at attracting new school leavers into tertiary education.17 As we have seen, Victoria College, on the other hand, retained a relatively large and constant proportion of part-time students, which cannot be totally explained by the fact that it offered a large number of professional Graduate Diploma courses. To the extent that retention of part-time students is one of the key indicators of success in resisting academic drift, it can be argued that Victoria College remained relatively true to the objectives of colleges as originally envisaged by the Martin Committee.18

Figure 9.4: Proportion of part-time enrolments at Victoria College and all Colleges of Advanced Education in Victoria, 1990

Proportion of P/T Enrolments

60.0 50.0 40.0 Vic Coll P/T 30.0 All CAEs Vic 20.0 10.0 0.0 1982 1983 1985 1987 1990

Source: VPSEC (1990) Statistical Bulletin Higher Education in Victoria

As noted above, the 1984 survey of student progress also found that in all courses surveyed respondents who enrolled part-time did significantly less well than those who attended full- time; noting that students in full-time employment or women caring for a young family while studying part-time were most disadvantaged. The survey also found that respondents who came from minority cultures or lower socio-economic backgrounds, as well as those who spoke English as a second language, “failed to realise their true potential”.19 Greek and

151 Turkish students constantly under-achieved and a number of students expressed “feelings of powerlessness and alienation, resulting from social isolation on a campus (Toorak) they perceived as dominated by Anglo-Saxon norms and expectations”. The survey made a number of specific suggestions related to each course and campus, concluding that “without pro-active planning and the provision of services designed to negate differences in prior educational experience, cultural background and socio-economic circumstances, increased participation will not result in equity but in increased wastage, both in human and resource terms”.20

However, from the College’s perspective, increasing the participation of students from non- traditional backgrounds was not without additional costs. Moreover, in the absence of any additional funding from either the State or Commonwealth Governments, it is to the credit of the more cash-strapped institutions, such as Victoria College, that they did in deed make real efforts to implement Equity policies. In a letter to the Chairman of the Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission on 25 June 1985, the Director of Victoria College highlighted the major planning issues that stemmed from this policy, particularly the provision of adequate support for participants in higher education who came from disadvantaged groups. The letter advised that the College’s direct experience demonstrated the need for additional services for disadvantaged students, unfunded by Government, that included such items as compensatory instruction in English, tutorial assistance in study skills, increased personal counselling services and increased childcare facilities.

During the 1980s government policy, at both State and Federal levels, also became increasingly focused on increasing the participation of young people in education and training. As already noted this led to a reduction in the proportion of mature age students enrolled in higher education institutions in Victoria. However, according to the statistical publications of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, the actual number of students over 26 years in fact remained relatively constant at 23,089 in 1984 and 23,528 in 1987.

School Leavers In November 1982 Senator Peter Baume, Commonwealth Minister for Education, released the results of a study by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission entitled Learning and Earning which showed that young people “were opting to seek jobs rather than continue their education”.21 The study showed that “blue-collar” employment had contracted generally and for young people, not only had the “number of full-time jobs declined rapidly”, but these jobs had become concentrated “increasingly in those manual occupations where total employment has fallen most sharply and longer-term employment prospects appear to be most in question”.22 The Report also noted that although graduates were earning comparatively lower

152 wages than they did ten years ago, there were still long-term economic advantages to those who obtained tertiary qualifications of any kind.

This decline in full-time enrolments was noted by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, which stated that the social cost of not having this group in universities and colleges was high.23 Subsequently a number of policies were devised by the Commonwealth Government, all aimed at increasing the participation of young people in higher education in Australia.

These policies were generally successful and since 1980 the proportion of young people completing year 12 increased from 30 to 80 per cent with many more young people attending tertiary institutions. It has been argued however that this growth has been primarily as a consequence of the collapse of the full-time teenage labour market, the rapid growth of part- time jobs and the range of education subsidies available to students from families with low incomes rather than resulting from any particular policies of colleges and universities.24

Whatever the actual causes, Victoria College, along with other tertiary institutions in Australia, grew in size over the decade as Federal and State governments funded additional places for school leavers, leading to an increase in both the actual numbers as well as the proportion of young people aged 16-20 years enrolled in higher education in Victoria. This growth is shown in the following figure.

Figure 9.5 Age of all students in advanced education courses 1984-87 and in higher education courses 1991 in Victoria.

50 40 1984 30 1987 20 1991

Percentage 10 0 16-20 21-25 26-29 30-39 40+ Age

*Source: Victorian Statistical Bulletins1984, 1987 (VPSEC), 1991 (Office of Higher Education).

An express objectives of the binary policy for higher education in England and Wales was to ensure that full time sub degree courses, as well as part time courses of all types, received “at least equal attention to that accorded to full-time degree courses”.25 In Australia, the Martin Committee had also assumed that the new types of colleges would also offer mainly sub-

153 degree programs. However as this thesis has shown, from the very earliest days of the binary system in Australia, the Victoria Institute of Colleges, under its President Dr P Law, had implemented a deliberate policy of upgrading its courses to degree level.

Throughout the 1980s the proportion of enrolments in sub-degree courses (Diplomas and Associate Diplomas) which accounted for 24 per cent of enrolments in Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education in 1982 continued to decline, so that by 1990 only 12.4 per cent of Victorian higher education students were enrolled in sub-degree level courses. Compared with other CAEs in Victoria, Victoria College retained a slightly higher percentage of diploma and associate diploma courses and even in 1990 still had some 24 per cent of students enrolled in courses at this level. Interestingly, analysis of the 1984 Victoria College student survey results showed that entrants to Diploma and other sub-degree courses, tended to come from lower SES backgrounds and were the group identified as containing most TEAS recipients (30.5 per cent).26

Figure 9.6: Percentage of sub-degree load Victoria College and all Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education 1982-1987.

Percentage sub-degree load

30 25 20 Vic Coll 15 Vic CAEs 10 5 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Victorian Statistical Bulletins1982, 1987 (VPSEC).

Figure 9.7: Enrolments by course level Victoria College and all higher education institutions, 1990 (percentage).

80 70 60 50 Vic Coll% 1990 40 30 All Vic % 1990 20 10 0 Post Graduate UG 1 Bachlor Sub Degree (UG2/UG3)

Source: Victorian Statistical Bulletin 1990 (VPSEC).

154 By 1987 there more students graduating from CAEs in Australia than from universities, and as Figure 10.1 shows, not only was the proportion of sub-degree load in CAEs declining but an increasing number of Australians were undertaking post-graduate studies.

Figure 9.8 Course Completions by Sector and Level of Course 1981 and 1987

Uni 1987

CAE 1987

Uni 1981

CAE 1981

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Higher Deg PostGrad Bachelor Other

Source: Department of Employment, Education and Training (1988) Selected Higher Education Statistics Table T4.

Women While groups such as immigrants, Aborigines, outer metropolitan and rural residents and low- income earners have relatively low participation in higher education, educational disadvantage for women refers more to the nature of their participation. Traditionally women have been concentrated in sex-stereotyped occupations characterised as “nurturing”. As such female enrolments are clustered in humanities, music, social and behavioural sciences and education.27

When teacher’s colleges became part of the CAE sector in 1974, this substantially increased not only the number of total students but also the proportion of female students, since primary teaching is an occupation dominated by women. Given that Victoria College was the product of a merger involving three former teachers’ colleges and a college of advanced education, it is not surprising that of its 5031 female students in 1982, 4815 (83%) were enrolled in education- related courses.

At Victoria College the proportion of female students increased from 65 per cent in 1983, to 67per cent in 1987 and to 69 per cent in 1990. This was much greater than for the CAE sector as a whole where 46 per cent of enrolments in Victorian advanced education courses in 1983 and 51 per cent in 1987 were women. Indeed, in 1990 when higher education statistics had ceased to differentiate between advanced education and university students, the proportion of women enrolled in higher education courses was 54 per cent. No doubt the relatively high

155 proportion of female students at Victoria College reflected the introduction of nursing courses to the college in 1988. Like primary teaching, nursing is a sex-stratified occupation with very few male entrants to the profession.

Figure 9.9: Female enrolments in Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education and at Victoria College in 1983, 1987 and 1990.

60 Females all CAEs 40 Females Vic Coll

Percentage 20

0 1983 1987 1990

Source VPSEC Statistical Bulletins; figures for 1990 are for all higher education students.

Special efforts were made to recruit women in applied science, mathematics and business degree courses through staff discussions with girls still at school and by flexible entry pre- requisites for courses which minimised the need for secondary school study in subjects such as physics and chemistry. To assist students the Faculty of Applied Science ran an individual progress program for students without a science background. Consequently, Victoria College was very successful in encouraging women to enter non-traditional fields of study. As the following figure demonstrates, in 1986 the proportion of women in applied science, education, social sciences and humanities, and business was higher at Victoria College than the average for the college sector in Australia.

Figure 9.10: Proportion of female students in advanced education in Australia and Victoria College by selected fields of study 1986

Proportion of females - selected fields of study 1986

80 70 60 50 Aust 40 Vic Coll

Percentage 30 20 10 0 App Science Vis & Perf Business Soc Sci/ Education Arts Hum

156 Adapted from Victoria College Annual Report 1986; Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1987) Tertiary Education Statistics, Table 11.

Migrants In the 1984 Victoria College survey of enrolling students, 17 per cent reported that they were born overseas and 13 per cent first spoke a language other than English. The final profile of a “typical student” generated by the 1984 survey was that of an individual from a migrant background who is female and under 25 years of age. She is likely to have been born in Australia, but to speak English as a second language, her home language being Greek. Her preferred course of study is in Education and she is probably enrolled full-time. Her father may have completed two or three years of secondary education but it is possible that her mother has not proceeded beyond primary level. Both parents may work in low-skill occupations or participate in a small family business. They provide financial support for their daughter who does not expect to engage in paid employment during her first year of study.28

Four years later, the College’s Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunity surveyed students at enrolment and found that 10 per cent reported that they did not usually speak English at home and 23.5 per cent spoke a language other than English. Subsequently, the 1990 survey of enrolling students found that 17 per cent came from a non-English speaking background (NESB) with the Faculty of Art and Design having the greatest number of NESB students (50%), followed by Business with 25 per cent.

Isolated and outer urban students Post-war development in Australia has been characterised by an “urban sprawl”, with more recent growth occurring in the outer urban fringes where land is relatively inexpensive. This served to attract lower-income earners to the areas. In the period 1971 to 1981 there was substantial population growth in outer urban areas. These areas also tended to have populations that were relatively youthful in comparison with Victoria as a whole, a trend that continues to this day.29 Young people from low-income families and those living in outer- metropolitan areas are much less likely than other Victorians to remain at school until year 12 or to participate in tertiary education. This lack of participation in higher education by students in outer-metropolitan areas has been linked to an unwillingness of Victorian students to leave the region in which they live and to travel to institutions in other areas. Australian higher education students are much less geographically mobile than their counterparts in the United States or Britain. However, students who live in the outer metropolitan areas of cities such as Melbourne are also disadvantaged by the existence of radial transport links. A 1984 study of participation in higher education in Victoria found that young people living in

157 Melbourne’s outer suburbs, such as Ringwood, Croydon and Knox, were 5.4 percentage points less likely to apply for places in a tertiary institution than those that lived in the inner eastern suburbs.30

In June 1985 Dr Graham Allen, Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, received a letter from the Director of Victoria College about establishing a Study Centre at Lilydale. A feasibility study completed by the College had demonstrated support for the venture, which was described as “exciting and innovative” as well as “fitting very neatly with Commonwealth policy on participation, access and equity”. The College, Dr Campbell wrote, “would appreciate an indication of your general support for the concept of a Study Centre at Lilydale”.31

Victoria College opened its Lilydale Study Centre in 1986 in leased shopfront premises in an accessible part of the shopping area to provide opportunities for students resident in Melbourne’s outer eastern suburbs. Consistent with the College’s policy of facilitating links with local TAFE colleges, the Study Centre was located in premises adjacent to those occupied by the Outer East College of TAFE. Within two years there were 139 students enrolled in business and teacher education subjects at Lilydale, with over three quarters of the students living closer to the Study Centre than to any other higher education campus.

A 1991 study by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission found that in metropolitan Melbourne, the Mornington, Western and Outer East regions had the lowest participation indices, similar to those of non-metropolitan statistical divisions. The study estimated that the participation index (total enrolments as a percentage of population aged 17- 24) for the Outer East in 1988 was 16.3 per cent, almost half that of the Inner East which had an index of 32.3 per cent. It also found that more students living in the outer eastern region of Melbourne attended Victoria College than any other higher education institution in Victoria.

158 Figure 9.11: Percentage of students attending selected institutions by home address of outer eastern region, 1990.

1990

20% 27% Vic Coll RMIT Swinburne 22% Monash 15% 16% U of Melb

Source: VPSEC (1991) Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (1991) Patterns of Participation in Higher Education: Analysis of Participation in Higher Education in Victoria 1988-1990, Caulfield.

As well as providing access for geographically under-represented students in the outer eastern region, Victoria College also drew its students from the Mornington region, another under- represented areas in terms of educational participation.

Figure 9.12: Proportion of students attending Victoria College by region of home address 1990

15 Vic Coll 10 Victoria 5

Inner Western North east Southern Inner East Outer EastMornington

Student Diversity It appears that if you are born to a family of “low to modest social status in Australia”, your chances of getting a higher education remain “much lower than those of one higher born”. However compared with the United States and several other European countries “the social mix of Australian students has been much more representative of the population at large, particularly of families of modest means and educational attainments”.32 Don Anderson suggests that access in Australia has been facilitated by a combination of measures found in few other countries. These include “the low cost of tuition, special arrangements for adult entry, opportunities for part time and external study, and the tradition of young students to reside in their parents’ homes”.33

159 Clearly, institutions such as Victoria College played an important role in providing educational opportunities to students from less socially advantaged backgrounds. In spite of these efforts the then Commonwealth Minister for Employment, Education and Training, John Dawkins, expressed his concern in December 1987 that “substantial inequities in access to education remain, particularly for people from financially disadvantaged backgrounds, people from rural and isolated areas and Aboriginal people”. Important as economic needs were, the other justification for the expansion of the tertiary education system proposed by Dawkins was “to improve the educational opportunities available to those people who have not traditionally participated in the system”.34 Nevertheless, tuition fees were reintroduced from January 1989. This was achieved through the introduction of a Higher Education Contribution Scheme in which a student could elect to pay subsidised tuition fees either on enrolment or through the income tax system.35

Unfortunately, other institutions within the unified national system established by Minister Dawkins seem to have been even less successful in their more recent effort to increase participation of socially disadvantaged students than colleges such as Victoria College. In 2002 a discussion paper by the Honourable Brendan Nelson, Minister for Education, Science and Training stated that “while the numbers of students with an equity group background has increased significantly over the last decade, their share of the student population has remained relatively stable”.36

The destinations of students If colleges like Victoria College were important in expanding both student and programmatic diversity in higher education, what outcomes did these students achieve?

Because Colleges were set up to deliver vocationally relevant courses, it was assumed that graduates would be more likely to enter employment than students from universities. Data on the first destinations of students show that overall more CAE students than university students did enter into full-time employment and fewer went on to further education and training.

160 Figure 9.13: First degree university and college graduates in full-time employment 1982-1998.

80 70 60 50 Universitiy graduates 40 30 College graduates

Percentage 20 10 0

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Source: Graduate Careers Council of Australia, Annual Surveys 1982-1988.

In April 1988, the Graduate Careers Council Report showed that the most common destination for 1987 advanced education graduates was employment in teaching (31%), reflecting the very large proportion of the 14,866 graduates who had completed qualifications in Education (43%).37 A smaller proportion of graduates (24%) was employed in the private sector than was the case with university graduates (27%).

According to data collected by the Graduate Careers Council (1990), the recessions of the early eighties had more adverse consequences for graduates than that at the end of the decade. In 1983 the proportion of first degree graduates in full-time employment was at its lowest at 53.4 per cent. In comparison, the figure for 1990 was 59.5 per cent. Nevertheless, over 75 per cent of Victoria College’s 1990 first degree graduates were reported as employed in 1991, as the following figure shows.

Figure 9.14: Destinations of 1990 Bachelor degree and 3-year Diploma graduates of selected institutions in April 1991

100 90 80 70 Study 60

% 50 Total Not employed 40 Total Employed 30 20 10 0

VUT RMIT Swin VCA Monash Phillip Deakin U of Melb La Trobe Vic Coll

Source: Graduate Careers Council of Australia, Annual Surveys 1991; Institution Reports.38

161 The following figure shows the percentage of 1987 -1989 Victoria College graduates in full- time employment at 30 April 1987 for the fields of business and applied science. In contrast to Australia-wide employment of business and applied science graduates, Victoria College graduates appear to have been more successful in gaining a full-time job.

Figure 9.15: Percentage of Graduates in Business and Applied Science in full-time employment 1978-1989 Victoria College and Australia

1987-1989 Graduates Employed Full Time - GCCA Survey

100 80 60 40 20 0 B Bus B App Sci

1987 Vic Coll 1987 Aust 1988 Vic Coll 1988 Aust 1989 Vic Coll 1989 Aust

Source: Graduate Careers Council of Australia, Annual Surveys 1987-1989 and Victoria College Reports.

Clearly, Victoria College was very successful in expanding access to new kinds of students. It maintained the traditions of its four constituent colleges in providing access for women, students from ethnic minorities and mature students. As the College grew and diversified it increasingly had a wider catchment, nevertheless it continued to develop opportunities for entrants with non-traditional qualifications through new and innovative programs such as the Technology Management course and through the links and credit-transfer arrangements it forged with the TAFE Colleges in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. It would not be unreasonable to say that Victoria College remained relatively true to the college vision as imagined by the Martin Committee and that it contributed substantially to increasing the diversity of students participating in higher education in Victoria between 1981 and 1991.

162 Chapter 10 The End of an Era

The sweeping reforms to higher eduction introduced by the Commonwealth Minister for Employment, Education and Training, John Dawkins, in 1988 eventually swept away the binary system, including all the colleges created through the 1981 mergers. These reforms generated enormous controversy and upheaval across the higher education sector. Today, some 10 years after the Dawkins restructure which saw the number of higher education institutions halved, the higher education sector is again undergoing a major review. This chapter explores the antecedents of the Dawkins’ reforms, the role of the State government in their implementation and their impact on Victoria College.

Academic drift and the binary system Throughout the 1980s as Victoria College sought to establish its identity as a multi- disciplinary, multi-campus college of advanced education, the distinctions between colleges of advanced education (CAEs) and universities in general became increasingly blurred. Indeed, as we have already seen, they were blurred from the outset of the binary system when the Victoria Institute of Colleges enabled the College of Pharmacy to grant degrees in 1967. This was quite contrary to the original intent of both the Martin Committee and the government of the day which had established the CAE sector to provide an alternative to university education, one with a focus on vocationally-oriented sub-degree tertiary education programs.

In addition, the Victoria Institute of Colleges moved quickly to establish a role for its colleges in the post-graduate area, establishing a policy on higher degrees in 1970 and conferring its first Masters Degree in 1972. Subsequently the policy of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission enumerated a number of benefits associated with the involvement of Victorian colleges of advanced education in Masters level programs. These included preparing “individuals for higher level appointments in the professions and in industry”, providing higher degree courses with an applied and vocational orientation; as well as having a positive effect on the ability and proficiency of college staff.1

By 1970, Australia’s higher education system had become very like the binary system operating in England and Wales. The British system with its two separate and distinctive sectors of tertiary education, one based on the universities and the other on the polytechnics or non-university colleges, was established in 1968 following the publication of a White

163 Paper setting out the Government’s intentions. Like Australia’s CAEs, the polytechnics were formed to provide strong centres of higher education complementary to, but radically different from, the universities. In addition, like Australia’s CAEs they were intended to cater for people from all kinds of backgrounds by offering different types and levels of courses in a wide variety of disciplines.2 However both Australia’s colleges of advanced education and the British polytechnics became involved in the process commonly referred to as ‘academic drift’. Broadly speaking this process describes the aspiration of institutions to university status and their tendency to take on the attributes of universities. British polytechnics according to one writer demonstrated academic drift in a number of ways, not least of all through establishing subject departments and hankering after professorships.3

Such a process had become evident in Australia long before the tumultuous events of 1981 when 30, mainly teacher education, colleges were singled out by the-then Commonwealth Government for consolidation. As the 1978 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Post- Secondary Education (the Partridge Report) established by the Victorian Government commented One widely held view is that the colleges have undergone a process of “upward academic drift” – that is, they have aimed too much at emulating and rivalling the universities. There have been other issues concerning the role of colleges in post-graduate study and research. There is discontent about the relative freedom of universities and colleges to decide for themselves their own academic policies and programs. The question “what are the differences between a university and a college of advanced education”?” is still frequently asked.4

The university, it seems, was then - and continues to be - the ideal model to which less ‘noble’ institutions aspire. Indeed its durability in the face of the significant changes which have taken place in the relationship between universities and the state, is remarkable. As the Carnegie Council has observed the Catholic Church and the early universities of Western Europe are, among all the institutions in our historical tradition, the ones that have changed least in form and functions. It noted that in 1530 (when the Lutheran Church was founded) there were in existence some 66 institutions that still exist today in the Western World in recognisable forms. These 62 institutions include the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the parliaments of Iceland and the Isle of Man, and 62 universities. Universities “have experienced wars, revolutions, depressions and industrial transformations, and have come out less changes than almost any other segment of their societies”.5

For most of the 1980s the binary system in Australia was undermined both from within and without. In July 1982, a scant six months after Victoria College’s traumatic beginnings, two

164 papers were produced by the Directors of the Central Institutes of Technology (the DOCIT group) together with the Australian Conference of Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education. The first, entitled A Comparison of Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and TAFE Institutions, suggested that it “will become an increasingly artificial exercise to preserve the differences [between universities and colleges of advanced education] which the history of events had already rendered inadequate”.6 The second of these papers entitled The Functions of Colleges of Advanced Education in Australia, explained that colleges of advanced education and universities “are concerned entirely with ‘higher education following completion of full secondary education”. Australian higher education institutions, it went on, were all involved in teaching, research and community service but it was the “relative emphasis placed on these activities” which distinguished the advanced education sector from the university sector. The paper concluded that although the traditional remit for the colleges of advanced education to have an applied vocational orientation with an emphasis on innovative teaching, to offer multi-level courses particularly at the undergraduate level, to be flexible in approach and to be socially responsive and accountable, remains the basis for growth and development, new trends have emerged, mainly in the growth of applied research activity and the expansion of post-graduate study.7

The Victorian Minister requested advice on these papers from the Chairman of the Victorian Post Secondary Education Commission, Dr Graham Allen, who replied that in his view the “comparative statement is an accurate and fair account”, one which established that the main differences between the sectors are in: (a) the traditional emphasis upon and special funding for research in the university sector; (b) the importance of organised inter-action in the advanced colleges sector with the commercial world and the public services; and (c) the less academic entry level and trade skills content of courses in the TAFE sector and the direct involvement of the State government in its funding and administration. 8

Dr Allen went on to write that “from the viewpoint of the educational needs of society as a whole the differences actually complement each other”.9 He also concluded that the future growth of applied research and expansion of graduate studies were important developments for advanced colleges and which should be maintained. However, he cautioned that the extent to which public resources can be diverted to these purposes from undergraduate teaching is limited, and it is arguable that any additional resources which may become available should be applied to enhance access to undergraduate courses, particularly by women and disadvantaged groups. Expansion of the role of colleges of advanced education in postgraduate and staff research to a level supported in universities would be difficult to achieve in funding terms and difficult to support in principle. 10

165 Indeed the phenomenon of academic drift was of concern to the States as well as the Commonwealth. As early as March 1982 the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and State coordinating authorities discussed the extent to which the advanced education had become a “degree granting” sector and the implications of such development for the vocational emphasis which has been a characteristic of this sector.11

Nevertheless, the college sector, particularly the central institutes of technology, continued to lobby for an increased role in research and for university status. At the same time the economic difficulties of the Commonwealth Government, the increasing cost of scientific research and the strenuous efforts by CAEs to be funded for research, combined to rule out the possibility that the binary line could simply be re-drawn to enable a few more institutions to be funded at university level. By 1987, higher education programs clearly required substantially more expensive library and other specialist technological facilities than they had when the binary system was implemented more than 20 years earlier. Nevertheless, contrary to the wishes of the Commonwealth government both the Western Australian and New South Wales State governments redesignated their institutes of technology as universities in 1986 and 1987 respectively.

Victoria College, however, as has been demonstrated, seems to have been less affected by academic drift than many other Victorian institutions, retaining a larger than average proportion of sub-degree programs and admitting a greater number of students from non- traditional backgrounds. It also, like institutions in other OECD countries, continually stressed its vocational orientation and commitment to education for the newly emerging professions, such as computing, business and nursing, rather than trying to provide increasingly theoretical programmes.12 Of course, it could be argued that the College was more resistant to academic drift simply because up until at least 1985 it remained preoccupied with the aftermath of the amalgamation and its associated financial difficulties. Nevertheless it does appear that College management did actively implement policies in support of its mission of making “quality higher education in a diverse range of fields as accessible as possible to the Australian and international communities” through its admission policies, its provision of evening courses, its extensive credit transfer arrangements with other sectors of education and through its dispersed campuses.

The Labor Government and higher education 1983 -1987 When the Hawke Labor Government assumed office in 1983, Victoria College was still reeling from the draconian funding cuts imposed by the previous Liberal Government. No

166 doubt, the College welcomed the change of government, one with a stated policy of increasing the participation of young people in secondary and higher education. The Hawke Government did indeed fulfil its electoral policies and between 1982 and 1987 the total number of students in higher education increased by 15 per cent.13 However, any increase in student enrolments is costly, and in 1985 the Commonwealth Minister Ms Susan Ryan requested the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Committee (CTEC) to initiate an inquiry into ways of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education sector. In a submission to the review the Victorian Commission proposed that a “rolling triennium” be introduced that provided a base guarantee for a particular year three years with provision of indicative planning parameters and policy guidelines by the Commonwealth Government “in advance of the development of institutional and State plans”, thus leading to full triennial planning within institutions.14

The Committee chaired by Hugh Hudson, the Chairman of CTEC and a former Minister for Education in South Australia, concluded, that on balance, maintaining the arbitrary barriers between the college sector and the universities contributed to the efficient use of resources and the wide availability of higher education. The review report deplored the quest for status that had overtaken many CAEs suggesting that “Australia will be the poorer if it loses the vitality and the experience that is offered through the separate and balanced development of universities and colleges of advanced education”.15

The Hudson Committee not only recommended that the distinctive roles of universities and CAEs be maintained but also concluded that there was limited potential for further rationalisation of higher education institutions, with most being of a size where most economies of scale had been achieved. Although the recommendation to retain the binary system was overturned by the Commonwealth Minister for Education, John Dawkins, some three years later, many of the Report’s other recommendations had a profound impact on higher education policy thereafter, including capital provision in operating grants, development of institutional research management strategies and a greater focus on measuring institutional performance.

In 1986 the Victorian Government was still strongly committed to the retention of the binary system, with Victoria’s Minister for Education, Ian Cathie, expressing his concern to the Commonwealth Minister about “moves by various States to use the title of university for existing colleges of advanced education” because of the associated “implications for funding, research activities and availability of higher degrees”.16

167 The creation of the mega-Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) by the Hawke Government provided a clear signal of the government’s view about the links between education and the economy and its intention to treat education as a direct instrument of economic and public policy. This was followed by a number of other far-reaching changes in the administration of higher education, most of which served to undermine any residual influence of the States over higher education policy. Toward the end of November 1987 the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, which had advised the Commonwealth regarding tertiary education for the preceding 10 years, was abolished. At the same time the National Board of Employment, Education and Training was set up with its four advisory councils, one of which was the Higher Education Council. Ministerial power over policy formation had became complete and henceforth public servants, many of them with little knowledge of academia except as students, would develop and implement national higher education policy. The Commonwealth’s ability to intervene directly in higher education had almost reached its pinnacle.17

The Dawkins’ Green Paper One month later, in December 1987, the then Commonwealth Minister, John Dawkins, issued a paper entitled Higher Education: A Policy Discussion Paper which quickly became known as the “Green Paper”. Until this time major changes in higher education in Australia had usually resulted from the deliberations of committees which had included prominent academics, academic administrators, and business leaders. Governments then developed policies from the recommendations proposed by these committees. This process had produced the Murray report (1957), the Martin report (1963), and the Williams report (1979). Although this method of policy development was time consuming and the committees were sometimes criticised for being narrow, dominated by men, and usually men whose knowledge of higher education was limited to universities, by and large the process was effective in leading to carefully considered proposals. By contrast the Dawkins’ Green and White Papers were essentially the product of a group of advisers and departmental committees, largely unknown outside government circles, although influenced to some extent by the report of the Hudson Committee on efficiency and effectiveness.18

According to the Green Paper, the Government considered that a significant expansion of higher education was “necessary for a variety of economic and social reasons”.19 Like many subsequent changes made to the education system, the principles driving this restructuring were economic, social and political ones, not educational ones. Both the Dawkins’ Green and White papers were underpinned by a belief that universities and colleges could help make the Australian economy internationally competitive and that if more young people were enabled

168 to participate in tertiary education, this would not only increase the size of the skilled workforce but also spread the benefits of education enjoyed by graduates.

Shortly before the publication of the Green Paper, Dr Campbell convened a Mini-ThinkTank at Victoria College to canvass the possible reorganisation of post-secondary education in Victoria which had been foreshadowed in recent statements by both the Commonwealth Minister of Education and the Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Dr Ron Cullen. The ThinkTank group considered that “Victoria College may seem to be vulnerable to a takeover” and expressed concern that “amalgamations would involve a very wasteful and destructive restructuring of the system”. It concluded by suggesting that the Director should engage other Directors and Vice-Chancellors in informed discussions on the subject and that any approaches from other institutions should be referred to the Director for information.20

Also in November 1987 Dr Campbell prepared a paper for the College Council entitled “The Binary System” which provided an historical perspective as well some comments on likely future developments. The paper is interesting because it provides an insight into how the Director perceived the binary system and the role of Victoria College within it. In addition to the usual characteristics of the binary system, such as providing an educational setting where more attention was directed to teaching vocationally relevant courses, the paper stated that the role of the colleges was: ! to attract students from a less restricted social constituency than universities and thus provide an alternate route to higher education. Specifically to help underachievers at school who had not demonstrated that they were of university calibre [and] those who did not come to higher education straight from school; ! to ensure that full-time sub-degree courses and part-time courses of all types received at least equal attention to that accorded to full-time courses; ! to keep a substantial part of higher education under “social control” and directly responsive to “social” needs; and ! to prevent the total domination of the higher education system by the universities.21 Pointing to the recent transformation of the Western Australian Institute of Technology (WAIT) into Curtin University of Technology and that of the New South Wales Institute of Technology into the University of Technology, Sydney, Dr Campbell observed that it seemed “extremely fashionable at the moment to wish the binary system dead and becoming increasingly fashionable to act as if it were”.22

169 The restructuring of higher education foreshadowed by the Green and White Papers ushered in another period of uncertainty for Australia’s tertiary institutions. When the Green paper was published in 1987 Victoria College had been in existence for not quite six years and had barely completed the integration process forced upon it by the 1981 mergers.

Certainly, the period 1988 to 1991 proved to be a period of extraordinary activity that diverted the attention of Directors and Vice-Chancellors from educational matters within their institutions and into a heavy schedule of discussions and meetings about structural options. For Victoria College the next three years were extremely difficult and frustrating ones because the College felt obliged to resist attempts at dismemberment while negotiating a possible merger on the basis that it was “one unified College and not a federation of campuses”.23 Although the College met the Dawkin’s size criteria of over 5000 EFTSU required for admission to the Unified National System, its Rusden campus was clearly at risk given the principle of physical contiguity of campuses espoused by the White Paper: The Government expects that amalgamation proposals in each State will place contiguous institutions on campuses within a single institution.24

Moreover, the College perceived itself at risk because of the view that appeared to have developed amongst members of the Advanced Education Council that the institutions formed through the 1981 consolidations had not been particularly successful. The Council noted “that the structural changes experienced by those institutions … in the early 1980s have caused problems of adjustment which, although less severe now, are nevertheless still apparent”.25 This view was subsequently echoed by the Chairman of the Advanced Education Advisory Council, Gregor Ramsey, in his role as Chairman of the Task Force on Amalgamations in Higher Education in his comments on Victoria College, however it is unclear what these problems actually were.

Unlike the 1981 mergers when specific institutional consolidations were mandated, early in 1988 the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission distributed a Discussion Paper on possible structures for higher education in Victoria (the Yellow Paper) which contained more than 11 different structural options. These options included a university of technology encompassing Swinburne, Victoria College and Chisholm Institutes as well as several groupings involving Monash University with various combinations of Swinburne, Victoria College and Chisholm Institutes. Discussion of the various options outlined in the Yellow Paper by the Victoria College Council led one Council member to express a feeling of “incredible confusion” over the proposals. “It’s like a game of musical chairs and I find it difficult to get a fix even on the order of magnitude”, he said.26

170 The College Response to the Green Paper In February 1988 the Director’s Group Meeting (DGM – Victoria College’s executive management group) considered the reports from three working parties set up to consider specific areas of the Green Paper together with other responses from Deans/Heads of School, which would form the basis of a formal College response. Many of the issues raised in the papers were astute and prescient. Working Party No 3 noted that while the notion of negotiating educational profiles as a basis for funding “is a good one in principle”, it should be noted that its fundamental purpose was to determine ‘which courses are developed where’. Therefore it can be seen as a control mechanism, rather than a mechanism to increase institutional autonomy, and it will be used to tightly control the direction of the limited educational funds available in the future.27

The Head of School, Teacher Education Secondary, observed that he was not confident that the development of a higher education system to meet the full range of our social, economic and cultural needs was congruent with the system proposed by Minister Dawkins, and that very little, if any, is said in acknowledgment of the social value of education of the non- instrumental variety.28

The response from Dr David Stokes, the Dean of Applied Science at Victoria College, raised questions about the logic contained in the “Green and Yellow Papers”. He noted that one major strategy was the “restructuring of manufacturing industry in Australia” through a workforce with greater technical and scientific skills. However, simply providing more places at five or six new universities will not alter the fact that Applied Science and Engineering places are already under subscribed in many Colleges. Although I do not subscribe to the junior college concept, someone has to seize the opportunity and offer places to students who have done well in non-science subjects at school but want to start science subjects at tertiary level; to students who have done poorly in science at schools but want to continue with science and technology.29

The College Academic Board also convened a meeting of its Advisory Committee on Amalgamations to consider the various options proposed by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission. In a frank exchange of views, each Dean or Head of School discussed the options from the point of view of suitability for his or her faculty or school. The options considered included an Institute of Technology including Swinburne, Victoria College, Chisholm, with Swinburne TAFE and other TAFES; Chisholm and Swinburne; Monash and Victoria College; and Monash, Chisholm and Rusden; a University of Technology comprising Swinburne and the rest of Victoria College.

171 The option that received the most support at this meeting was that of Swinburne Institute of Technology and Victoria College, which was a preferred option for most Faculties. Although the participants also considered various fragmentation models it was agreed that the College would be in a weak position if dismembered and that negotiations should be undertaken on a combined corporate basis in the first instance, even if the transfer of sites needed to be discussed at a later stage.30

The meeting was chaired by Peter Nattrass, the College’s Associate Director of Academic Programs, who recalled later, I was opposed to the amalgamation of colleges and universities. This business of deciding everything was bigger and tacking on to the universities some very ordinary institutions which had a completely different mission – was destructive. Universities have never known what to do about primary education – they could never get their general studies and teaching practice together in any meaningful way. I was a little mollified by the idea of amalgamating with Swinburne. I headed up a committee that met pretty regularly at Swinburne or Burwood with heads of department and various people and we would talk about this and it went along for quite some time. I don’t know whether it was just to exhaust me and mine because finally the Engineering Department of Swinburne put a stop to it and said under no circumstances will we amalgamate with that soft liberal arts lot. So that ended and I was a bit sorry about that.31

Subsequently Victoria College’s response to the Dawkins’ Green Paper was endorsed unanimously by the College Council on 29 March 1988. Council agreed that discussions should continue with other institutions noting the Director’s report that the Council of Swinburne Institute of Technology had indicated that its first preference lay in an association with RMIT/Footscray Institute. The Victoria College response highlighted the important role of the Advanced Education sector, stating that its emphasis on “innovation, vocational preparation, community access and good teaching and learning” should “not be allowed to be submerged by the traditional university ethos”.32 In respect of the consolidation of institutions, the Victoria College response stated that The discussion in the paper on consolidating institutions might have been improved if the authors had consulted with experienced institutions. Consolidation is promoted with the enthusiasm of those who are unfamiliar with either the difficulties of the process or the limitations of the results… Both the Australian and the international experience of mergers in education emphasises the time which must elapse before full effectiveness is achieved because, in education more than most industries, the will and attitudes of the workforce is the primary critical success factor.33

172 Shortly after the publication of the so-called Yellow Paper by the Victorian Post-secondary Education Commission, the Vice-Chancellor of Monash University issued a press release outlining his University’s claim to lead “a federation of Chisholm Institute of Technology, Swinburne Institute of Technology, Victoria College and Monash University”. Concerning the Rusden campus of Victoria College, Professor Logan said that the pressures of economics and location made it inevitable that the amalgamation of Rusden and Monash University should be viewed as a high priority. The preferred option would, of course, involve the rest of Victoria College also becoming part of the new Monash University.34 The future of the Rusden campus, located across the road from Monash University, became a significant issue for Victoria College in subsequent merger discussions, with continuing pressure from the Victorian Government to cede the campus to Monash under the Commonwealth’s contiguity principle.

The Victorian Government formally responded to the Green Paper in May 1988 expressing general support for Commonwealth’s proposal to replace the binary system with a new system as proposed in the Green Paper. Notwithstanding the discussion paper on structural options developed by the Victorian Post Secondary Education Commission (the Yellow Paper), the Victorian Government’s official response expressed strong opposition to “the use of arbitrary size limits” which it stated had already “destabilised the higher education system unnecessarily”.35 Moreover the Commission’s own research into teaching costs which indicated that there were ‘no economies of scale from about 3000 students upwards’ led it to question the assumptions about economies that the Green Paper had suggested would result from institutional amalgamations.36

The Dawkins’ White Paper In the following July the White Paper was released. This paper which described the final form of the reforms and the features of the Unified National System, was distributed widely. The main elements of the Dawkins’ higher education reform agenda outlined in the White Paper have been cogently summarised by Grant Harman as including: (a) Abolition of the so-called binary system with clear differentiation between universities and CAEs and its replacement by a Unified National System (UNS). (b) Consolidation of institutions through amalgamation to reduce the number of separate institutions and to form larger institutions. (c) Substantial increases in enrolments and various efforts to improve student progress rates in order to increase the output of graduates.

173 (d) Increased emphasis on particular fields of study, such as computer science, business studies and engineering, perceived to be critical to economic growth. (e) A more selective approach to research funding, with a greater emphasis on national priorities, and with substantial increases in the total amount of research funds. (f) Changes to the composition of governing bodies to make them more like boards of companies, and strengthening of institutional management, particularly to give greater power to chief executives. (g) Changes in staffing, aimed at increasing the flexibility of institutions and improving staff performance. (h) Changes to achieve increased institutional effectiveness and efficiency, including a further reduction in unit costs per student, improved credit transfer, and rationalisation of external studies. (i) Moving some of the financial burden for higher education to individuals (through a ‘graduate tax’) and the private sector (through a ‘training levy’ on public and private sector major businesses and organisations), and encouraging higher education institutions to generate income to supplement Federal grants. .37

Although many welcomed the anticipated demise of Australia’s binary system, particularly those members of the academic staff in CAEs who had yearned for the professorial titles and other trappings that were believed to come with university status, there were others who were less enthusiastic. The Australian Vice-Chancellors’ committee branded the White Paper as “badly flawed” and universities led by the Chancellor of Sydney University, Sir Hermann Black, expressed concern about the apparently all-powerful role of the Canberra-based Department of Employment, Education and Training and the fear that research directions would become an extension of government policies.38 The Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee quickly produced a document entitled The Nature of a University.39 This emphasised the traditional values of universities and their responsibilities in the area of research, although a more cynical commentator at the time observed that the Vice- Chancellors had made a “hurried genuflection to traditional notions of scholarship before dealing with the real business of bureaucratic turf-protection and empire building.”40

Responding to oft repeated concerns of universities about the proposed changes to research funding arrangements, Dr Colin Campbell as Chairman of the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education, wrote: It is possible to become very tired of the self-interested complaints of certain university academics on the research funds issue… in the past universities have been funded for research as part of their operating grants with few questions asked. Minister Dawkins now proposes

174 that universities and colleges should compete for a small percentage of the total funds available for research and provide information about what they are doing and why.41

The Victorian response to the White Paper The Victorian Government responded to the publication of the White Paper by establishing a Higher Education Consultative Committee to provide advice to the Victorian Minister on proposals for amalgamation, affiliation or change of status. Unlike the forced mergers of 1981, this Victorian Government indicated that it would only consider proposals that had the support of the institutions and key interest groups involved. This was also the line espoused by the Commonwealth Minister.

Initially the proposals to restructure the universities and colleges aroused little protest, either from the public or from college academics and administrators. They did, however, generate a great deal of discussion and prognostication, some of which showed remarkable foresight. Speaking at a seminar entitled “A University System for Victoria” at the Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education in August 1988, Professor Grant Harman observed: in a unified system more places will probably have the label of university. But this presents a major dilemma which people haven’t faced openly. Proper research universities are very expensive operations and society cannot afford to fund every higher education institution as a first class international university. Inevitably, whatever the final shape of the system, devices will be found to ensure that research funds are concentrated in a limited number of institutions.42

At the same seminar, Dr Colin Campbell, Director of Victoria College, noted a number of problems associated with amalgamation, including those created by campuses being isolated from each other and the particular difficulty of achieving effective communication in a multi- campus institution.43 This view was echoed by Professor Grant Harman who commented that there were frequently unanticipated problems with multi-campus systems which are “often more difficult to pull off than people expect”, and such problems would no doubt be exacerbated by the lack of consistency in government policy at federal and state levels. It has been even worse at state level and Victoria is the classic case of inconsistency in higher education policy”.44

Shortly after the release of the Commonwealth’s White Paper, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission released A Higher Education Plan for Victoria: 1989-1991 in August 1988, to “provide a State-wide focus for negotiations” with the Commonwealth. The document identified Victoria’s priorities for development in the period 1989-91, which

175 included stabilising and reducing “the level of unmet demand for higher education places”.45 The Plan was conspicuously silent on the issue of structural changes, noting only that the Victorian Government had established criteria for evaluating structural change in higher education and that a Committee had been established to advise the Government on any proposals.46

Around the same time the Victorian Conference of Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education developed a paper entitled Principles Governing the Association of Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education which was forwarded to Dr Nigel Smart, Secretary of the Higher Education Consultative Committee. This document stated that changes to higher education structures should occur only if they improved “the quality of educational programs and their responsiveness to the needs of the community” and were “agreed between the institutions involved” and had been subject to “broad consultation with all interested groups”.47

Negotiations with Swinburne 1988-1989 Throughout 1988, Victoria College continued to be involved in discussions with various other institutions about future institutional groupings. Consideration of options took place at a number of different levels across the College, with both Council and Academic Board having appointed sub-groups to consider the College’s position and to consult with staff about the implications of these. It was a particularly hectic time for Dr Campbell who had been elected Chairman of the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals of Colleges in Advanced Education in March 1988 and was therefore called upon to speak on behalf of Australia’s 43 colleges of advanced education as well as to advocate for Victoria College as appropriate.

Following several months of discussion, in September 1988 the Councils of Victoria College and Swinburne Institute of Technology announced their intention to merge and form a new university of technology. This led to a burst of intense activity for staff at the two institutions with the formation of an Inter-Institutional Steering Committee to manage the discussions, an Inter-Institutional Consultative Committee to ensure all interested parties were consulted and kept fully informed together with six working parties to provide expert technical advice on a range of issues including human resources, administration and systems and educational profile development.48 Despite the considerable time and effort expended, the proposal encountered serious difficulties in the form of a number of conditions enumerated in a letter from the President of Swinburne’s Council to the Victoria College Council President late in 1988. These conditions included a commitment to a significant reduction in the student load in teacher education, a shift of load to physical sciences and engineering, that the “nursing

176 programs are focussed on technology-based nursing care” and that the new institution should be known as the Swinburne University of Technology.49

Despite the efforts of Victoria College to resolve the differences in views, the Swinburne Council resolved on February 1989 to defer indefinitely any further amalgamation discussions with Victoria College. The Victoria College Council responded by expressing disappointment at the Swinburne Council decision and reiterating its belief that there “would be significant benefits in an amalgamated institution” through the “breadth, diversity and richness of programs” that would be available to students in the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne.50 Perhaps its previous experience in the process of amalgamation explains the apparent flexibility of Victoria College. Swinburne Institute, on the other hand, appears to have developed such a strong sense of its own identity and mission as a technological institution, that it was unable to envisage an alternative future.

The Commonwealth Task Force on Amalgamations and the Walker Plan Notwithstanding Victoria College’s ill-fated merger negotiations with Swinburne Institute, during 1988 many higher education institutions seemed no more willing to enter into mergers than most had been in 1981 and by this time they were also much better informed about the very great difficulties inherent in the process of amalgamation. Consequently, except for a few ‘logical’ consolidations of institutions sharing a common site, such as that been the University of Melbourne and the Melbourne College of Advanced Education, not much happened in Victoria except for considerable discussion. As one former College Director observed later, this period was especially profitable for the restaurant business.51

Thus, no doubt frustrated by such inactivity on the part of universities and colleges, on 10 February 1989 Minister Dawkins announced the establishment of a special Task Force chaired by Gregor Ramsey, former Chairman of the Advanced Education Council, to report on proposed institutional mergers and consider areas where the Commonwealth might assist through the allocation of capital resources or special assistance funds provided through the National Priority (Reserve) Fund.52 Unlike the 1981 round of mergers, in 1988 the Commonwealth seemed to understand that in order to produce the desired economies of scale additional funding would be required to assist merging institutions to undertake the necessary integration of systems and implement communications technologies.

Two weeks after the Commonwealth’s Task Force had been announced, Evan Walker, the Victorian Minister Responsible for Post-Secondary Education, announced a plan to restructure higher education in the State which would significantly reduce the number of

177 higher education institutions. The Victorian (Walker) Plan proposed the formation of a number of new institutions, including one encompassing “Swinburne Institute of Technology, the Burwood and Toorak campuses of Victoria College and Hawthorn Institute” to form a new University of Technology. The Minister’s Statement also suggested that the Prahran campus of Victoria College be transferred to TAFE and the Rusden campus to Monash University. A copy of the Statement was sent to all Vice-Chancellors and College Directors together with an invitation to a meeting on 7 March to discuss the proposals.53

Following meetings with the minister and his advisers Dr Campbell addressed staff at each campus, advising them that the College endorsed the amalgamation of Victoria College, Swinburne and Hawthorn institutes as making educational sense. He also advised that the Minister had been informed that Victoria College was prepared to vacate the Rusden and Prahran campuses if capital resources were provided to enable the transfer and consolidation of programs on alternative sites.54 As previously, Swinburne was intransigent in its approach, advising that it could only consider amalgamation with Victoria College (Burwood and Toorak campuses) and Hawthorn Institute under very stringent criteria which included eliminating all but 10 per cent of teacher education load in the new university. At its meeting on 21 March 1989 the Victoria College Council considered the advice of Swinburne and, perhaps not surprisingly, found the Swinburne conditions “totally unacceptable” and advised the Institute accordingly.55

Shortly afterwards Victoria College held discussions with the Commonwealth’s Special Task Force headed by Gregor Ramsey. These prompted the Director to write to write to John Dawkins the Commonwealth Minister for Employment, Education and Training in April 1989 expressing his concern about a seeming shift in direction by the Task Force and the Victorian Government to a view that The metropolitan multi-campus institutions created in 1981 are necessarily bad and must either be broken up and the campuses redistributed, or consolidated on to fewer campuses. This is especially puzzling when the current thrust is to create more multi-campus institutions.56

These concerns were well-founded. When the Commonwealth’s Task Force released its Report in April 1989, its finding were at odds with the Victorian Government’s proposals, and the Task Force recommended that there should be an urgent review of alternative structures for Swinburne Institute of Technology, Victoria College and Hawthorn Institute. While acknowledging that Swinburne, as a stand alone institution, “may not attract University of Technology status”, the Task Force stated that it saw in Victoria College

178 all of the problems of the multi-campus teacher education institutions formed through 1981-82 round of mergers. It considers that the Rusden campus, which is contiguous with Monash University, should be transferred to Monash. The Toorak campus could be vacated with a substantial portion of the primary teacher education load being transferred to the proposed new University in West Melbourne and any balance transferred to Monash. The art and design component at Prahran campus should be transferred to the VCA and the campus sold to TAFE. That would leave the Burwood campus and the balance of Prahran’s activities (mainly business studies) which could also be transferred to Monash University.57

Victoria College reacted angrily to the report and Dr. Campbell issued a media release entitled “College System Betrayed”. The media release claimed that the DEET Task Force had not only “sold out the college system” but it had also taken “a myopic view of the strengths of the colleges” and its recommendations would increase the activities of the existing universities not just at the expense of the colleges but also to the detriment of students. As for the Task Force’s comments about Victoria College, Dr Campbell stated that Victoria College was a viable and expanding institution with a diverse range of courses and that, “indeed, Victoria College was acknowledged as an example of a successful multi- campus institution in the Dawkin’s Green Paper”.58 He also wrote to John Dawkins, the Commonwealth Minister for Employment, Education and Training on 3 May 1989 expressing the College’s concern about aspects of the Task Force’s report including its “ill-informed and counter-productive” recommendations concerning the multi-campus institutions formed in 1981-82. Moreover, the breaking up of recently amalgamated institutions, in which staff have gone though considerable pain in order to make a new institution under difficult conditions, can only produce cynicism and low morale amongst the staff involved.59

The formal Victorian response to the Task Force Report was contained in a letter dated 17 May 1989 from Evan Walker, Minister Responsible for Post-Secondary Education to John Dawkins which suggested that the report would benefit from more “discussion of academic outcomes which should be seen as key priorities in the current restructuring process”.60 The Minister noted the recommendations of the Task Force for Victoria College, but wrote that he believed that the Task Force under-emphasises the real achievements made by Victoria College in diversifying its programs away from the traditional teacher education areas in recent years. However, Victoria College is interested in pursuing amalgamation discussions with Monash University and Monash has indicated to me that it is prepared to look at options relating to Victoria College.61

179 Minister Dawkins outlined the Government’s decisions regarding the Task Force’s recommendations in a statement to Parliament on 15 June 1989, which delineated the transformation that was occurring in the “landscape of higher education in Australia”. As a result of the restructuring process set in train by the Government, and of decisions made by institutions and State Governments, the “number of institutions will be reduced by half, from the current 72 to around 35”.62 Nevertheless, the Minister continued publicly to deny that the Commonwealth had directed institutions to merge: One last piece of woolly thinking involves the assertion that amalgamations in Australia result from a Commonwealth directive, when in fact, the amalgamations, which are likely to have the most far-reaching effect, were not even dreamt of in Canberra. Where in the White Paper does it say the Sydney CAE should disestablish? Where in the White Paper do we define the future shape of a new university for the west of Melbourne?63

Likewise, the Victorian Government continued to assert that institutions would not be forced to amalgamate. However in October 1989 the Victorian Minister made a speech in which he stated both that Victoria would only support amalgamations or affiliations which had been “agreed by the institutions involved, after broad consultation with interested groups”, but also that As I am sure you are all aware it now appears likely that Victorian higher education will emerge from the process with five universities incorporating the old college system.64 It must have been difficult for institutional staff to conceive how the 20 separate Victorian colleges and universities in 1989 could be reduced to five without amalgamations taking place.

Negotiations with Monash University Following a further meeting with the Minister, on 3 May 1989 Dr Campbell addressed meetings on the Burwood, Toorak and Rusden campuses in which he advised staff that Victoria College had agreed to proceed with amalgamation discussions with Monash University.

He again addressed meetings of staff in September 1989 expressing the College’s frustration at the painfully slow progress that had been made in the merger discussions situation with Monash University, however a letter recently received from the Vice-Chancellor seemed more encouraging. This letter pointed out that although the two institutions had “been under some political pressure” to try and reach an agreement quickly, because of staff unrest about the merger with Chisholm, Monash University believed that it would be “unwise to move too precipitately on the Monash-Victoria College front”. Accordingly, he suggested that a

180 timetable be established to enable “the orderly integration into Monash University of Victoria College” and that discussions should continue.65

The Victoria College Council discussed the letter and other merger matters at its September meeting. The Council President, Mr Hardy, summarised the discussion under four main points: that discussions with Monash should continue; that the College should seek discussions with other institutions; that the College should not disregard the “stand alone option”; and that Victoria College “must enter any agreement as a complete entity and not just some faculties or campuses”.66 In October, the Council issued a Position Statement in which it noted that “discussions to date have been inconclusive” and that the Council was not prepared to compromise the College community by “inappropriate or hasty amalgamation”.67

In January 1990, the Acting Vice-Chancellor of Monash and the Director of Victoria College wrote jointly to the Victorian Minister about his “wish as expressed on various occasions that our two institutions should consider merging”. However the letter indicated that such a merger would “require substantial support from both State and Commonwealth sources” in the order of $40.3 million, comprised of capital works funds ($28.35), correction of under- funding ($7.9 million per annum), funds for infrastructure and voluntary redundancy.68 The Victorian Minister replied, writing that he was “encouraged by your letter of 4 January 1990” and encourage the two institutions to “proceed with a concrete proposal” and suggesting that “$15-$20m would still be available for the needs identified in your letter”.69

The negotiations continued in good faith on the part of Victoria College until some time in early 1990 when the Monash university negotiating team (Professor John Hay, a Deputy Vice-Chancellor at Monash and Peter Wade, the University’s Comptroller) arrived at a meeting in Dr Campbell’s office “minus any papers”. According to Dr Campbell the “conversation wafted all over the place” and the only positive suggestion was that Victoria College might become an affiliated college of Monash. This meeting was a turning point in the discussions with the Victoria College team (the Director, and the Associate Directors) reaching the conclusion that “at this point Monash really weren’t serious about a real merger.”70

Merger with Deakin As noted earlier the Victoria College Council had extensively discussed merger matters at its meeting in September 1989, resolving to seek discussions with other institutions. Subsequently Dr Campbell initiated a number of conversations with the chief executives of several Victorian institutions, including Professor Malcolm Skilbeck the Vice-Chancellor of

181 Deakin University. Initial discussions proved very successful and a working party was established to advise the chief executives about the possibilities of an association between the two institutions.71 Deakin University was concerned about its future as a relatively small institution within the unified national system. As the Vice-Chancellor explained, given the “severe constraints on funded load imposed by Commonwealth policies”, the University would be unable to grow, “to diversify (by internal load shifts) or to achieve economy and flexibility of scale unless, through appropriate merger” it could substantially increase its funded load, staffing levels and budget…[and] would continue to be less than half the size of the next smallest University in Victoria.72

The working party took an optimistic view of the possibilities and on 29 May 1990 a document entitled Deakin University – Victoria College Statement of Vision and Opportunities was signed by Colin Campbell, the Director of Victoria College and Malcolm Skilbeck, Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University. It was distributed to staff of Victoria College along with issue 17 of the Victoria College News on 1 June. The paper outlined the opportunities that might accrue from a “merger between our two institutions” and the “kind of university that could result by combining our resources and talents” It concluded we perceive tangible actual and potential benefits due to a substantially increased range and scale of operations; a strategically located set of campuses; staff with necessary skills, expertise and experience to make a merger work; and an overall level of resources that will greatly strengthen our strategic capabilities.73

This prompted the Vice-Chancellor of Monash University to write the Hon. Mrs Joan Kirner, the Deputy Premier and Minister for education expressing concern about recent reports of a merger between Victoria College and Deakin University and suggesting a meeting to discuss “establishing an affiliation leading to a merger with Victoria College”.74 Mrs Kirner met with Victoria College management in early May 1990 at which she “indicated no particular preference for Monash or Deakin” but did make the observation that the Commonwealth and Victorian governments had “consistently maintained the view that the Rusden Campus would become part of Monash University”.75

Subsequently, Dr G W Beeson, in the position of Acting Director of Victoria College, wrote to the Victorian Minister for Education explaining that the possible merger between Deakin University and Victoria College had been “embraced with support and enthusiasm by staff at both institutions”. The letter stated that concerning Victoria College’s discussions with Monash University,

182 you should be aware that Victoria College has been the principal initiator of contact between the two institutions over the last year. The College has received no significant response to the content of papers it has provided for Monash University’s consideration. On the contrary, the occasional written communications received from Monash University have sometimes been perplexing for their apparent inconsistency with what University representatives have said previously.76

In July 1990 the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission issued a document entitled Options for the development of Victoria College within the Expanding Victorian Higher Education System. This paper was intended to “clarify the structural options being considered by Victoria College” in light of the criteria established by the Victorian Government. The paper concluded that while integration with Monash was considered to have “the greatest educational benefits”, significant benefits would also be derived from a “Deakin-Victoria College integration model with an affiliation with the Victoria University of Technology”.77 Following the paper’s release it was distributed widely on the Victoria College campuses and two meetings chaired by Dr Cullen, Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission. A flurry of correspondence to and from institutions, the Minister, university and college staff unions resulted in “growing politicisation of the debate”.78 Finally, the Commonwealth Minister also entered the debate. In a letter from John Dawkins to his Victorian colleague, the Commonwealth Minister wrote that resolving the future of Victoria College was a major issue in the restructuring of Victoria’s higher education system and that this restructuring was a “high priority to ensure that Victoria is not disadvantaged in the funding allocations for the next triennium”. His letter also reiterated that the Commonwealth saw it “as appropriate for Rusden campus to become part of Monash University” given the concept of contiguous campuses.79

The College was subject to intense political pressure in the lead up to the Special Meeting on 30 August 1990 at which the Victoria College Council considered all relevant information relating to the College’s merger options. This included the results of a confidential staff survey in which a total of 44 per cent of staff eligible to vote did so. Of those who voted: 60 per cent preferred the Deakin option and 31 per cent of staff who voted preferred the Monash option.80 Council agreed to pursue a Deakin merger as its preferred option and established a Joint Council Strategy (Implementation) Committee to assist further discussion with Deakin University. The Committee was comprised of staff, student and management representatives as well as two external members nominated by Council.

183 Although a majority of staff at both Deakin University and Victoria College appear to have favoured the ‘voluntary’ merger, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission continued to oppose the merger on the grounds that it believed that Deakin University should have a regional focus and because of the Commission’s view that the Rusden campus should be transferred to Monash University. No doubt, these political machinations were a source of great frustration and stress to all involved. Dr Campbell continued to insist that Victoria College would consider a transfer of the Rusden facilities to Monash if appropriate relocation funding was provided with the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission and the Commonwealth equally insistent that funding could not be provided. In December the Victorian Minister for Education set a 1 March 1991 deadline for the finalisation of all mergers with a two-year moratorium to follow that date. Deakin’s Vice-Chancellor wrote to the Victorian Minister in January 1991 reaffirming support for the merger with Victoria College and the University’s opposition to the removal of “Rusden programs and personnel and campus” and stating his belief that it would be a tragedy for your vision of five strong universities if the “Rusden factor” were to become the means whereby the Deakin-Victoria College merger is ultimately frustrated.81

In February 1991, Monash University’s Vice-Chancellor advised that he was firmly of the view that it is impossible for Monash to absorb the staff and students of Rusden. In reaching this conclusion we are mindful of the view of Victoria College itself which has consistently opposed such a move. Monash does not wish to be seen as responsible for ‘breaking up’ Victoria College. On the other hand the buildings of the Rusden campus, which shares a common boundary with Monash are particularly attractive to us.82

By mid February the Victorian government’s merger “plan” for Victoria College involved the loss of the Rusden campus, an allocation of $8 million to enable Victoria College to move some or all of the Rusden programs, the loss of the Prahran campus with a move of Fine Art to Arts City (Victorian College of the Arts) and Design to the University of Melbourne. Numerous meetings and representations followed in which the College expressed its unhappiness with such a scheme. In spite of the difficulties, both Deakin and Victoria College continued to support the merger.

The legislation that was put to the Legislative Assembly on 16 May 1991 transferred the Rusden campus to Monash. However by the time the Second Reading debate was resumed in the Assembly, on 4 June 1991, the plan was for the Rusden campus to be retained and to become part of the new Deakin University, for Fine Art to be moved to Arts City and for the

184 Industrial Design group to stay at Prahran, but to be given, together with the Prahran campus, to Swinburne Institute, which would also merge with Prahran TAFE.83 Although mergers were “supposed to be voluntary” and the staff and students of the Industrial Design course sought to remain with Deakin University, the Victorian Government insisted on relocating the course along with the Prahran campus to Swinburne Institute of Technology on 31 December 1991, at the same time as Victoria College ceased to exist as a separate legal entity and became part of the new Deakin University.

1991 – the final days of Victoria College By 1991, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission’s grand plan for five strong universities was a spectacular failure. The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology had exercised the “opt out” clause and withdrawn from the Victoria University of Technology and merger negotiations between La Trobe University and Phillip Institute of Technology had also broken down.

The quasi-voluntary approach to consolidations espoused by the Victorian Government during 1988-1991 not only led to a lengthy period of uncertainty because of the protracted negotiations but also resulted in some unlikely mergers. It may well be that a more sensible result for Victoria might have been obtained if the Victorian Government had mandated mergers as it had in 1981. At least then, however painful the process may have been, the outcomes had a certain geographic and educational logic. No doubt the Victoria –Deakin merger was the most attractive from the College’s perspective. Certainly the two institutions had complementary “cultures” and both chief executive officers were committed to developing the new institution. Given Victoria College’s difficulties in managing four metropolitan campuses, where the greatest distance between these was some 25 kilometres, the problems of managing and integrating a university with six campuses spanning 400 kilometres, the merger does not seem to make a great deal of geographic sense.

Nevertheless, on 31 December 1991, Victoria College became part of the “new Deakin University”. After 10 brief years as Victoria College the institution was no more. In a somewhat poetic irony, Prahran College of TAFE also ceased to exist as an independent institution and again became part of a multi-sector institution.

At the final meeting of the Victoria College Council was held on 3 December 1991, the Council President George Dyer said that although Victoria College may have been one of shortest-lived tertiary institutions, that did not in any way “diminish its importance and contribution”. Commenting on his ten years as chief executive, Dr Campbell said that

185 The position of Director has been at times rewarding and at other times frustrating and difficult [but] it has always been interesting”.84

As the final chapter will contend, Victoria College disappeared along with the binary system because of the convergence of the colleges and universities. The institutional boundaries became too fuzzy to justify their continued existence in separate systems. It is also argued that the growth of a neo-liberal public policy, which led to greater Ministerial control, made a rationalisation of the system inevitable.

186 Chapter 11 Conclusion

Why then did Victoria College disappear? As previous chapters have demonstrated it was, from many points of view, a very successful institution. It achieved the objectives which the Government’s had set for it – it had reduced its teacher education load substantially so that by 1991 only 42 per cent of commencing students were enrolled in education, compared to 69 per cent in 1982. It had diversified its course profile, it offered vocationally relevant education to a growing number of students, most of whom got jobs when they graduated. It did not lack for students and it educated them at much less cost than most other higher education institutions. It added to the diversity of the higher education system through its innovative programs, links to industry and niche courses. After its initially traumatic beginnings, the College had begun to develop a sense of corporate identity and to develop as an integrated multi-campus institution.

However disappear it did. In Victoria, none of the former teachers’ colleges (which became the State College of Victoria colleges) survived the restructuring of higher education that accompanied the introduction of the Unified National System. Indeed, the Western Australian CAE was the only one of the consolidated colleges formed in 1981 to survive the 1987 reforms, redesignated as Edith Cowan University. It appears that the “large multi-campus institutions” came to be perceived, by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission at least, as continuing to experience adjustment problems caused through “one of the most dramatic structural changes in the history of tertiary education in Australia”. Although the Commission noted that these “larger, more diverse” institutions had become a “significant force in advanced education”, its Report for the 1988-90 Triennium seems to imply that because they continued to be major providers of teacher education they were somehow lacking in comparison to the multi-campus institutions which had a “stronger technological emphasis”.1 It is unclear why the Commission formed this view. Perhaps it relates to the fact that education as a subject of study had come to be viewed as somehow less valuable than other academic or occupational areas, presumably because teacher education does not make an immediate contribution to economic wealth creation.

Nevertheless, although Victoria College may have been vulnerable because of its origins as a consolidated college, it is concluded that it eventually disappeared for much the same reasons that led to the dismantling of the binary system. Yet, the binary system itself may be considered a success.

187 The Australian binary system was created for two main purposes: to accommodate demand for places in higher education, and to provide vocationally-oriented and applied programs of study. Judged on its performance in relation to these two criteria, the experiment would have to be rated a success. However, if the system did what was asked of it, why then did it disappear?2

As has already been argued, academic drift and the blurring of sectoral boundaries ultimately led to the Dawkins’ reforms of Australian higher education. However, both the creation and the demise of the binary system also have to do with the development of a mass system of higher education. Neave argues that this phenomenon had two main stages, the first of which began around 1955 and was driven by public investment and social demand. The second stage, which he believes began around 1985, he describes as being resolutely market responsive and financially driven.3

By the mid 1980s policy makers in Australia too had formed the view that the binary system was no longer the most appropriate means for providing a system of mass higher education. However the precise nature of this system rationalisation was shaped by the rise of free market economics as the driving force in public policy. Consequently the reforms not only abolished the binary divide, but also eliminated the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission as an intermediary or buffer agency at the same time as broadening the mandate of the responsible department.

Much has been written about the rise to political pre-eminence of economic rationalism and its effect on the higher education sector.4 From the “Razor Gang” onwards, government policy showed an increasingly simplified view of the ways in which education can contribute to employment growth and a general narrowing of educational objectives. This occurred in spite of the tendency for the supply of graduates to grow faster than demand from the overall labour market, as indicated by falling relative earnings and growing rates of unemployment.

Economic rationalism “defines all human purposes in economic terms”, and according to this view, the main purpose of education is its contribution to national wealth.5 This philosophy lies at the heart of the Green and White Papers. Notwithstanding the rhetoric about improving participation of socially disadvantaged groups, teaching and research in the universities was seen as an integral part of the Government’s plans to restructure the economy and raise growth rates. This, of course, was not a new preoccupation. The pivotal role of higher education as an instrument of national economic development was first articulated in the 1960s by the Martin and Vernon Committees and was a major driver of expansion of higher education in post-war period. 6 However, in the Dawkins’ view of the world any non-economic benefits became

188 subordinate to the economic ones, as can be seen from the fact that graduates soon became “outputs” of the system.

Not only did the rise of economic rationalism mean that the government’s economic and efficiency goals for higher education came to dominate all else, but this approach also altered the relationships between the Commonwealth government, the States and higher education institutions. Consistent with the theories of free market economics, the government increasingly conceptualised its role as a purchaser, on behalf of the tax-paying citizens, of a range of teaching, research and consultancy services.7 “Steering” rather than “rowing” became the order of the day and increasingly the government adopted policies, which it believed would promote efficiency through competition among providers of higher education. Indeed, the “joining of free market economics and managerial corporatism explains why the Dawkins policies were simultaneously both deregulatory and interventionist”.8 But, as we now know, “a national (and global) higher education system modelled as a market game is narrowing rather than broadening the range of identities available” to universities and decreasing institutional diversity.9

In the late 1980s there was strong coercion from the federal government for the creation of larger institutions, although its public pronouncements stated that mergers were to be entered into voluntarily. According to the Green and White Papers, large institutions were stronger, more effective, more responsive and efficient because of economies of scale. Although the Victorian Government also insisted that amalgamations would be voluntary, its policy in 1991 was to combine all institutions within five universities. Financial incentives offered by the Commonwealth government provided “the carrot” for both State governments and institutions to consider amalgamations favourably, although in the case of Victoria College, the threat of dismemberment added further complexity.

Government prevailed and a spate of mergers took place in a relatively short period of time, including that of Victoria College with Deakin University. As Goedegebuure has observed, it is an interesting anomaly that although promoting competition on the one hand and legislating to discourage private sector industry domination through large scale concentration, successive Australian Governments have presided over a higher education system where a few institutions obtained even greater market share. In higher education at least, it appears that bigger remains better and the system remains a “supply oriented system where ‘producers’ determine what is offered”.10

189 The reforms initiated by Minister Dawkins along with the creation of the Unified National System gave Australian higher education a massive thrust in the direction of centralisation. Sadly the promised benefits – “a more effective system of coordination, including reduced overlap and duplication together with economies of scale – have not been realised”.11 What has emerged is a homogenised system, limited in diversity and largely based on the model of the comprehensive and traditional university.

Once the economy became the central preoccupation of government, discussion of social equity, ethics and associated issues all but disappeared from the agenda. Although a number of College Directors, including that of Victoria College, expressed some concern that the abolition of the binary divide might lead to a lack of diversity in higher education, there was surprisingly little debate about the wider philosophy or purpose of higher education and “issues of social equity and the impact on equality of reductions in government activity”.12 The only exception was the Report of Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training which, according to its chairperson, Senator Aulich, had aimed to “create a debate about the fundamentals of higher education” in Australia but, instead, was dismissed by Minister Dawkins as “two years of wasted effort”.13 No doubt the Minister was not impressed by Chapter 1 of the Committee’s Report which claimed that the current debate had focussed on how to structure and control the system at the expense of a much more critical issue: “the quality of the education which students receive – what they learn, how effectively they are taught, and how well they are prepared to live in a world of rapid change”.14

Higher education in Victoria post- 1982. So how did these trends affect the shape of higher education in Victoria and its management? Like its Commonwealth counterpart, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission was abolished at the end of 1991 and coordination of higher education at the State level moved to a division within Victoria’s Department of Education. Although the reforms outlined in both the Green and White Papers outlined mechanisms to facilitate collaboration between the States and the Commonwealth (Joint Planning Committee, Commonwealth/State Consultative Committee) States have been effectively marginalised. Having attended Joint Planning meetings as part of my professional role, I can support the view that such meetings tend to be primarily ones in which the Commonwealth perspective is explained and where there is “little opportunity to help shape outcomes”.15 Moreover direct payments to institutions from the Commonwealth enabled federal authorities to by-pass the states in its administration of the campuses, further entrenching the dominance of the Commonwealth.

190 Increasingly the educational profile, negotiated directly between higher education institutions and the Higher Education Division of the Commonwealth Department, has become the basis for control of universities.

Structurally the changes were even greater. By 1992, the 20 higher education institutions had been reduced to nine, if not to five. As figure 11.1 shows, the distribution of Victorian students by institution in 1992 fell into three general categories – the mega-institutions (Monash and Melbourne), the middle group – La Trobe, RMIT, Deakin (having merged with Victoria College), and the small institutions (Victoria University of Technology, Ballarat and Swinburne).

Figure 11.1. Total Student Load in Victorian Universities 1992

Student load Victoria - 2001

40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

RMIT Deakin Ballarat V.U.T La trobe Monash Swinburne Melbourne

Source Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (1992) Victorian Higher Education Statistics 1992

As the following table shows the composition of the Victorian higher education system in 2001 was similar to that engineered in 1991. Although the overall number of students had increased, the relative size of institutions remained relatively constant, with the University of Ballarat still below the 5000 EFTSU proposed by Dawkins as a minimum size for membership of the UNS.

Table 11.1 Actual Student Load (EFTSU) for all Students by Victorian Institution, 2001 Institution Student load 2001

191 Deakin University 18997 La Trobe University 17647 RMIT University 26054 Monash University 35175 The University of Melbourne 30125 Swinburne University of Technology 9838 University of Ballarat 4455 Victoria University of Technology 13473 Source: Department of Education, Science and Training, Students 2001 Selected Higher Education Statistics, Table 49

However, what is particularly interesting is that despite the relative differences in size between the institutions, the proportion of postgraduate load is between 15-20 per cent, even in the very small institutions, suggesting a continuing focus on research as an indicator of academic status.

Figure 11.2 Proportion of Postgraduate Load (EFTSU) by Victorian Institution, 2001

V.U.T

Ballarat

Melbourne

Swinburne

RMIT

Monash

La Trobe

Deakin

05101520 25 Per cent

Source: Department of Education, Science and Training, Students 2001 Selected Higher Education Statistics, Table 49

Moreover, sub-degree enrolments in universities had virtually disappeared by 2001. According to the Commonwealth Government’s Higher Education Statistics publication for 2001, Associate Degrees and other undergraduate programs accounted for 2 per cent of total EFTSU at Deakin University, 0.8 per cent at Monash University and 2 per cent at the University of Melbourne. Presumably sub-degree courses are now primarily the province of TAFE Institutes, which, in the time honoured tradition of academic drift, are now lobbying for the right to offer degree level courses.

192 The Victoria College legacy One further way of looking at Victoria College’s contribution to higher education in Victoria and to the diversity of higher education programs is to examine which of its courses survived. An analysis of the Deakin University Graduate and Undergraduate Handbooks for 2000 show that many former Victoria College courses are still being offered. In the Faculty of Business and Law, courses in Sports Management, Accounting, Insurance, Finance and Human Resources are still available at the Burwood campus along with the combined degree programs in business and Chinese, business and Arabic, business and Vietnamese (although “business” has now become “commerce”). Museum Studies, Technology Management, Applied Science (Environmental Management), Dance, Drama, Media Arts and Professional Writing also continue to provide students with practical and theoretical skills, though several have become post-graduate qualifications.

Despite widespread protest and, in spite of its distinguished international reputation, the interpreting and translating programs of the former Victoria College were closed in 1998. There is no doubt that these were high cost programs and intake numbers were small because of the high level of bilingual proficiency required to be successful. Nevertheless, it is to be regretted that this State’s ability to produce the professional translators and interpreters who can respond to the equity and access needs of the Australian community has been lost.

In 1995, the pre-registration nursing program at Deakin University was reaccredited as a three- year degree and in 2000, this program was offered at the Warrnambool, Geelong and the Burwood campuses. As the following figure shows the percentage of enrolments in education has been substantially reduced over that in 1991. Although primary and secondary teaching degrees continue to be offered at the Burwood campus, the Victoria College model of an integrated education degree has been replaced by a four year Bachelor of Teaching qualification that is taken in conjunction with a second undergraduate degree, such as Arts, Commerce or Science.

Figure 11.3: Commencing Student load by broad field of study Deakin University, Victoria College 1991 and Deakin University 2001.

193 Sci

Health

Educ

Bus

Arts

Arch

05101520 25 30 35 40 45 %

Vic Coll 1991 Deakin 1991 Vic Coll/Deakin 1991 Deakin 2001

Source: Office of Higher Education Victoria (1991) Victorian Higher Education Statistics – 1991, p.27 and Department of Education, Science and Training, Students 2001 Selected Higher Education Statistics, Table11.

The most obvious change is the reduction in the number of Graduate Diplomas in specialist areas of education that has taken place, although a number of these specialisations appear to have been incorporated as elective units within the coursework Masters of Education program now offered by the University.

The trend that was evident throughout the 1980s whereby institutions shed sub-degree load and increased enrolments in degree and in post-graduate courses has continued. As figure 11.4 shows there are substantially fewer enrolments in sub-degree courses in the new Deakin University than at Victoria College. The number of post-graduate diplomas has also decreased and been offset by an increase in students undertaking Masters programs.

Figure 11.4: Student load by course level, Deakin University 2001

Enrolments Australian students by course level

Other Undergraduate

Degree

Other Post Graduate

Masters

Ph.D

01020304050607080

% Deakin 1991 % Vic Coll 1991 % Deakin 2001

Source: Office of Higher Education Victoria (1991) Victorian Higher Education Statistics – 1991, and Department of Education and Science, Higher Education Student Statistics 2001, Table 29.

194 Further reform of Australian universities - 2003 In spite of the massive company collapses of recent times, the current Australian Government continues to encourage a belief that the corporate sector provides the most appropriate model for higher education in the age of mass tertiary education and neo-liberal economic reform. However, although higher education institutions are now vastly different in both size and purpose from the traditional university ideal, most still continue to “act as if they can still organise their academic activities and manage themselves in the same ways”.16 It is testament to the extraordinary power of the values and traditions of the university that notwithstanding two decades of managerialist rhetoric, these continue to exert such a powerful influence on Australian institutions.

The current dilemma for higher education seems to be the same one that led to the appointment of the Martin Committee over thirty years ago: credentialism and labour market changes and the expense of mass higher education. In the last two decades, the labour market value of the Year 12 as a credential has fundamentally changed. Once an important credential in its own right, it now has little standing, except as a pre-apprenticeship qualification in some occupations.17 A degree and, often, a post-graduate qualification as well, are now deemed essential credentials for gainful employment as a “knowledge worker” in an increasingly competitive and segmented labour market. This has been a major cause of the substantial growth in demand for degree level and post-graduate qualifications that began in the early 1980s. How then is the government to respond to this increasing demand and to provide for the “more and more students requiring proportionately more and more outlay” of public funds?

The response of the current government is to strengthen its attempts to develop a quasi-market culture whereby institutions are encouraged to differentiate their ‘products’, to compete with each other for ‘customers’ and to use industrial relations reforms to move universities away from being a professionally-led education sector to a managerially-led system.18 The new vision for Australia’s universities is built on the four principles of sustainability, quality, equity and diversity and the reforms will “establish a partially deregulated system of higher education” in which individual universities will compete and “the value of their course offerings” will be determined by the market place.19

If the trends of the previous twenty years continue, it is more likely that this approach will lead to a resurgence of the older established universities (known locally as the “GO8”) whose status and prestige owes much to the comparatively (by today’s standards) generous research funding that they received for many years. With the exception of a few niche courses, the older

195 universities have remained the most prestigious institutions, attracting the students with highest academic results to their undergraduate and graduate programs. They continue to attract the largest share of research grants on a competitive basis. Although the former CAEs claimed that restricting research to these institutions was inequitable as well as “resource wasteful”, as events have transpired it may have been preferable to retain a few elite research universities.20 The increasing cost of research probably makes it sensible to confine major effort to a small number of well-resourced institutions.

Although there is no doubt that teaching should be informed by research, research should not be confused with scholarship. Of course, it is incumbent upon all academics to stay at the forefront of their discipline but the vast explosion of knowledge in the last twenty years has also led to increasing narrowness of academic specialisation. As such it is difficult to see how the vast bulk of undergraduate teaching will be enhanced other than by the scholarship of individual academics and the relevance of the course materials provided. It is unlikely that narrow or specialised research findings will be critical in informing most teaching of undergraduate curricula in the 21st century.

It was probably short sighted to have abolished the binary system, both in Australia and in Britain. Recent events in the United Kingdom suggest that many of the new universities formed from polytechnics when the British binary system was dismantled, may now have to expand their provision of two-year, non-honours degrees in order to survive.21 Indeed as Bruce Williams has observed the Californians were wise to adopt their Master Plan of 1960 which guaranteed universal access to higher education to all high school graduates, and created a system of clear differentiation of functions among the various institutions of higher education, and to sustain that Master Plan.22

Notwithstanding the sectoral blurring that occurred, the former Australian CAEs, including Victoria College, did have a clear role within the higher education system.. Victoria College, along with other CAEs, provided a range of new teaching courses to meet the needs of students and the emerging professions, it developed flexible degree structures, and took seriously its obligations to groups which had been under-represented in higher education. In short, the diversity of higher education in Australia was much enhanced by colleges such as Victoria College.

196 197

End Notes Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Grant Harman (1992) “The Forgotten CAEs”, Education Alternatives, April 1992 pp2-3. 2 The 26 Victorian institutions funded by the Commonwealth Government in 1980 were The University of Melbourne, Monash University, La Trobe University and Deakin University together with the following colleges of advanced education: SCV Burwood; SCV Coburg; SCV Frankston; SCV Hawthorn; SCV Institute of Catholic Education; SCV Institute of Early Childhood Development; SCV Melbourne; SCV Rusden; SCV Toorak; Ballarat College of Advanced Education; Bendigo College of Advanced Education; Caulfield Institute of Technology; Footscray Institute of Technology; Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education; Lincoln Institute; Prahran College of Advanced Education; Preston Institute of Technology; Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; Swinburne Institute of Technology; The Victorian College of the Arts; Victorian College of Pharmacy; and the Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education.

The compulsory amalgamations in 1981 reduced the number of Victorian colleges of advanced education from 22 to 16. This was effected by the merger of SCV Burwood, SCV Rusden, SCV Toorak and Prahran College of Advanced Education to form Victoria College, a new multi-disciplinary college of advanced education eventually to be located on three campuses; the amalgamation of SCV Coburg with Preston Institute of Technology to form Phillip Institute of Technology; the merger of SCV Melbourne and SCV IECD to form Melbourne CAE; and the merger of SCV Frankston with Caulfield Institute of Technology to form Chisholm Institute of Technology.

The eight universities in Victoria in 2003 are Deakin University, La Trobe University, Monash University, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Swinburne University of Technology, University of Ballarat, The University of Melbourne, and Victoria University of Technology.

3 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, (1981) Report for 1982-84 Triennium. Volume 2, Part 2: Advice of Councils, Australian Government Publishing Service. 4 Between the Censuses of 1947 and 1976 Australia’s population increased by 6.34 million. Net immigration and children born to migrants accounted for approximately three fifths of the national population growth in this period. Boehm, E.A. (1979) Twentieth Century Economic Development in Australia, Second Edition, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne Australia, p.54 5 A R Hall (1965) “Supply and Demand” in E L Wheelwright (Ed) Higher Education in Australia, F W Cheshire, Melbourne p.64 6 Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia, (1964) Tertiary Education in Australia: Report to the Australian Universities Commission (Martin Report), Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra, p.11 (1.40)

198

7 In universities the annual growth rate between 1957 and 1975 was 5 per cent or more in every year except two, and for nine individual years it was 8 per cent or more and participation rates of young people aged between 17 and 22 years in colleges of advanced education grew from 5.9 per cent in 1971 to 10.2 per cent in 1978. Harman, G et al (1980) Academia Becalmed: Australian Tertiary Education in the Aftermath of Expansion, Australian National University Press, Canberra, p5-6 8 Following representations by University Vice-Chancellors about the growing financial difficulties confronting Australian universities, R. G. Menzies, then the Australian Prime Minister, commissioned a report on tertiary education from Sir Keith Murray, who was head of the Universities Grants Commission in Britain. His 1957 report (Report of the Committee on Australian Universities) found that Australian universities had been seriously under-provided and recommended the formation of the Australian Universities Commission (based on the British model) to make recommendations to the Commonwealth Government about university finance and development. 9 Australian Universities Commission, Letter from Prime Minister to Chairman, quoted in Susan Davies, (1981) Establishing the Martin Committee; A Study of the Setting-up of the Committee and its Preliminary Discussions, Thesis, M.Ed. Monash University, p. 51 10 In many respects the views of the Committee reflected the views prevailing in the academic community at the time, such as those of Professor P.H. Partridge, Director of the Research School of Social Sciences, ANU: It is now a widely-accepted article of faith that everyone who can profit from a period of advanced education should be given the opportunity to have it, and that it is an obligation of governments to ensure that the facilities are available. The second and perhaps even more influential piece of social doctrine supporting the present trend of policy is the economic argument... It is argued that modern industrial economies will increasingly require a rapidly- growing body of men educated in the sciences and technologies, and a constantly-expanding output of research; and they will also require a more highly educated population generally, since only a well-educated people has the adaptability and flexibility demanded in an economy characterised by incessant innovation.” Partridge, P.H. (1965) “Tertiary Education - Society and the Future” (p.5) in Wilkes, J (Ed.) Tertiary Education in Australia”, Australian Institute of Political Science (Proceedings of 31st Summer School), Angus and Robertson, Melbourne. 11 Martin Report op cit 1(v) p.1 12 Ibid 2.61, p.36 13 Ibid 6.20, p.175 14 Ibid 6.2. p.171 15 As Minister in charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research, Senator John Gorton was responsible for formulating the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Martin Committee. He devised the term ‘college of advanced education’ to describe what the Martin Committee had referred to as technical or ‘tertiary’ colleges.

199

16 E Gross and J S Western (Eds) (1981) The End of a Golden Age: Higher Education in a Steady State, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane. 17 Peter Karmel (1980) “Tertiary Education in a Steady State” in Harman, G et al (1980) Academia Becalmed: Australian Tertiary Education in the Aftermath of Expansion, Australian National University Press, Canberra, p.27. 18 Commission on Advanced Education (1975) Fourth Report on Advanced Education, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. p.27 19 Ibid p.27 20 Tertiary Education Commission (1978) Report for 1979-81 Triennium Volume 1 Recommendations and Guidelines, February 1978, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Appendix D Tertiary Education Commission Guidelines for 1978-80 Rolling Triennium [p.163] 21 Ibid p.163 22 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, (1981) Report for the 1982-84 Triennium, Volume 2, Part 2, Advice of Councils, p.145. 23. Ibid p.145 24 Australian Universities Commission, Letter from Prime Minister to Chairman, quoted in Susan Davies, (1981) op.cit, p. 50-51 25 Dr Colin Campbell, Director, quoted in Vicco Echo – News Sheet of Victoria College, March 4, 1982, p.4 26 Information supplied by Dr Graham Allen, former Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, in interview 9 April 1999. 27 The researcher gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Deakin University in providing access to the Victoria College Archives and to the Education History Unit of the Victorian Department of Education for facilitating access to files from the Public Records Office.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

1 Susan Davies (1989) The Martin Committee and the Binary Policy of Higher Education in Australia, Ashwood House, Melbourne 2 John Pratt, (1997) The Polytechnic Experiment 1965-1992, The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press: Buckingham. 3 F. Van Vught (1996) “Isomorphism in Higher Education? Towards a Theory of Differentiation and Diversity in Higher Education Systems.” in L Meek, L Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen & R. Rinne (eds) The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education, Pergamon, Oxford, p.42. 4 Martin Trow (1995) quoted in V Lynn Meek, Leo Goedegeburre, Jeroen Huisman (2000) “Editorial” Higher Education Policy (13), p.3

200

5 V Lynn Meek, & Fiona Wood, (1997) Higher Education Governance and Management: An Australian Study, AGPS, Canberra 6 Martin Report, (19640 op.cit. 1 (vii), p.1 7 Van Vught (1996) op. cit. p.45 8 Goedegebuure et al (1994) Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), Pergamon Press, Oxford, p.316 9 R. Birnbaum, (1983) Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 10 J Maling and B Keepes (1998) “The Australian Higher Education System – Diversity: Sought or Neglected?” in V. Lynn Meek and Fiona Q. Wood (eds) Managing Higher Education Diversity in a Climate of Public Sector Reform, Evaluations and Investigations Program, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra, p. 30 11 V L Meek et al (1996) “Conclusion” in V. L Meek, L Goedegebuure, O Kivinen & R. Rinne (eds) The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education, Pergamon, Oxford, p.219 12 Burton R Clark (1996) “Diversification of Higher Education: Viability and Change” in V. L Meek, L Goedegebuure, O Kivinen & R. Rinne (eds) The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education, Pergamon, Oxford, p.17 13 Ibid p.24 14 Van Vught (1996) op.cit. p.56 15 Treyvaud and McLaren (1976) Equal but Cheaper: The Development of Australian Colleges of Advanced Education, Melbourne University Press, Carlton. p19 16 V. L. Meek and A. O’Neill (1996) “The Australian unified national system of higher education” in L Meek, L Goedegebuure, O Kivinen & R. Rinne (eds) The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education, Pergamon, Oxford, p.76 17 Goedegebuure et al (1994) Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), Pergamon Press, Oxford, p.318 18 Ibid 19 Ibid p.319 20Ibid 21 D S Anderson, and A. Vervoorn, (1983) Access to Privilege, ANU Press, Canberra. 22 Meek (2000) op cit p. 36 23 See for example Marginson, S. (1993) Education and Public Policy in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne; Marshall, N and Walsh, C (Eds) (1992) Federalism and Public Policy: The Governance and Funding of Australian Higher Education, Federalism Research Centre, Australian National University, Canberra; Meek, V Lynn (2000) “Diversity and marketisation of higher education: incompatible concepts?” in Higher Education Policy (13): 23-39; Meek, V Lynn & Wood, Fiona (1997) Higher Education Governance and Management: An Australian Study, AGPS, Canberra; V. Lynn Meek and Fiona Q. Wood (1998) (eds) Managing Higher Education Diversity in a Climate of

201

Public Sector Reform, Evaluations and Investigations Program, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra. 24 V L Meek at al “Conclusion” in V. L Meek, L Goedegebuure, O Kivinen & R. Rinne (eds) The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education, Pergamon, Oxford, p.234 25 Trow, M. (1984) “The Analysis of Status” in B. R. Clark (ed.), Perspectives on Higher Education, University of California Press, Berkeley, p.132 26 Goedegebuure et al (1994) op cit p.319 27 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1977) Australia: Transition from School to Work or Further Study, Paris, p.58 28V L Meek et al (1996) op.cit. p.222 29 Susan Davies (1989) The Martin Committee and the Binary Policy of Higher Education in Australia, Ashwood House, Melbourne, p.47 30Ibid, p.128 31 See for example, Grant Harman and C. Selby Smith (eds.) (1972) Australian Higher Education: Problems of a Developing System; Angus & Robertson, Sydney; Harman, Grant (1991) “Institutional Amalgamations and Abolition of the Binary System in Australia under John Dawkins”, Higher Education Quarterly, 45 (2), 176-198; Anwyl, J.E and Harman, G.S., (1984) Setting the Agenda for Australian Tertiary Education: Planning Mechanisms, Policy Issues and Government Guidelines for the 1985-87 Triennium, Parkville: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne; Harman, G.S., Miller, A.H., Bennett, D.J. and Anderson, B.I. (Eds.) (1980) Academia Becalmed: Australian Tertiary Education in the Aftermath of Expansion, Australian National University Press, Canberra; Karmel, P (1990) Reflection on a Revolution: Australian Higher Education in 1989, AVCC Papers: No 1., Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, Canberra; Meek, V Lynn (1990) “The rise and fall of the binary policy of higher education in Australia”, J. Education Policy, Vol.5, No.3: 282-292; V. Lynn Meek and G Harman (Eds) (1993) The Binary Experiment for Higher Education: An Australian Perspective, University of New England, Armidale. 32 Meek at al (1996) op. cit, p.222 33 Peter Karmel (1984) op.cit p.174 34 Meek at al (1996) op. cit., p.223 35 Advanced Education Council (1982) Future Perspectives for Advanced Education: A Discussion Paper, Canberra, pp. 122-123 36 Meek et al (1996) op. cit. p.223 37. Meek and A. O’Neill (1996) op. cit, p.66 38 V. Lynn Meek and Fiona Q Wood (1998) Managing Higher Education Diversity in a Climate of Public Sector Reform, p.93. 39 39 Goedegebuure et al (1994) Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), Pergamon Press, Oxford, p.327

202

40 Peter Maassen and Frans van Vught “Alternative Models of Governmental Steering in Higher Education” in Goedegebuure, Leo and Frans van Vught (eds) (1994) Comparative Policy Studies in Higher Education, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), Utrecht, p.37. 41 Meek & Wood (1997) Higher Education Governance and Management: An Australian Study, AGPS, Canberra, p.25 42 See for example Grant Harman, David Beswick and Hilary Schofield, (1985) The Amalgamation of Colleges of Advanced Education at Ballarat and Bendigo, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, the University of Melbourne, Parkville; Harman and Meek (eds) (1988) Institutional Amalgamations in Higher Education: Process and Outcomes in Five Countries, Department of Administrative And Higher Education Studies, University of New England; Goedebuure (1992) Mergers in higher education: a comparative perspective, Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), Utrecht. 43 Harman, Grant (1988) “Studying Mergers” in Harman, G and Meek, V Lynn (Eds) Institutional Amalgamations in Higher Education: Process and Outcomes in Five Countries, Department of Administrative And Higher Education Studies, University of New England, p.2 44 Ibid: p.5. Harman proposes the following Classificatory System for Amalgamations in Australian Tertiary Education. i)Involuntary Amalgamations: (a) Consolidations within the Same Sector; (b) Acquisitions within the Same Sector; (c) Acquisitions across Sectors; and (ii)Voluntary Amalgamations: (a) Consolidations within the Same Sector; (b) Acquisitions within the Same Sector; (c) Acquisitions across Sectors; (d) Consolidations across Sectors. 45 F.R. Jevons, (1981) “Amalgamation: The Deakin Experience” in Anwyl, J E and Harman, G S (Eds) A Time of Troubles: Proceedings of a National Conference on Australian Tertiary Education and the 1982-84 Triennium, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville. 46 Grant Harman, David Beswick, Hilary Schofield (1985), The Amalgamation of Colleges of Advanced Education at Ballarat and Bendigo, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville. 47 Ibid. 48 John Anwyl (1981) “Introduction” in Anwyl and Harman (1981), op.cit p. 24 49 Harman and Meek, (1988) op.cit 50 Koder & McLintock (1988) “Sydney CAE” in Harman and Meek (Eds) (1988) op.cit pp 133-144 51 Ibid p.156 52 Malcolm Abbott (1996) “Victoria College and the Changing Nature of the Advanced Education Sector”, Forum of Education, 51,2 pp 74-85 53 Gregor Ramsey (1988) “The New Challenge for Higher Education: Growth, Increased outputs and New Directions” in Harman and Meek (Eds) (1988) op.cit. p.83 54 Ibid 55 John Dawkins (1987) Higher Education: A Policy Discussion Paper, p 3 (Green Paper) 56 Goedegebuure (1992), op.cit. p.222 57 Ibid

203

58 Clark Kerr (1971) “Forward”, in Eugene C Lee and Frank M. Bowen, The Multicampus University, A Study of Academic Governance, New York, McGraw Hill. 59 Eugene C Lee and Frank M. Bowen, The Multicampus University, A Study of Academic Governance, New York, McGraw Hill, p. 68 60 V Lynn Meek (1991) “The transformation of Australian higher education from binary to unitary” in Higher Education, 21: 485 61 V Lynn Meek (1992) “The Management of Multicampus Institutions: some conceptual issues in historical and social context”, Journal of Tertiary Education Administration, 14 (1) p. 25.

Chapter 3 Historical Overview

1 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1991) Alternatives to Universities, OECD, Paris, p.12 2 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1974) Towards Mass Higher Education; Issues and Dilemmas, Conference on Future Structures of Post-Secondary Education, Paris, 26-29 June, 1973), OECD, Paris. 3 OECD (1991) op.cit. p.12 4 Susan Davies (1989) op. cit. p. 14. 5 Martin Report op cit p.182 6 Martin Report op cit p.123 7 Susan Davies (1989), op. cit 8 Martin Report op cit p.153 9 Susan Davies (1989) op cit 10 The DOCIT group comprised the New South Wales Institute of Technology, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, the Caulfield Institute of Technology, the Swinburne College of Technology, the Western Australian Institute of Technology, the Queensland Institute of Technology, the South Australian Institute of Technology and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. 11 The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (1979), Volume 1, pp.229-232 (The Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training established in 1976 under the Chairmanship of Professor Bruce Williams.) 12 Craney and O’Donnell (1983) “Women in Advanced Education Advancement for Whom?”, Higher Education Research and Development, 2,2 p. 135 13 Treyvaud and McLaren (1976) Equal but Cheaper: The Development of Australian Colleges of Advanced Education, p19 14 Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts (1972) Report on the Commonwealth’s Role in Teacher Education, Commonwealth Government Printing Office, Canberra, p (x)

204

15 G. S. Harman and C. Selby Smith (1972) Australian Higher Education: Problems of a developing system, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, p.xvii. 16The Wark Reports. The Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education (CACAE) was established in 1965 under the chairmanship of Dr (later Sir) Ian Wark, within the Department of Education and Science, to advise the government on the implementation of the recommendations of the Martin report, and in particular on the funds needed for the maintenance and development of colleges of advanced education. The reports of the committee emphasised the vocational functions of the colleges. Wiltshire Report: The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Awards in Colleges of Advanced Education, under the chairmanship of Mr. F M. Wiltshire, recommended a uniform pattern of nomenclature for Australian colleges and suggested that a national body be set up by co-operation between commonwealth and state governments. The report classified courses according to their depth and breadth of study and their standards of entrance and completion. It recommended the award of bachelor’s degrees for undergraduate courses of at least three years which required study in depth (UG1) and diploma awards (UG2) for courses requiring a broader range of study or the development of a particular skill. It also recommended two classes of post-graduate award, one for high level studies or Masters (PG1) and one for shorter courses introducing new knowledge or extending undergraduate work, Graduate Diplomas (PG2). 17 P.H. Partridge (1972) “the Future of Higher Education: Problems and Perspectives” in G. S. Harman and C. Selby Smith (eds.) op. cit., p. 175 18 U. Teichler, (1988) Changing Patterns of the Higher Education System: The Experience of Three Decades, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, p.65 19 P.H. Partridge (1972) “the Future of Higher Education: Problems and Perspectives” in G. S. Harman and C. Selby Smith (eds.) op. cit., p. 184 20 L J Blake (Ed) Vision and Realisation, p.392, p. 547 Primary Enrolment 1955-72 and Number of Teachers Employed 1955-1970 Government Schools; p. 548 Secondary Enrolments. Year Primary Primary Teachers Year Primary Primary Teachers Enrolment Enrolment 1955 246,719 8505 1969 360,943 16,648 1960 295,006 10,621 1970 364,068 17,658 1964 317,893 13,376 1972 374,988

21 David Meredith and Barrie Dyster (1999) Australia in the Global Economy: Continuity and Change, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne. p.205 22 Bessant and Spaull (1976) The Politics of Schooling, Pitman, Carlton. p.80 23 As the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Post-Secondary Education in Victoria (1978), chaired by Professor P H Partridge, noted, retention to year 12 in Victorian schools had risen from 30 per cent in 1962 to 45 per cent less than a decade later. The Tertiary Education Commission Report for 1979-81

205

Triennium Volume 1 Recommendations and Guidelines, p.35 Table 3.5 showed retention rates to final year of schooling rising from 23.8 in 1967 to 33.8 in 1977 24 The colleges were established or re-opened in the following order: the original Melbourne Teachers College 1900; Bendigo re-opened 1945; Ballarat re-opened 1946; Geelong, Secondary (Melbourne), and Larnook (Domestic Arts) 1950; Toorak 1951; Technical 1952; Burwood, ‘Glendonald’ 1954; Coburg, Frankston, 1959, Monash 1961. W Eunson “The Education and Supply of Teachers”, Vision and Realisation: A Centenary History of State Education in Victoria, Vol.1, L.J.Blake (Ed.), Education Department Melbourne, 1973, pp. 909-913 Numbers also include the Melbourne Kindergarten Teachers College which began life as a Training Centre established by the Free Kindergarten Union of Victoria (FKUV) in 1917. The FKUV moved the training centre to Kew in 1922 and in 1964 it was granted autonomy and became the Kindergarten Teachers’ College. In 1973 it became the SCV Institute of Early Childhood Development but was “consolidated” with SCV Melbourne during the 1981 merger. 25 Ramsay Report, 1963, p.vi. Throughout this thesis the report will be referred to as the Ramsay Report; its full title is The development of tertiary education in Victoria, 1963-1972. 26 Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia (Martin Committee), Tertiary Education in Australia 1964-65, Report to the Australian Universities Commission, Letter of Transmittal 27 Andrew Bain (1971) The Martin Report and Its Implementation, Unpublished B.A. Honours thesis, Australian National University. p.36 28 Louis Matheson, Vice-Chancellor of Monash University was a member of the Ramsay Committee, which had strongly opposed the idea that the technical colleges should award degrees and he was subsequently very critical of the Victoria Institute of Colleges. Graham John Woods, Rhetoric and Reality: Unintended Outcomes in the Evolution of the Victoria Institute of Colleges, Unpublished Ph.D thesis, 1978, La Trobe University, p.74 29 Andrew Bain op cit p.37 30 Victoria Institute of Colleges Act 1965, S.26 (1) (a) 31 Ibid 32 The appointment of Dr Law was recorded in the Victoria Institute of Colleges, Report of the Interim Council for 1965, p.6. 33 Enrolments in V.I.C. Institutions 1965- 1976 Year 1965 1969 1971 1973 1975 1976 Total Enrolments 9,672 19,001 22,604 25,908 30,822 33,681 Enrolments in SCV Colleges1965- 1976 Year 1965 1969 1971 1973 1975 1976 Total Enrolments 4,606 6,750 7,758 10,442 14,312 15,109 Source Partridge Report, op cit, Chapter 3, p.4 34 Sir Robert Menzies (Prime Minister), “Tertiary Education in Australia”, House of Representatives, Hansard, 24 March, 1965, pp269-70.

206

35 Interview with Phillip Law 31 May 1976 quoted in Graham Woods, Rhetoric and Reality: Unintended Outcomes in the Evolution of the Victoria Institute of Colleges, op cit. P179 36 David Riesman, (1958) Constraint and variety in American Education, Doubleday, New York. The concept of “academic drift” originally described the tendency of less prestigious higher education institutions to copy the role of more prestigious organisations, causing a system to converge towards one organisational model. In Australia the concept has been applied to the tendency of all higher education institutions to adopt the structural model and philosophy of the traditional universities. 37 Carol O’Donnell (1985) ) “The Relationship between Social Class, Labour Market Segmentation and Education Credentials” in Melbourne Studies in Education, Melbourne University Press p. 155 38 Report of the Inquiry into Salaries of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers in Colleges of Advanced Education (conducted by Justice C.A. Sweeney), Government Printer, Canberra, May 1969. (Justice Sweeney was Deputy President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.) The Sweeney Report recommended that college staff should be paid on the same scales as university staff and that placement of staff on the new scales and progress through them should not be automatic, but should depend on satisfactory performance. The report also detailed the kinds of duties and qualifications it expected of staff at various levels, placing emphasis on industrial experience and liaison as well as scholarship. 39 Address to the Engineers’ Section of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures and Metal Industries Association of Victoria, cited in Graham Woods, Rhetoric and Reality: Unintended Outcomes in the Evolution of the Victoria Institute of Colleges op.cit. p.165 40 Andrew Bain op cit p.43 41 See Commonwealth of Australia, Colleges of Advanced Education 1967-1969, First report of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education (Wark report), Canberra, 1968, pp.22-24; Australian Conference of Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education (1977) Submission to the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, pp.12-22. 42 Peter Karmel, (1984) “The Context of the Reorganisation of Tertiary Education in Australia – A National Perspective”, Melbourne Studies in Education, Melbourne University Press. 43 Treyvaud and McLaren (1976) op. cit. pp.14-18 44 Information obtained during interview with John Scutt, 6 June 2000, See Appendix 1. 45 Treyvaud and McLaren (1976) op cit p.18-19 46 Letter and submission from Vice-President SCV to Mr L Senior, Teacher Education Inquiry, October 29, 1979, p.3. Private papers of Dr N G Curry. 47 Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia (Martin Committee), op. cit vol.1, p.103 48 L J Blake (Ed.) (1973) Vision and Realisation: A Centenary History of State Education in Victoria, op.cit. p.62 49 Information provided by Dr Graham Allen during interview on 9th April 1999. 50 Feodora Fomin et.al. (1986) Co-ordination and control: Victorian teacher education 1970-1982 p.15. 51 Ibid pp. 14-16

207

52 In setting up the State College of Victoria some rationalisation of teachers’ colleges occurred so that the 15 colleges operating in 1972 were reduced to 11 under the SCV structure. For example Larnook Teachers College became part of SCV Rusden, as did Glendonald School for the Deaf, prior to its incorporation into SCV Burwood as part of the newly established Institute of Special Education. 53 Commission on Advanced Education, Fourth Report, 1976-78, p.55 54 Gough Whitlam (1985) The Whitlam Government 1972-1975, Viking, Melbourne, p.315 55 Feodora Fomin et al. (1986) op.cit. pp.17-20 56Letter from Vice President SCV to Mr L Senior, SCV submission to the Teacher Education Inquiry, p.4. Private Papers of Dr Norman Curry. 57 Government of Victoria (1978) Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Post-Secondary Education (Partridge Committee) p.2 58 The Committee membership was: Emeritus Professor P H Partridge (Chairman), formerly of the Australian National University and the Universities Commission; Professor A S Buchanan, Deputy- Chairman of the Minister’s Advisory Council on Tertiary Education; Mr F H Brooks, former Director- General of Education, Victoria; Mrs P M Hallenstein, former member of the Fourth University Committee, Victoria; Sir Louis Matheson, former Vice-Chancellor of Monash University; Mr S F Newman, Managing Director of Engineering Products and Chairman of the State Council on Technical Education; Mr T B Swanson, former Chairman of the Commission of Advanced Education 59 Partridge Report, op cit p.2 60 Dr Graham Allen. (1979) “The Thoughts of Chairman Allen”, College News, March 26, p. 19-21. 61 Ibid 62 Michael Kingsley Selway was appointed Secretary of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission in 1979. 63 Information provided by Mr Des Taylor, during an interview on 22 Feb 1999. See Appendix 1. 64 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, The Co-ordination of Advanced Education in Victoria: A Report to the Minister of Education, Melbourne, June 1979, p.1 65 Ibid p.2 66 Ibid p.4 67 Ibid p.6 68 Fomin et al, (1986) op.cit. pp. 25-26

Chapter 4. Creating Victoria College – the economic and fiscal context

1 Anwyl and Harman (1981) A Time of Troubles: Proceedings of a National Conference on Australian Tertiary Education and the 1982-84 Triennium,

2 Ministerial Statement on Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education by the Minister of Educational Services, 5 May, 1981, Parliamentary Debates 1980-1981, Vol. 358, pp.8146-8156

208

3 Dr H.C. (Nugget) Coombs came from a relatively poor family and gained his first tertiary qualification at Claremont Teachers Training College. He later supplemented his scholarship to the London School of Economics through casual primary teaching in London. 4 Advanced Education Council (1982) Future Perspectives for Advanced Education: A Discussion Paper, Canberra, p. 33 5 Enrolments in Teachers’ Colleges in Victoria rose from 6 552 in 1965 to 15 555 in 1973. Polesel and Teese (1998) p. 46 6 Gerald Burke, Manpower Forecasting for Teachers: Performance and Problems, p.16-17

7 Education Department of Victoria, Annual Report 1977/78, Government Printer, Melbourne, p.53.

8 Ibid p.55. In 1975-1976, the last full-year of the program’s operation, the Victorian Education Department awarded 4,479 of these training allowances..

9 Private Papers of Dr N Curry: Letter to Dr. H S Houston, Chairman, Advanced Education Council, from Vice-President, State College of Victoria, dated 27 April 1979: “You will know that for many years there has been a strong desire on the part of most SCV Colleges to undertake work in courses other than teacher education, not just to compensate for declining enrolments in that area, but to make use of the knowledge and expertise of existing staff for which there is real demand”. 10 VPSEC Meeting papers, VPRS8531/P1, Unit 4 Agenda Item 9.1 Meeting 81/1. 11 Tertiary Education Commission (1978) Report for 1979-81 Triennium Volume 2: Recommendations for 1979, Appendix A Guidelines for Education Commissions 1979-81 Statement by Senator the Hon J L Carrick, Minister for Education 9 June 1978, AGPS, Canberra, pp73-78 12 David Meredith and Barrie Dyster, (1999) Australia in the Global Economy, op.cit pp243-246. 13 Tertiary Education Commission Report for 1979-81 Triennium, Volume 1, Recommendations and Guidelines, February 1978, p.36

14 Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (1979) Education, Training and Employment: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, Volume 3 Summary, p.22 15 Mary Beno The Media Campaign on the Oversupply of Teachers Victoria 1979-81, Minor Thesis, M.Ed. by coursework, University of Melbourne, 1985.

16 Commonwealth Record, 20-26 August 1979, p.1181, copy contained in VPRS8536/P1, Unit 24.

17 The Australian 23/3/1979 quoted in Mary Beno, op.cit.

18 Alan Davidson, “The Attack on Higher Education”, quoted in VIC College News, volume 1, no. 2., October 10, 1978, pp28-31. 19 The Age 12/2/1979 quoted in Mary Beno, op.cit.

20 CASA, (1982) College Education: The Victorian Cutbacks, p. 2

21 Interview with Dr Norman Curry, 30 May 2000.

209

22 Tertiary Education Commission, Working Paper on the Supply and Demand for New Teacher Graduates in the 1980, October 1979, copy with VPSEC Commission papers, Meeting No. 79/14, Agenda item 2.3, VPRS 8531/P1 Unit 1.

23 In a letter dated 6 April 1969 thanking Dr Gerald Burke for the copy of his article about the difficulties of making accurate forecasts on supply and demand for teachers, Dr Allen foreshadowed that VPSEC was planning to establish a Working Party on this issue and invited Dr Burke to become a member. VPRS 8536/P1 Unit 67.

24 Tertiary Education Commission Report for 1979-81 Triennium, Volume 1 Recommendations and Guidelines, February 1978, p.48

25 State College of Victoria, Submission to Advanced Education Council, 1978-1980 Triennium, 4.1.3.

26 Memorandum to Principals of all SCV Constituent Colleges from SCV Vice-President November 30, 1979, Private papers of Dr N Curry

27 Student load in pre-service education courses decreased from 13,021 in 1978 to 11,723 in 1979 whilst load in post-experience courses rose from 3010 to 3,750 over the same period. See The Tertiary Education Commission Report for 1982-84 Triennium, Volume 1, Part 3, pp.71-77

28 Ibid

29 Tertiary Education Commission Report for 1979-81 Appendix C Advice of the Advanced Education Council in vol 2 1979-81, p.140

30 Letter to Dr G J Allen, Chairman, VPSEC, December 19 1979. Private papers of Dr N Curry

31 “I am pleased that consideration will be given to the views expressed by the [SCV] Senate during continuing discussion on the 1982-84 triennium. I realise that the continued existence of the State College of Victoria presents something of a difficulty when a new coordinating authority exists in the form of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission.” Letter from Dr N Curry, SCV Vice President to Dr H S Houston, Chairman, Advanced Education Council, 30 June 1980. Private papers of Dr N Curry

32 VPRS 8536/P1 Unit 101, Correspondence to Chairman, VPSEC from L Hennessy, First Assistant Commissioner, Tertiary Education Commission, Record of Tertiary Education Commission /State Consultative meeting No. 1, pp 4-11

33 Ibid pp6-7

34 Interview by author with M K Selway, 10 August, 2002.

35 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Advice to the Advanced Education Council, May 1980, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 2.

36 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Agenda Item 9.1 Meeting 81/1, VPRS8531/P1, Unit 4

210

37 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Meeting 80/6, Agenda Item 11.1 1982-84 Triennium VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 3. 38 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Meeting 80/6, Agenda Item 11.1 1982-84 Triennium VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 3. 39 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Meeting 80/10 10 September, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 4. 40 VPSEC Meeting 80/12, Agenda Item 7.2, Letter from Dr N Curry and Dr C Campbell to Chairman VPSEC, 24 October 1980, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 4. 41 VPSEC Meeting 80/10 Agenda Item 7.14: Submissions Received by the Minister of Education and the Commission Since Formulation of the Commission’s Proposals for the 1982-84 Triennium, VPRS8531/P1, Unit 3.

42 The VPSEC proposals were that SCV Melbourne and SCV Coburg should consolidate their teaching activities; that the Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences should partly relocate to the campus of the SCV Melbourne; that Prahran College of Advanced Education and SCV Toorak should enter an arrangement to maximise the use of capital and staff resources; and that the future of SCV Frankston was to be the subject of a special inquiry.

43 Tertiary Education Commission, Report for 1982-84 Triennium, Advice of the Advanced Education Council, Volume1, Part3, February 1981, pp154-159.

44 VPSEC, Annual Report 1980-1981, p. 19

45 Ibid, p.20

46 Response to Volume 1 of the Tertiary Education Commission’s Report for 1982-84 Triennium – Student Load and Arrangements amongst Colleges of Advanced Education, VPSEC Meeting 81/5, Agenda Item 8.1, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 5.

47 Ibid

48 Ibid

49 Summary of a Report and Recommendations to the Minister of Education about Relationships among a number of Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education, VPSEC Meeting 81/5, 16 April, 1981, Agenda Item 8.5, VPRS8531/P1, Unit 5.

50 Ibid. The other recommendations involved the amalgamation of the Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences, SCV Coburg and SCV Melbourne and the dissolution of the Council of SCV Frankston and integration with Caulfield Institute of Technology.

51 Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, H of R, Vol. 122, 30 April, 1981, Ministerial Statement, Review of Commonwealth Functions, p.1831.

52 Ibid p.1835

53 The Age, 27/5/1981, p.15

211

54 Mr N Lacy, Minister of Educational Services, Ministerial Statement: Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education, Parliamentary Debates, 1980\81, Vol. 358, pp.8146-8156.

55 Ibid 56 VPSEC, Annual Report 1980-1981, p.2

57 The word ‘Commonwealth” was now to be included in the title of the Schools Commission and the Tertiary Education Commission, signifying a more active policy role by the Commonwealth in both these authorities.

58 VPSEC, Annual Report 1980-1981, p.2

59 BC 199/81, VPSEC Commission Meeting 81/14, Agenda Item 4.2., VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 7. 60 Ibid 61 Peter Karmel, (1984) “The Context of the Reorganization of Tertiary Education in Australia – A National Perspective”, Melbourne Studies in Education, Melbourne University Press. 62 Interview by author of M K Selway on 10 August, 2002. 63 VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 276. Letter to Chairman, VPSEC from Mr V Majzner, Prahran Faculty of Art and Design, 21/04/1983

Chapter 5 The Amalgamating Institutions and the Planning Process

1 Interview with Mr A J P Nattrass, 21 August 2002 2 Guy Neave (1991) On Bodies Vile and Bodies Beautiful: The Role of ‘Buffer’ Institutions between Universities and States, Keynote Address to the 5th International Conference on Higher Education, Edinburgh, 30 August – 1 September 1991, p.4. 3 Neil Marshall (1992) “Intergovernmental Relations in Australian Higher Education: A Critique” in Marshall N and Walsh C (Eds)Federalism and Public Policy: The Governance and Funding of Australian Higher Education, p. 46 4 Ibid p.1835

5 The Australian Higher Education Supplement, 3 June 1981, p.10

6 Report of Meeting with Chairman of the Advanced Education Council in Canberra on Friday 19 December 1980, VPSEC Commission Meeting 81/1, Agenda Item 5.5. (12 February 1981), VPRS8531/P1, Unit 4

7 Commission Meeting, 81/5 on Thursday 16 April 1981, Agenda Item 8.1 Response to Volume 1 of TEC Report for 1982-84 Triennium, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 5.

8 Interview with Dr Colin Campbell, 19 February 1999

9 Minutes of Council Meeting of SCV Rusden 4/81, 15 April 1981. DUA, Series 459, Box 6.

212

10 Interview with Mr Des Taylor 22 Feb 1999

11 SCV Toorak Meeting of Council 5/81, Deakin University Archives, Series 24, Box 7, Council Minutes 1981-83 SCV Toorak. 12 C88/57, 361, Minutes of Council of SCV Burwood, Meeting 4/81, 27 May 1981, DUA, Series 26, Box 4,

13 Steer Sheet, Edition 10, 28 May 1981, Report on the Special Meeting of Council, p.5

14 Ibid

15 Rusden Broadsheet, No. 29/81, p.2, DUA, Series 176, Box 1, Item 4.

16 DUA, Planning Committee for Amalgamation of Victoria College, Series 122, Box 1, Letter included as PC/81/01 with papers of Meeting 1.

17 Ibid PC/81/03 18 Aide Memoire – Meeting of Four Principals with Alan Patching on 21.5.1981, DUA 371/1 – Principals’ Committee. 19 Notes of Meeting 25 May 1981 at Toorak and covering letter from Alan Gregory to Paul Wisch dated 26 May, DUA 371/1 – Principals’ Committee. 20 Interview with Dr. G J Allen on 9 April 1999. 21 Notes of Meeting Held at PCAE on 16 June 1981, DUA 371/1 – Principals’ Committee 22 Notes of Meeting Held at PCAE on 19 June 1981, DUA 371/1 – Principals’ Committee 23 Notes of a Meeting of Principals at SCV Toorak on Tuesday 7 July, DUA 371/1 – Principals’ Committee 24 Interview with A J P Nattrass 21 August 2002 25 Letter from Dr Norman Curry, 14 August 2003, in the possession of the author.

26 The accredited members were: Mr H P Weber, CBE; Mr J I Richardson, MP; Dr C Campbell; Dr N G Curry; Mr A Dunbar; Miss K Gardiner; Mr D Gibb; Mr P Hardie; Mr P Isaacson; Mr D Juler; Mr A Maher; Mr A J P Nattrass; Mr J O Parker; Mr C Thompson; Mr L A Wilson; Dr P J Wisch.

27 Mr Weber’s involvement with education, and especially tertiary education, spanned the 20 years prior to 1981. It began with an invitation to join what was to become one of the precursors to the Tertiary Education Commission and the Advanced Education Council – the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, the CACAE. Dr Ian Wark, a former head of CSIRO, was asked to set up the CACAE to implement the recommendations of the Martin report, aimed at updating the then technical college system. He was also a member of the first Council of the Victorian Institute of Colleges. Herman Weber is a chemical engineer. He won a scholarship to Melbourne University (“my parents could never have afforded to educate me”) and excelled in both Chemistry and Engineering. He took a Master’s degree in Science, because Chemical Engineering was not at that time available, but in due course he was entitled to call himself chemical engineer by becoming a Fellow of the Institution of Chemical Engineers. Following his graduation, he first went to the Shell Company and

213 then joined Monsanto Chemicals at a time when that company was breaking new ground in Australia. Source: Victoria College News Sheet, Issue No. 20, June 10, 1982 pp3-4.

28 The terms of reference for the Planning Committee were

1. By August 31 1981 to advise the Minister concerning 1.1.1. the constitution of the new college 1.1.2. its objects, powers and functions 1.1.3. the membership of its governing council 1.1.4. the proposed name 1.1.5. any legal steps, including legislative change that may be required. 2. To consult with Councils and to advise the Minister following examination of the means by which the activities of the components of the new college can be co-ordinated encompassing 2.1.1. the sharing of resources including physical facilities and staff 2.1.2. the development of effective administrative procedures during the transition period 2.1.3. consideration of intakes into existing and new courses of study 2.1.4. which campuses will offer particular courses of study 2.1.5. the co-ordination of staffing arrangements 3. To form such sub-committees, working-parties and obtain advice as may be deemed necessary to achieve its objectives. 29 Rusden Broadsheet, op cit, 22/81, p.5 Deakin University Archives Series 176, Box 1, Item 4

30 Rusden Broadsheet, op cit., 30/81 5th August 1981 31 Interview with Peter Nattrass 21 August 2002

32 Interview with Dr Colin Campbell. 19 February 1999 33 Interview with Associate Professor Don Gibb on 7 October 2002 (See Appendix 1). 34 Interview with Dr G W Beeson on 11 December 2002.

35 DUA, Planning Committee for Amalgamation of Victoria College, Series 122, Box 1, PC/81/10

36 These colleges were Bendigo College of Advanced Education, Caulfield Institute of Technology, Footscray Institute of Technology, Prahran College of Advanced Education, Preston Institute of Technology, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Swinburne Institute of Technology, and Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education.

37 On 1 July 1983 the TAFE Board was established as a statutory authority assisted in planning by regional TAFE Boards. TAFE College Councils have similar responsibilities to those of Councils of colleges of advanced education with an overarching duty to manage and control the activities of each College. By the middle of the 1980s six of the eight multi-level institutions had lost their TAFE sectors, which became stand-alone TAFE colleges. Only Swinburne and RMIT retained their TAFE sectors and this may have had something to do with their company structure.

38Commonwealth of Australia, Education, Training and Employment: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, Volume 1, p.325, February 1979.

214

39 DUA Series 122, Box 1, Planning Committee for the Amalgamation of Victoria College, Minutes of Meeting 6/81

40 Victorian Post-secondary Education Commission Policy on Multi-Level Tertiary Institutions, VPSEC Meeting 81/6 Agenda Item 4.1 document dated 5/5/81, VPRS 8531/P1 Unit 6

41 Report of the TAFE/Advanced Education Interface Committee meeting held on 29 May 1981, VPSEC Commissioners Meeting 81/7, Agenda Item 8.4. VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 6.

42 BC 157/81, Meeting 81/13 agenda item 6.2 re: Multi Sector Tertiary Institutions, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 7 43 Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, Varieties of Learning: The Interface Between Higher education and Vocational Education and Training, pp.28-29

44 Burwood State College Minutes of Council Meeting 6/81, DUA Series 26, Box 4, Copy of Minutes of SCV Burwood Planning and Development Committee Meeting 5/81.

45 DUA, Series 122, Box 1, PC/81/10, Planning Committee for Amalgamation of Victoria College, Minutes of Meeting 13/81, p 721.

46 Toorak Council Meeting No 8/81 21 September, Series 24, Box 7. 47 DUA Series 532, Box 11, Prahran CAE Council Meetings, Council Meeting 7/81, 23 September 1981, Paper C81/156

48 DUA, Series 122, Box 1, PC/81/10, Minutes of Planning Committee for Amalgamation of Victoria College, Meeting 18/81, p 778. 49 Interview Dr C Campbell, 19 February 1999. 50 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Background Paper on Planning for 1980-90 Triennium, Attachment A to letter to Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission from Gregor Ramsey, Chairman, Advanced Education Council, VPRS 8536,P1, Unit 282, File 14/1/1. 51 Steer Sheet, News Sheet of Prahran College of Advanced Education, Edition no. 10, 28 May 1981: 2.

52 Op cit PC/81/18

53 Ibid

54 DUA, Series 122, Box 1, Planning Committee for Amalgamation. 55 E J Barker, Director Ballarat College of Advanced Education, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 55. Similar letters from G R Bail, Principal, State College of Victoria at Hawthorn, M Hopper, Director, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, and D A Roach, Principal, Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education 56 Steer Sheet, News Sheet of Prahran College of Advanced Education, Edition no. 20, 15 October 1981: 1. 57 PC/81/30, DUA 122/1, pp459-60 58 The Academic Planning Group consisted of John Milton-Smith as Chairman, Pat Reynolds, Ben Roenfeldt, David Stokes, John Lawry, Margaret Pawsey, Alan Trethewey and Dick Wittman.

215

59 The members of the Business Managers Committee were Keith Edwards, John Regan, Geoff Easton and Ray Rhiem 60 The members of the Registrarial Services Committee were Michael Carter, Ian Dunlop, Lyle Cullen, Des Taylor and Laurie Bell. 61 Margaret Broadhead, Chris Awcock, Gesa Kosa and Donald Schauder were the members of the Chief Librarians Committee. Members of the Educational Technology Committee were Max Robinson, Ed Brumby, A Millar and D Harrison.

62 VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 7, Attachment 17 to BC124/81, meeting 81/11 agenda item 2, Letter from four Principals dated 22 July 1981 63 .BC111/81, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 7, VPSEC Meeting 81/11, Agenda item 2, Attachment 2 64 The Age, 4 August 1981, DUA Series 122, Box 1, Planning Committee for Amalgamation 65 BC167/81, unit 7 Meeting 81/13 Report of Meeting of Chairman of VPSEC and Mr P Thwaites with the Minister of Education on Tuesday 25 August 1981, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 7 66 DUA, Series 122, Box 1, PC/81/50 Planning Committee for Amalgamation 67 Letter to Dr G Allen, Chairman, Victorian Post-secondary Education Commission from B Rechter, Director, Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences, 12 November, 1981, Attachment to BC18/83, Commission Meeting 82/2, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 11 68 Grant Harman (1978) “Institutional Autonomy in Higher Education: The Case of Australian Colleges of Advanced Education”, Melbourne Studies in Education, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, p. 207 69 Interview with Dr C Campbell 19 February 1999 70 DUA 122/2, PC/81/44, Minutes of Planning Committee 13/81 71 DUA 122/2, Minutes of Planning Committee 13/81, p. 723

72 Ibid 73 Confidential Notes of Meeting 8.30am Friday 5 June, DUA 371/3, Principals Committee. 74 Position of Principal Designate, DUA 371/3, Principals Committee 75 Letter from Dr Paul Wisch to the Honourable A J Hunt, MLC, Minister of Education, dated 30 September 1981, DUA 371/2, Principals Committee 76 “Proposed Victoria College”: Meeting of Chairmen of Existing Institution with Minister 8 October 1981, DUA 371/3: Meetings of Principals. 77 Mr Laurie Wilson was the Acting Chairman of the Council of the State College of Victoria at Burwood, Hugh Rogers having stood down due to conflicts of interest with his role as a VPSEC Commissioner. 78 DUA 122/2, Minutes of Planning Committee Meeting 16/81 79 DUA, Series 122, Box 2, Minutes of Meeting 16/81 80 Interview with Colin Campbell, 19 February 1999 81 DUA, Series 122, Box 2, Individual papers.

216

82 On 29 September the Committee accepted the recommendations from the Principals’ Committee (PC/81/51) for the introduction in 1982 of five Graduate Diplomas – Physical and Earth Sciences, Primary School Curriculum: Mathematics, Primary School Curriculum: Physical Education, Corporate Risk and Computer Education – together with a B.Bus (Credit Management) and B.A. (Multidisciplinary: Mandarin/Indonesian.).

Chapter 6 Integrating and managing a merged institution

1 An Order-in-Council is sub-ordinate legislation that is approved by the Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the relevant Minister. It is therefore much easier to enact or to repeal than an Act of Parliament. 2 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (1984) Report to the Minister of Education by the Working Party to Review the Membership of Councils and Subcommittees of Councils in Colleges of Advanced Education, Hawthorn, p.4. 3 Ibid, pp.4 -11. 4 Victoria College News (1982), Issue 2, p.11 5 Ibid p.29 6 Victoria College News, Issue 4, pp 2-3 7 Interview with Dr C Campbell, 19 February 1999. 8 Ibid 9 Clark Kerr (1971); p xiii 10 Interview with Dr C Campbell op cit 11 Notes of meeting of principals, Friday June 5 1981 at Burwood State College, DUA 371/3, Principals Committee. 12 Interview with Dr C Campbell, op cit 13 Victoria College – Functions and Possible Structures, 11 December 1981, DUA 371/1, Principals Committee. 14 DUA 371/1 Principals Committee, Notes from Staff Meeting Sponsored by Academic Task Force Representatives, 15.12.1981. 15 Ibid 16 Millet, J D, 1975, Mergers in Higher Education: An Analysis of Ten Case Studies, Washington, quoted in Leo C Goedegebuure et al (1991) “The Australian Higher Education System in Transition,” paper presented at the 13th International EAIR Forum September 1-4, 1991, Edinburgh. 17 G. W, Beeson (1986) Amalgamation Strategies: Experience from Victoria College, Paper presented at Special Conference on Institutional Amalgamations in Tertiary education, Armidale, NSW., 9-11 February 1986. 18 Memorandum on Organisational Structure from C Campbell, Principal to Chairman, SARP, dated 24 July 1984, DUA 93/023, Box 21, Item 86: Senior Administrative Review Panel. 19 Victoria College News Sheet, Issue no, 11, April 22, 1982: 1.

217

20 Harman and Meek (1998b) Institutional Amalgamations in Higher Education: Process and Outcomes in Five Countries, Department of Administrative And Higher Education Studies, University of New England. 21 Victoria College, First Annual Report:14 22 Victoria College First Annual Report 1982: 14-15 23 Koder & McLintock (1988) “Sydney CAE” in Harman and Meek (Eds) Institutional Amalgamations in Higher Education pp 133-144 24 Review of Administrative Structure, 22 October 1982, Draft No.1, DUA 93/023, Box 21, Item 86: Senior Administrative Review Panel 25Rob Pledger (1985) An Investigation into the Organisational Factors Affecting Mental and Physical Well-Being of Students and Staff at Victoria College Rusden Campus, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Registry Copy, File No. 12/6/24, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 276 26 Ibid 27 Victoria College: Review of Administrative Structure 1984, Report and Recommendations, DUA 93/023, Box 21, Item 86: Senior Administrative Review Panel 28 Ibid 29 Interview with Dr G Beeson on11 December 2002. 30 Victoria College Council Minutes 1982, DUA Series 25, Box 1, Meeting 6/82, Item VC/82/96 Functions and Future Directions of Victoria College. 31 The Deans of Faculties were as follows: Dean of Applied Science: D M Stokes, B.Sc., Ph.D., Dip.Ed. (Melb), based at the Rusden Campus; Dean of Art and Design: N R Baggaley, M.Sc. in Ed. (Art/Higher Ed.) (Illinois), N.D.D. (U.K), A.R.D. (Liv), based at the Prahran Campus; Dean of Arts and Head of Campus Toorak: J M Hearn, M.A., Ph.D. (Melbourne); Dean of Business: J Milton-Smith, B.A. (Hons) (Sydney), M.A. (Monash), Ph.D. (Cantab), F.I.B.A., A.F.A.I.M., based at the Prahran Campus; Dean of Special Education and Paramedical Studies: S H Haskell, M.A., Ph.D (London), F.B.Ps.S, based at the Burwood Campus; Dean of Teacher Education: A R Trethewey, B.A., M.Ed. (Melb), T.P.T.C., M.A.C.E., based at the Toorak Campus. 32 Head, School of Primary Teacher Education: R E Wittman, M.A., B.Ed., (Melb), T.P.T.C., M.A.C.E., based at the Burwood Campus; Head, School of Secondary Teacher Education: J R Lawry, B.A.(Hons), B.Ed.(Melb), Ph.D. (Monash), M.A.C.E, based at the Rusden Campus. 33 Interview with Dr C Campbell, 19 February 1999 34 Interview with Don Gibb 7 October 2002 35 Peter Maassen and Frans van Vught “Alternative Models of Governmental Steering in Higher Education” in Goedegebuure, Leo and Frans van Vught (eds) (1994) Comparative Policy Studies in Higher Education, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), Utrecht, p.37. 36 Clark, B R., (1983) The Higher Education System, University of California Press, Berkley, pp 266- 267. 37 Harman, Beswick and Schofield, 1985; Harman and Meek (eds) 1988; Goedebuure (1992); Eastman and Lang (2001).

218

38 G. W. Beeson (1986) op. cit. 39 Interview with Dr Campbell 19 February 1999. 40 Rob Pledger (1985) An Investigation into the Organisational Factors Affecting Mental and Physical Well-Being of Students and Staff at Victoria College Rusden Campus, Appendix II, Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission Registry Copy, File No. 12/6/24, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 276 41 PAG Meetings 1982 -Victoria College – Position Statement on Campus Usage, April 1982, DUA Series 68, Box 1, 42 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Meeting 83/5, Attachment to BC 91/83 (Letter from Vic Majzner dated 21 April 1983 to Dr G Allen), VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 12 43 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Commission meeting 83/5 on Tuesday 7 June 1983, BC 91/83, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 12 44 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Meeting No. 83/10, BC 179/83, Agenda Item 5.1 VPRS8531/P1, Unit 14. 45 Ibid 46 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Meeting No. 83/5, BC 91/83, Agenda Item 6.1, VPRS8531/P1, Unit 12. 47 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Minutes of Meeting 84/5 held on 2 July 1984, VPRS8531/P1, Unit 14, 48 Victoria College News Sheet, Issue No, 23, 16 August 1985, p. 1. 49 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Minutes of Meeting 85/4 on Tuesday 18 June 1985 Transfer of Burwood High School to Victoria College, VPRS 8532/P1, Unit 3 50 Interview with Des Taylor 22 February 1999. 51 Goedebuure (1992) Mergers in higher education: a comparative perspective, Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), Utrecht, p.209 52 Atkinson and Matthews, (1982) Victoria College – Into the Future: Concerns and Expectations of the Staff of Victoria College at its Inception, Clayton. 53 “Rationalisation and Consolidation of Institutions of Higher Education”, Conference of Chairmen of Post-Secondary Education Coordinating Authorities, 18 May 1982, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 239. 54 Dr Robin Matthews, President Academic Staff Association, First Annual Report 1982 55 G.W. Beeson (1986) op. cit. p.11 56 Ibid 57 Dr Robin Matthews, op. cit. 58 Chris Quinn, President, VCSA Coordinating Committee, First Annual Report 1982 59 Ibid 60 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Consultation between Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission and Victoria College, Meeting 85/9, Report Item 4.1, VPRS 8531/ P1, Unit 19, Volume 31. 61 Victoria College News Sheet, Issue No. 1 p. 1

219

62 Victoria College News Sheet, Volume 3, No. 35, 18 November 1988, p.1. 63 Victoria College News Sheet, Issue No.3, p. 1 64 Interview with Mr A J P Nattrass, 21 August 2002. 65 Victoria College, Letter to Mr L A Wilson, President of Council from M. Mirsky dated 12 December 1984, p.25, DUA 784/1, Item 8: Director, Academic Programs and Deans, 1984. 66 Interview with Dr C Campbell 19 February 1999. 67Victoria College News Sheet, Issue No. 4:, p.1 68 Koder & McLintock (1988) “Sydney CAE” in Harman and Meek (Eds) Institutional Amalgamations in Higher Education pp 133-144 69 V Lynn Meek (1992) op cit. 70 Victoria College Council Minutes 1982, DUA Series 25, Box 1, Meeting 6/82, Item VC/82/96 Functions and Future Directions of Victoria College. 71 Letter to Mr L A Wilson, President of Council from M. Mirsky dated 12 December 1984, p.24, DUA 784/1, Item 8: Director, Academic Programs and Deans, 1984. 72 Victoria College Directorate of Academic Programs: Response to the Hulls-Mellor Report – Academic Considerations, DGM 71/85, DUA Series 69, Box 1, DGM 1985/1986 73 Victoria College: Submission to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Review of its own operations and relationship with institutions, November 1982. Attachment 7 to BC 19/83, VPSEC Board Papers: Accreditation, , VPRS 8531/P1 Unit 11 74 DGM 1985-1986, Victoria College, Response to Hulls Mellor Report, Confidential Draft No 2, PAG 44/85, DUA Series 69, Box 1 75 Victoria College Seventh Annual Report 1988, Director’s Report, p.4 76 Meek and Goedegebuure (1989) Higher Education: A Report, Department of Administrative and Higher Education Studies, University of New England. 77 John Dawkins (1988) Higher Education: A policy statement [White Paper], AGPS, Canberra, p.101 78 Professorial appointments were as follows: Professor Norman R Baggaley -Visual Arts; Professor Simon H Haskell - Special Education; Professor William S Logan – Geography; Professor Darrell Mahoney – Business; Professor Marita P McCabe – Psychology; Professor David M Stokes – Applied Science; Professor David J Symington – Education; Professor M Joanne Wilkinson – Nursing. In addition the following individuals were appointed as Associate Professor: John Atkinson; David Clift; Ian Dickson; Adolfo Gentile; Donald Gibb; Alan Hope; Noel Hutchinson; Lin-nei Li; Majory- Dore Martin; Maxwell Robinson; Geoffrey Shaw; John Smart; Bridget Taylor; Barbara van Ernst; Stanislas Marcus van Hooft and Geoffrey Wescott.

Chapter 7 Funding Cuts

1 Gregor Ramsey (1988) “The New Challenge for Higher Education: Growth, Increased outputs and New Directions” in Harman and Meek (Eds) (1988) op.cit. p.83

220

2 Council of Academic Staff Associations (CASA) (1982) College Education: The Victorian Cutbacks, CASA, North Melbourne. The comparable EFTS reduction for Melbourne CAE was $322 or -6.9%) p.23 3 Ibid p.23 4 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, “Rationalisation and Consolidation of Institutions of Higher Education”, Conference of Chairmen of Post-Secondary Education Coordinating Authorities, 18 May 1982, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 239 5 Victoria College First Annual Report 1982: 17; Victoria College Second Annual Report 1983: 23 6 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File: 14/1/24: Victoria College, VPRS8536/P1, Unit 292 7 Interview with Dr C Campbell 19 February 1999 8 Victoria College Second Annual Report 1983: 3 9 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Meeting No. 84/5, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 16. 10 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1984) Report for the 1985-87 Triennium, Volume 1, Part 4, p.137 11 Ibid p. 138 12 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, BC 78/84, Meeting No. 84/5, Agenda Item 7.1., VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 16. 13 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Meeting No. 84/5, Agenda Item 3., VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 16. 14 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, BC 81/84, Attachment 9 Meeting No. 84/6, Agenda Item 5.1., VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 16. 15 Ibid Attachment 9 to BC 81/84. 16 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Submission to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Recommendations for the 1985-1987 Triennium: 142 17 Neil Marshall, (1990) “End of an Era: the collapse of the ‘buffer’ approach to the governance of Australian tertiary education”, Higher Education 19 p.150. 18 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, BC 102/84, Meeting No. 84/7, Agenda Item 5.1., VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 17, Volume 26. 19 Ibid, Attachment 5 20 VPSEC based its reduction of funding to RMIT on the fact that although RMIT indicated its willingness to increase intake in the 1984 Participation Program within available funds, it actually reduced its student load and intake in 1984 on 1983 by 231 EFTS with an increase in funds of $1,246,000. Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, BC 102/84, Meeting No. 84/7, Agenda Item 5.1, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 17, Volume 26. 21 Ibid Attachment 6 22 Ibid 23 Ibid

221

24 Advanced Education Council (1982) Future Perspectives for Advanced Education: A Discussion Paper, Canberra, pp. 120-121 25 Neil Marshall (1990) “End of an era: the collapse of the “buffer” approach to the governance of Australian tertiary education”, Higher Education 19, p.163 26 Ibid, Attachment 31 27 Letter from Ken Lomax, Rusden Student Union Board to Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission dated October 4, 1984, VPRS 8536/1, Unit 276, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File 12/06/024, Victoria College 28 Ibid, Attachment 24 29 Ibid, Attachments 21, 22, 23 and 24. 30 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Supplementary Submission to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for 1986-87, February 1985. 31 Dr Alan Hulls , formerly Associate Director at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and Dr Warren Mellor, senior lecturer in Educational Administration at Monash University, worked with a Steering Committee comprising members of the College staff and Council, namely Laurie Wilson (chairman), Colin Campbell, Des Taylor, Peter Nattrass, Jack Hardie, Nell Cooper, Barry Brazier, Chris Quin, Helen Tierney with Michael Carter as Secretary. 32 C A Hulls & W L Mellor (1985), p.57 33 Ibid p. 59). 34 Ibid. p.(i ) 35 Letter to Ian Cathie dated 3 May 1985, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File 14/1/24, Triennial Planning – Victoria College, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 292 36 Officers of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission had given verbal assurances that some additional funding would be provided. Information supplied by Mr Des Taylor, interview 5 May, 2000. 37 Letter to Dr G J Allen, Chairman, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, from Dr C Campbell, dated 17 September 1985, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File 14/1/24, Triennial Planning – Victoria College, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 292 38 Victoria College Directorate of Academic Programs: Response to the Hulls-Mellor Report – Academic Considerations, DGM 71/85, DUA Series 69, Box 1, DGM 1985/1986 39 Letter to Dr C Campbell from Dr G Ramsey, Chairman, Advanced Education Council, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File 14/1/1, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 282. 40 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Distribution of Recurrent Funds and Student Load 1986, File 14/1/1, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 282. 41 Letter to Hugh Hudson, Chairman, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission from G J Allen, Chairman, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, File 14/1/1/, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 282.

222

42 Letter to Dr G J Allen, Chairman, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, from Dr Gregor Ramsey, Chairman, Advanced Education Council, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File 14/1/1, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 282. 43 Victoria College (1986) Submission on 1988-1990, DUA 90/085, Box 25, Item 250 Triennial Submissions 44 Ibid: 12 45 Letter to Dr G J Allen, Chairman, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, 20 August 1986, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File 14/1/24 Triennial Planning – Victoria VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 292. 46 Rob Pledger (1985) An Investigation into the Organisational Factors Affecting Mental and Physical Well-Being of Students and Staff at Victoria College Rusden Campus, Appendix II, Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission Registry Copy, File No. 12/6/24, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 276 47 Michael Pusey (1991) Economic Rationalism in Canberra, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, p.8 48 Ibid, p.3 49 Ibid, p.3 50 Department of Education, Science and Training (2003) Our Universities; Backing Australia’s Future, Canberra. 51 Victoria College News Sheet, Issue No. 13, 7 June 1985, p.1. 52 V L Meek (2000) “Diversity and marketisation of higher education: incompatible concepts?” in Higher Education Policy (13) p.25 53 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1986) Review of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education: report of the Committee of Enquiry, Canberra, AGPS. 54 Victoria College News, Issue 28, 4 October 1985, p. 1. 55 Peter Baldwin, Minister for Higher Education and Employment Services (1990) Assessment of the Relative Funding Position of Australia’s Higher Education Institutions, Canberra: 8 56 Victoria College News, Issue 10, 12 April 1991, p.1. 57 John Dawkins (1987) Higher Education: A Policy Discussion Paper, AGPS, Canberra, p.30. 58 Tertiary Education Commission Report, Volume 2, Part 2, Table B3.10 59 Department of Employment, Education and Training (1993) National Report on Australia’s Higher Education Sector, p.82 60 Malcolm Abbott (1996) “Amalgamations and the Changing Costs of Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education during the 1970s and 1980s”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 15, No.2, 133-144. This analysis shows that administrative costs at Victoria College rose from 1982- 1985, peaking at $249.3 per student in 1985, and gradually declining to $210.0 in real terms in 1990.

223

Chapter 8 Establishing an Academic Strategy

1 Interview with Des Taylor 22 February 1999. 2 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Report for the 1982-84 Triennium, Volume 1, p.191 3 Ibid pp191-192 4 Interview with Dr C Campbell 19 February 1999. 5 The members of the Advisory Committee were Dr Margaret Pawsey (Burwood), Mr Bob McFarlane (Prahran), Dr David Stokes (Rusden) and Mr Max Boyce (Toorak). 6 Towards an Academic Profile for Victoria College, 1982, p.6 7 Ibid pp. 3-6 8 Ibid pp. 50-57 9 The Victorian Universities Admissions Centre acted on behalf of participating universities and colleges to provide a coordinated joint selection system. It received and processed applications and forwarded them on the chosen institution. 10 Student pressure was defined as the number of first preference applications divided by the number of places in courses assigned to fields of study consistent with the codes designated by the Victorian Post Secondary Education Commission. 11Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, Second Report 1970-1972: 1.8, quoted in Towards an Academic Profile for Victoria College, 1982: (3): 3. 12 Victoria College Council Minutes 1982, DUA Series 25, Box 1, Meeting 6/82, Item VC/82/96 Functions and Future Directions of Victoria College. 13 Ibid 14 Victoria College: Submission to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Review of its own operations and relationship with institutions, November 1982. Attachment 7 to BC 19/83, VPRS 8531/P1 Unit 11, VPSEC Board Papers: Accreditation 15 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission BC58/82 Meeting No. 82/3 VPSEC Seminar: “Planning and development in Victorian Post-Secondary Education – the next decade.” , VPRS 8531/P1 16 Victoria College (1982) Submission on the 1985-1987 triennium to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission and the Advanced Education Council: 2 17 Ibid: 38 18 Ibid: 31 19 Ibid: 8 20 Ibid: 27 21 Principal’s Advisory Group (PAG) Meetings, PAG 134/83 Victoria College: Student Load by Campus By Faculty, DUA Series 68, Box 2,

224

22 PAG Meetings, PAG 138/83, Letter and Attachments from M K Selway, Executive Director, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission to C Campbell, dated 16 November 1983, DUA Series 68, Box 2, 23 PAG Meetings, PAG 135/83, Victoria College – Academic Master Plan, DUA Series 68, Box 2 24 Update Briefing Paper on Proposal to Close Down the Institute of Interpreting and Translating, Faculty of Arts, Deakin University, DUA Series 01/003, Box 3, Item 22 Closure of Interpreting Courses. 25 O’Donnell, Carol (1985) “The Relationship between Social Class, Labour Market Segmentation and Education Credentials”, op. cit. 26 E Freidson, (1973) “Professions and the occupational principle” in E. Freidson (ed), The Professions and Their Prospects, Sage, London p.22 27 Simon Marginson (1993b) Educational credentials in Australia: average positional value in decline. Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, p. 12 28 Ibid 29 Sumner, Robert J (1989) “Masters Degree Programs in Colleges of Advanced Education: Graduate Characteristics and Outcomes”, Higher Education Research and Development, 8 (2): 181-189 30 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Meeting 84/5, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 16 31 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Minutes of Meeting 85/8 on Wednesday 16 October 1985 VPRS 8532/P1, Unit 3 32 VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 239 33 Victoria College News Sheet, Issue No 28, 4 October, 1985, p.1. 34 Victoria College News Sheet, Issue No 10, 24 April 1986, p.2. 35 Interview with Des Taylor 5 May 2000. 36 Letter to Dr G J Allen from W L Hamilton, Convenor, Working Party on Nurse Education, 22 August 1985, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 101, Victorian Post Secondary Education Commission File 5/7/2 Commonwealth State Consultative Committee 37 Victoria College Fifth Annual Report 1986, p.3. 38 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File: 8/67/01 Capital Projects Burwood Campus, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 162, 39 G A Ramsey (1989) “Reflections: Federal Perspective” in L M Koder (Ed.) In Transit: Sydney CAE 1982-1989, Sydney College of Advanced Education, p. 337. 40 C A Hulls & W L Mellor (1985) Income, Expenditure and Quality of Education at Victoria College: Report and Recommendation to the College Council: 5 41 Corporate Strategic Plan internal correspondence dated 10 November 1986, DUA 93/025, Item 32, Victoria College Corporate Strategy Documents. 42 The Future External Environment for Victoria College Strategic Planning Seminar, DUA 93/025, Item 32, Victoria College Corporate Strategy Documents.

225

43 This theme is comprehensively discussed by R G Gregory in his paper “Aspects of Australian and US Living Standards: The Disappointing Decades 1970-1990”, The Economic Record, v.69, no.204 (March 1993): 61-76. 44 The Future External Environment for Victoria College Strategic Planning Seminar, DUA 93/025, Item 32, Victoria College Corporate Strategy Documents. 45 Corporate Strategic Plan internal correspondence dated 10 November 1986, DUA 93/025, Item 32, Victoria College Corporate Strategy Documents. 46 Corporate Strategic Plan internal correspondence dated 10 November 1986, DUA 93/025, Item 32, Victoria College Corporate Strategy Documents. 47 Victoria College Educational Profile (1988), p.2 DUA 90/086, Boxes 17-20/175 48 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, 29 July 1988, Victoria College: Statement on Higher Education Profile Submissions from Victorian Institutions to the Commonwealth Government, DUA 93/025, Box 34, Item 35: Institutional profiles 49 The Victorian Education Foundation was funded through the voluntary diversion of 0.1 per cent of state payroll taxes paid by Victorian companies and Government authorities. It was established in 1987 to develop timely and effective responses to the changing education and training needs of the Victorian economy. 50 Object (h) of the Objects of Victoria College as set out in its Order-in-Council. 51 Information supplied by Associate Professor Don Gibb on 23 April 2003. 52 DGM 1987/88, Victoria College, TAFE and the Outer Eastern Suburbs, DGM 87/116, DUA Series 69, Box 2, 53 Academic Task Force (1982): 64 54 Launch of the Bowater Faculty of Business, DUA Series 770, Box 2, Item 16 55 In the mid 1990s, Carter Holt took over the Australian tissue operations of the London-based Bowater group through a $340 million acquisition. After the merger with Deakin University the Bowater School of Marketing and management was created within the University’s Faculty of Business. 56 Victoria College News, Issue 2, January 1990: 2, also involved in the delivery of computer learning models. 57 Beeson, Stokes and Symmonds (1993) Flexible Delivery to the Workplace of a Bachelor of Applied Science Course: An Evaluation, DEET Evaluations and Investigations Program, Canberra, AGPS., pp. ix-x 58 Victoria College News, Issue 31, 20 September 1991, p. 2. 59 Correspondence from Institutional Planning and Research: Student progress 1987 to 1989, dated 30 October 1990, DUA 92/153, Box 2, Item 52 60 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, 29 July 1988, Victoria College: Statement on Higher Education Profile Submissions from Victorian Institutions to the Commonwealth Government, DUA 93/025, Box 34, Item 35: Institutional profiles

226

61 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Accreditation Board, Letter from Chairman, Victorian Post- Secondary Education Accreditation Board to Chairman, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, 7 November 1988, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 200, Item 09/005/006 College Declarations. 62 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, 6 December 1988, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 200, Item 09/005/006 College Declarations. 63 VTAC Preference data in Towards an Academic Strategy for Victoria College: and Faculty of Arts Correspondence to and from Institutional Planning, DUA 93/007, Box 2. Item 23 64 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (1988) A Higher education Plan for Victoria 1989-1991: 22 65 G W Beeson (1986) Amalgamation Strategies: Experience from Victoria College : 13. 66 Peter Karmel (1989) Reflections on a Revolution: Australian Higher Education in 1989, AVCC Papers: No 1., Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, Canberra 67 Victoria College News, Issue No. 10, 3 May 1985, p.3 68 Victoria College News, Issue No. 17, 5 July 1985, p.7 69 Victoria College News, Issue No. 23, 16 August 1985, p.6 70 Victoria College News, Issue No. 2, 21 February 1986, p.6 71 Victoria College News, Issue No. 15, 13 June 1986, p.2 72 Victoria College Educational Profile (1988), section 3, DUA 90/086, Boxes 17-20/175 73Victoria College Educational Profile (1988), section 3, DUA 90/086, Boxes 17-20/175 74 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, 29 July 1988, Victoria College: Statement on Higher Education Profile Submissions from Victorian Institutions to the Commonwealth Government, DUA 93/025, Box 34, Item 35: Institutional profiles

Chapter 9 Students at Victoria College

1 Martin report: 2.53, 2.61 2 Anderson, D S and Eaton, E. (1982) Australian Higher Education Research and Society: Part II: Equality of Opportunity and Accountability: 1966-1982, Research School of Social Sciences, Working Papers in Sociology, Canberra: The Australian National University, pp89-128. 3 Anderson, D S and Vervoorn, A, (1983) Access to Privilege, ANU Press, Canberra. 4 CTEC Volume 1, Part 4 – Recommendations for the 1987-1987 Triennium, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, BC 76/84, Meeting 84/5 Agenda Item 5.1, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 16 5 Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, (HERDSA) 1982. 6 McKevitt and Douglas (1973) 7 Bassett, G.W. (1958) “The Occupational Background of Teachers”, Australian Journal of Education, 2 (2), 79-90. 8 Female students were used for comparative purposes because around two thirds of Victoria College’s students were female. 9 See note 5.

227

10 Victoria College, 1984 Review of Participation and Opportunity within the College; report No.1 Analysis of New Student Questionnaire:21; DUA 92/018, Box 11-12, Unit 82 Student Progress Reports. 11 Australian Bureau of Statistics (1992) Schools Australia, p. 6 12 Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, (1993b) National Report on Australia’s Higher Education Sector, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, p. 204 13 Victoria College Planning and Research Unit (1984b) 1984 Review of Participation and Opportunity Within the College, Report No.2 – Study of Student Progress in Selected Courses, p.10. 14 Victoria College, 1984 Review of Participation and Opportunity within the College: report No 2, Study of Student Progress in Selected Courses, DUA 92/018, Box 11-12, Unit 82 Student Progress Reports. The courses were: B.A. (Multidisciplinary), B.A. (Interpreting and Translating) and the Associate Diploma in Community Work, offered at the Toorak Campus, and the Diploma in Arts (Habilitation Studies) taught at the Burwood Campus. 15 Victoria College Planning and Research Unit (1984a) 1984 Review of Participation and Opportunity Within the College, Report No.1 – Results of Student Survey, DUA 92/018, Box 11-12, Unit 82 Student Progress Reports. 16 Victoria College, 1984 Review of Participation and Opportunity within the College; report No.1 Analysis of New Student Questionnaire:21; DUA 92/018, Box 11-12, Unit 82 Student Progress Reports. 17 Pratt, John (1997) The Polytechnic Experiment 1965-1992, The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press: Buckingham, pp. 33-43 18 Ibid, p.35 19 Victoria College 1984b, op. cit. p.7 20 Victoria College(1984b) op.cit. p. 9 21 Minister for Education News Release, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Meeting No 82/11, Agenda Item 4.4, VPRS8531/P1, Unit 10 22 Ibid 23 CTEC/State Consultative Meeting, Planning for the 1985-87 Triennium: Major Policy Issues Requiring Consideration, as seen by the Conference of Chairmen of State Coordinating Authorities, March 1982, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission file 10/5/2/, VPRS 8536,P1, Unit 239 24 Gregory, R.G., (1995), Higher Education Expansion and Economic Change, Centre for Economic Policy Research, ANU, Paper presented to Conference on Efficiency and Equity in Education Policy, Canberra. Gregory estimates that between 1970 and 1995 73 per cent of full-time jobs for women aged 15-19 years and 60,per cent of full-time jobs for men aged 15-19 years have disappeared. He postulates that if these linear trends were to continue there would be no full-time jobs left for teenagers within ten years. 25 Kerr, Edwin (1987) “The Organisation of Higher Education in Australia: Options for the Future” in Whither Binary, Report of A Seminar on the Organisation of Higher Education in the 21st Century, 17- 18 March 1987, Western Australian Post Secondary Education Commission, p. 106

228

26 TEAS – the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, was a means-tested form of financial support provided by the Commonwealth Government to needy students. 27 Anderson and Vervoorn, (1983) op. cit. 28 Victoria College, 1984 Review of Participation and Opportunity within the College; report No.1 Analysis of New Student Questionnaire:21; DUA 92/018, Box 11-12, Unit 82 Student Progress Reports. 29 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1983) Report of the Working Party on Outer Metropolitan Areas, AGPS: Canberra. 30 Ryan, M and Senyard, J (1984) On their Selection: Participation, Equity and Access in Higher Education, Report of a study initiated by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Melbourne: 20 31 Letter to Chairman, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission from Dr C Campbell, dated 17 June 1985, VPRS 8536/P1,Unit 276, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File: 12/6/24 Administration and Organisation -Victoria College. 32 Don Anderson (2002) “Access to university education in Australia 1852-1990: changes in the undergraduate social mix”, Higher Education Review, 24 (2), p. 32 33 Ibid p.33 34 John Dawkins (1987) op. cit. p. 21 35 Wran, N. (chairman, Committee on Higher Education Funding) (1988) Report, Canberra, AGPS. 36 Nelson, Brendan (2002) Higher Education at the Crossroads: An Overview Paper, Ministerial Discussion Paper, Canberra. 37 Graduate Careers Council of Australia (1988): 8 38 Data on institutions and Victoria College obtained from DUA Series 01008, Box 11, Item 92 Graduate Destinations 1982-1992 Victoria College GCCA Data

Chapter 10 The End of an Era

1 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Draft Policy Statement on the Provision of Masters Degrees by Colleges of Advanced Education in Victoria, BC 76/82 VPRS 8532/P1, Unit 8 2 Pratt, John (1997) The Polytechnic Experiment 1965-1992, p. 13 3 Ibid p. 11 4 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Post-Secondary Education (Partridge Report): 9.4 5 Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1980 p.9 6 Australian Conference of Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education (1982) A Comparison of Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and TAFE Institutions and The Functions of Colleges of Advanced Education in Australia, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File No.2/1/7, VPRS 8531/P1 Unit 10. 7 The Functions of Colleges of Advanced Education in Australia, op cit p. 7

229

8 Letter from Chairman, VPSEC to R C Fordham, Minister of Education, 12 October 1982, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File No.2/1/7, VPRS8531/P1, Unit 10. 9 Ibid 10 Letter from Chairman, VPSEC to R C Fordham, Minister of Education, 12 October 1982, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File No.2/1/7, VPRS8531/P1, Unit 10. 11 Report of CTEC/States Consultative Meeting no 6 Meeting held on 31 March 1982, Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission Meeting 82/5 VPRS8531/P1, Unit 8 12 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1991) Alternatives to Universities, Paris: 75. 13 Department of Employment, Education and Training, Higher Education Division (1993) National Report on Australia’s Higher Education Sector, AGPS, Canberra, p.46 14 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Letter with Response attached to Mr H Hudson, Chairman, Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, from Dr G J Allen, Chairman, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, 26 November, 1984, VPRS 8536,P1, Unit 239, File 10/2/2 15 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1986) Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education, AGPS, Canberra, p. 198 16 Copy of letter to Senator Susan Ryan, 14 March 1986, from Ian Cathie, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission file 14/1/1, VPRS 8536,P1, Unit 282. 17 John McCollow and John Knight (1993) “Higher Education in Australia: An Historical Overview” in M. Bella, J. McCollow and J. Knight (eds) Higher Education in Transition. Brisbane: University of Queensland. p. 13 18 Peter Karmel (1990): 29 19 Dawkins, J (1987) Higher Education: A Policy Discussion Paper: p.12 20 Notes of Mini-ThinkTank Meeting of 3 November 1987, DUA 92/108, Box 11-12, Item 102 : Binary System 21 ‘The Binary System’ p.4, Council Paper C87/141, DUA 92/108, Box 11-12, Item 102 : Binary System 22 Ibid 23 Victoria College News Sheet, Vol.3, No.1., 19 February 1988, p.1. 24 John Dawkins, (1988) Higher Education: A Policy Statement, p 44 25 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1987) Report for 1988-90 Triennium, Volume 1, Part 4, p.9. 26 Report of Victoria College Council Meeting on 29 March 1988 in the Victoria College News Sheet, Vol.3., No.8., 15 April 1988, p.1 27 College Response to Green Paper from Working Party No 3 – N Baggaley, G Beeson (Convenor), D Symington, D Taylor, J Wilkinson, DGM 88/10, DUA Series 69, Box 2, DGM 1987/1988 28 Memorandum to the Director, from John Lawry, Consideration of the Green Paper: A Policy Discussion Paper but really the views of the Head of School, DGM 88/10, DUA Series 69, Box 2, DGM 1987/1988

230

29 Memorandum from David Stokes to Colin Campbell 8 February 1988, Re: Green and Yellow Papers, DGM 88/10, DUA Series 69, Box 2, DGM 1987/1988 30 Academic Board Advisory Committee on Amalgamations, Minutes of Meeting 1/88, DGM 88/15, DUA Series 69, Box 2, DGM 1987/1988 31 Interview with Peter Nattrass 21 August 2002 32 “Victoria College Response to the Commonwealth Policy Discussion Paper on Higher Education”, Council paper C88/24, section 1.2 reprinted in Victoria College News Sheet, Vol.3, No.8., 15 April 1988, p.3 33 Ibid. 34 Monash University Press release dated 26 February 1988 reprinted in Victoria College News Sheet, Special Edition – Update on the Proposed Changes to the Higher Education System, dated 7 March 1988, pp.2.-3 35 Government of Victoria (1988) Response to the Commonwealth Policy Discussion Paper on Higher Education , May 1988 p.2 36 Ibid p.45 37 Harman, Grant (1989) “The Dawkins Reconstruction of Australian Higher Education”, paper delivered at the American Educational Research Association 1989 Annual Meeting, 27-31 March, San Francisco, p.5 38 “Universities may challenge White Paper in High Court”, Financial Review, Tuesday August 16 1988, reproduced in the Victoria College News Sheet, Vol. 3, No.24, 19 August 1988, p.9. 39 Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, The Nature of a University, 8 June 1989, DUA 92/15, Box 7-10, Item 95. 40 The Australian, 21 June, 1989, p.18 41 “Academics must face scrutiny” Letter from C Campbell, The Age, 15 August 1988, reproduced in the Victoria College News Sheet, Vol. 3, No.24, 19 August 1988, p.9. 42 “A University System for Victoria”, Papers from Seminar held at Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education, 29 July 188, DUA 90/085, Box 25, Item 260, Higher Education Restructure (5) 43 Ibid 44 Ibis 45 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (1988) A Higher Education Plan for Victoria 1989-1991: (iii) 46 Ibid p.14 47 Victorian Conference of Principals (1989), ‘Principles Governing the Association of Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education’, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File No. 10/5/8, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 246 48 Victoria College News Sheet, Vol.3, No. 31, October 1988, pp. 5-14 49 Letter W R S Briggs, President, Swinburne Institute of Technology to Mr J Hardy, President, Victoria College Council, dated 13 December 1988, reproduced in Victoria College News Sheet, Special Edition, vol. 3, No.36, 15 December 1988.

231

50 Victoria College News Sheet, No.1, 17 February 1989, p.1 51 Information provided in interview with Dr Colin Campbell on 19 February 1999. 52 Report of the Task Force on Amalgamations in Higher Education (1989):3 53 Letter to Victoria College from Evan walker dated 28 February 1989, DUA 93/024, Box 4, Item 14: Ministerial task Force on Amalgamations,. 54 Victoria College News, No.5, 17 March 1980, p.1 55 “Update on Amalgamation”, insert in the Victoria College News, Issue 6, 31 March 1980. 56 Letter to Minister for Employment Education and Training from Colin Campbell dated 13 April, 1989, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File No. 14/1/24, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 292, Triennial Planning – Victoria College. 57 Ibid: 57-58 58 Victoria College Media Release, 24 April 1989, DUA 93/024, Box 4, Item 14: Ministerial Task Force on Amalgamations. 59 Letter with Attachment to Minister for Employment Education and Training from Colin Campbell dated 3 May, 1989, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File No. 14/1/24, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 292, Triennial Planning – Victoria College. 60 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission File No. 10/5/2/, copy of letter to The Hon. John Dawkins, MP, Minister for Employment, Education and Training from Evan Walker, Minister Responsible for Post-Secondary Education, 17 May 1989, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 245 61 Ibid 62 J Dawkins (1989) Ministerial Statement on Supplementary Funding Decisions on Higher education for the 1989-91 Triennium, DUA 93/024, Box 4, Item 15: General Amalgamation Information. 63 Dawkins, J (1989) Address to the Australasian Institute of Tertiary Administrators, Auckland, 25 August, 1989, p.4, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 246 64 Evan Walker, “The Future role of the States in Higher Education”, Speech at the University of Melbourne, Centre for Higher Education Studies, 18 October 1989, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 38, File 3/4/2/ Lectures by Government Officials. 65 Letter from Professor M Logan, Vice-Chancellor, Monash University to Dr C Campbell, 12 September 1989, VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 276, File 12/006/024 Victoria College 66 “The latest merger update”, Victoria College News, Issue 27, 15 September 1989, p.1 67 “Council report”, Victoria College News, December issue 1989, p.2. 68 Copy of letter to The Hon Evan Walker MLC, dated 4 January 1990 (89/2120), VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 276, File 12/006/024 Victoria College 69 Letter to Dr Colin Campbell from the Hon. Evan Walker dated 20 February 1990, VPRS 8536P1, Unit 276, File 12/006/024 Victoria College 70 Information supplied by Dr Colin Campbell on 13 April 2003. 71 The working party comprised Dr Geoff Beeson, Mr Russell Elliott, Dr Allan Johnston and Mr Des Taylor.

232

72 Letter from Professor Malcolm Skilbeck to Barry Pullen, Minister for Education, 11 January 1991, VPRS 8536P1, Unit 276, File 12/006/024 Victoria College 73 ‘Deakin University – Victoria College A Statement of Vision and Opportunities’, Victoria College News, Issue 17, 1 June 1990. 74 Letter from M I Logan Vice-Chancellor to the Hon. Mrs Joan Kirner, dated 11 May 1990 (89/2120), VPRS 8536P1, Unit 276, File 12/006/024 Victoria College 75 Letter to Dr R Cullen, Chairman, Victorian Post-Secondary education Commission from Joan Kirner, Minister for Education, VPRS 8536P1, Unit 276, File 12/006/024 Victoria College 76 Letter from G W Beeson, Acting Director, Victoria College to the Hon. Joan Kirner, Minister for Education, dated 2 July 1990, VPRS 8536P1, Unit 276, File 12/006/024 Victoria College 77 Victoria Post-Secondary Education Commission, Options for the Development of Victoria College within the Expanding Victorian Higher Education System, July 1990, p.11 78 Memorandum to the Hon. Joan Kirner, Minister for Education from Michael Kane, Executive Director, VPSEC, dated 7 August 1990, VPRS 8536P1, Unit 276, File 12/006/024 Victoria College 79 Letter to Hon B Pullen, Minister for Education from John Dawkins, Minister for Employment, Education and Training, dated 29 August 1990, VPRS 8536P1, Unit 276, File 12/006/024 Victoria College 80 Victoria College News Special, Special issue 31 August 1990. 81 Letter from Professor M Skilbeck, Vice-Chancellor, Deakin University to the Hon. Barry Pullen, Minister for Education, dated 11 January 1991, VPRS 8536P1, Unit 276, File 12/006/024 Victoria College 82 Letter to the Hon. B Pullen, Minister for Education from Professor M Logan, Vice-Chancellor, Monash University dated 12 February 1991, VPRS 8536P1, Unit 276, File 12/006/024 Victoria College 83 Dr Colin Campbell -Victoria College, “Notes for Meetings with Staff” on 26 and 27 June 1991, DUA 93/024, Box 4, Item 15: General Amalgamation Information 84 Victoria College News, Issue 42, 6 December 1991, p. 1.

Chapter 11 Conclusion

1 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1987) Report for the 1988-90 Triennium, Volume 1, Part 4, pp. 8-9 2 Don McNicol (1993) ‘The Binary Experiment: Failure of a System, Success of its Institutions”, p.21 3 G Neave (2000) “Diversity, differentiation and the market: the debate we never had but which we ought to have done” in Higher Education Policy (13) p18

233

4 Rob Watts (1992) “The politics of discourse: academic responses to the Dawkins’ reform of higher education, 1945-1991”, Rationalising Education, Melbourne Studies in Education, La Trobe University Press, Bundoora, p.52 5 S Marginson (1992) “Education as a Branch of Economics” in Melbourne Studies in Education, La Trobe University Press, Bundoora, p.3 6 Committee of Economic Enquiry (1965) Report of the Committee of Economic Enquiry, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, commonly known as the Vernon Report. 7 P Scott (1995) The Meanings of Mass Higher Education, p.80 8 S Maginson (1992) op cit. p.2 9 S Marginson and M Considine (2000) The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, p.244 10 Goedegebuure (1992): 236 11 Bruce Williams (1992) What is Now a University? Higher Education Changes in Australia and Britain, Working Papers in Australian Studies, Working Paper No: 73, Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, p.17 12 Peter Wilenski (1986) Public Power and Public Administration, Hale and Ironmonger, Sydney, p.49. 13 Bob Ross (1991) “Relevance Revisited: Some Reflections on an Australian senate Standing Committee Report on Higher Education”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol, 10, No.1, p. 93 14 Quoted in Bob Ross, ibid p. 94. 15 Western Australian Higher Education Council (1991) Planning for Higher Education in Western Australia: Issues for Discussion, Western Australian Office of Higher Education, Perth, p.21 16 Coaldrake and Stedman (1998): 2 17 Simon Marginson (1993b) Educational credentials in Australia: average positional value in decline. Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, p. 5 18 Catherine Bargh, Peter Scott & David Smith (1996) Governing Universities: Changing the Culture? Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham, p.36 19 Nelson, B (2003) Our Universities: Backing Australia’s Future, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, pp.10-11 20 Smith, B and Watts, D (1985) “The co-ordination of higher education in Australia”, Vestes, 1, 4-8. 21 The Australian, 26 March 2003, p.28 22 Bruce Williams (1992) p.17

234 Bibliography

Interviews

Donald I Allen 18 December 2002

Graham. J. Allen 9 April 1999

Geoffrey W Beeson 11 December 2002

Colin Campbell 19 February 1999

Norman G Curry 30 May 2000

Donald Gibb 7 October 2002

Michael K Selway 10 April 1999

Desmond D Taylor 22 February 1999; 5 May 2000

John Scutt 6 June 2000

Official Papers

Typescript and Manuscript Materials Victoria Victorian Public Records Office (VPRO), VA 721 Victorian Post Secondary Education Commission, VPRS 8531/P1, Board of Commissioner’s Meeting Papers 1979-1985, Units 1-19 Victorian Public Records Office (VPRO), VA 721 Victorian Post Secondary Education Commission, VPRS 8532/P1, Board of Commissioners’ Master Minutes, 1979-1985, Units 1-3. Victorian Public Records Office (VPRO), VA 721 Victorian Post Secondary Education Commission, VPRS 8536/P1 General Subject Correspondence Files, Multiple Number series 1978-1991

Printed Materials Commonwealth of Australia Advanced Education Council, (1982) Future Perspectives for Advanced Education: A Discussion Paper, Canberra: Australian Government Printer. Australian Commission on Advanced Education, (1972) Third Report on Advanced Education: 1972-1975, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

236 Australian Universities Commission, (1969) Fourth Report, Canberra: Government Printer Australian Universities Commission (1972) Fifth Report, Canberra: Government Printer. Bureau of Industry Economics (1981), Changes in the occupational structure of the Australian Workforce 1971 to 1976, Research Report 6, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Commission on Advanced Education, (1975) Fourth Report on Advanced Education, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Committee of Economic Enquiry, (1965) Report of the Committee of Economic Enquiry, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (1979) Education, Training and Employment: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, Volumes 1,2, and 3, Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra. Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia, (1964) Tertiary Education in Australia: Report to the Australian Universities Commission (Martin Report), 3 volumes, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra. Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, (1966) First Report: Colleges of Advanced Education 1967-69, Canberra: Government Printer. Commonwealth of Australia, (1980) Report of the National Inquiry into Teacher Education, Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, (2002) Varieties of Learning: The Interface Between Higher education and Vocational Education and Training, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, (1981) Report for 1982-84 Triennium, Volume 1, Part 1, Recommendations on Guidelines, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1981) Report for 1982-84 Triennium, Volume 2, Part 2, Advice of Councils, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, (1982) Report for 1982-84 Triennium, Volume 3, Recommendations for 1983, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1983) Report of the Working Part on Outer Metropolitan Areas, AGPS: Canberra. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1984) Report for 1985-87 Triennium, Volume 1, Part 4, Advice of Advanced Education Council, AGPS: Canberra. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1986) Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education, AGPS, Canberra

237 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1987) Report for 1988-90 Triennium, Volume1, Part 4, Advice, AGPS, Canberra.

Dawkins, J S (1987)a Ministerial Statement, ‘Higher Education in Australia’, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, volume 156

Dawkins, J S (1987) Higher Education: a policy discussion paper, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Dawkins, J S (1988) Higher Education: a policy statement, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Department of Employment, Education and Training (1988) Selected Higher Education Statistics 1988, Canberra.

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, (1993a) “Recent Trends and Current Issues in Australian Higher Education”, Occasional Papers Series, Canberra: Higher Education Division.

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, (1993) National Report on Australia’s Higher Education Sector, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Higher Education Division (1996) Higher Education Students: Time Series Tables, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Ministerial Statement: Review of Commonwealth Functions, Australian Government Publishing Services, Canberra, 1981.

National Board of Employment , Education and Training (NBEET) (1989) Report of the Task Force on Amalgamations in Higher Education, Canberra: NBEET.

Nelson, B (2003) Our Universities: Backing Australia’s Future, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra .

Universities Commission (1975) Sixth Report of the Australian Universities Commission, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

Report of the Committee on Australian Universities (1957), (Murray Report), Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service.

Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts (1972) Report on the Commonwealth’s Role in Teacher Education, Commonwealth Government Printing Office, Canberra

238 Statement on Commonwealth Education Policy and Financial Guidelines to the Commonwealth Education Commissions: Statement by the Minister for Education, The Hon. Wal Fife, 4 June, 1981, Canberra, 1981.

Victoria

Asche, Mr Justice A, (Chairman), (1980) Teacher Education in Victoria: Interim report of the Committee of the Victorian Enquiry into Teacher Education, Melbourne: Government Printer.

Government of Victoria (1988) Response to the Commonwealth Policy Discussion Paper on Higher Education, Melbourne.

Ministerial Statement: The Future of Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education, May 1981, (1981) Melbourne: Office of the Minister for Education.

Post-Secondary Education Committee (1978) Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Post- Secondary Education, [Partridge Report], Government Printer, Melbourne

Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (1979) First Annual Report of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Melbourne.

Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (1982) Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Annual Report 1981-1982, Melbourne.

Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (1982a) Post-Secondary Education In Victoria: Recommendations for the 1985-1987 Triennium, Melbourne.

Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (1988) Options for the Development of Higher Education Structures in Victoria: A discussion paper, VPSEC, Melbourne.

Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (1991) Patterns of Participation in Higher Education: Analysis of Participation in Higher Education in Victoria 1988-1990, Caulfield.

Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Statistical Bulletin Advanced Education in Victoria Students and Staff, 1982-1988, Melbourne.

Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Victorian Higher Education Statistics, 1989-1992, Melbourne.

239 Records of Victoria College

The records from Victoria College and its predecessors (Burwood, Toorak, Rusden and Prahran) are all held in the Deakin University archives. Most are stored at the Allambie site adjacent to the Burwood campus of Deakin University. These records are extremely rich. As the endnotes reveal these been drawn on extensively for this research. They are, however, far too numerous to list separately. The major sources from which material has been quoted are listed at the end of this Bibliography.

Books and Articles

Abbott, Malcolm J., (1996) “Victoria College and the Changing Nature of the Advanced Education Sector”, Forum of Education, 51,2: 74-85

Abbott, Malcolm J., (1996) ) “Amalgamations and the Changing Costs of Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education during the 1970s and 1980s”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 15, No.2, 133-144.

Alexander, A.E., (1964) “Survey of Higher Graduates from Australian Universities, 1946- 1962”, Proc. Royal Australian Chemical Institute, 31

Allen. J G., (1979) “The thoughts of Chairman Allen”, College News, March 26: 19-21.

Anderson, D S., Boven, R., Fensham, P.J., Powell, J.P., (1980) Students in Australian Higher Education: A Study of their Social Composition Since the Abolition of Fees, Education Research and Development Committee Report No. 23, Canberra.

Anderson, D S and Eaton, E., (1982) Australian Higher Education Research and Society: Part 1: Post-War Expansion: 1940-1965, Research School of Social Sciences, Working Papers in Sociology, Canberra: The Australian National University.

Anderson, D S and Eaton, E. (1982) Australian Higher Education Research and Society: Part II: Equality of Opportunity and Accountability: 1966-1982, Research School of Social Sciences, Working Papers in Sociology, Canberra: The Australian National University.

Anderson, D., Arthur, R & Stokes, R. (1997) Qualifications of Australian Academics: Sources and Levels 1978-1996, Evaluations and Investigations Program 97/11, Department of Employment, Training and Youth Affairs: Canberra.

Anderson, D S and Vervoorn, A, (1983) Access to Privilege, ANU Press, Canberra.

240 Anderson, D. S. (2002) “Access to university education in Australia 1852-1990: changes in the undergraduate social mix”, Higher Education Review, 24 (2): 8-36.

Anwyl, J.E and Harman, G.S., (1981) A Time of Troubles: Proceedings of a National Conference on Australian Tertiary Education and the 1982-84 Triennium, Parkville: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne..

Anwyl, J.E and Harman, G.S., (1984) Setting the Agenda for Australian Tertiary Education: Planning Mechanisms, Policy Issues and Government Guidelines for the 1985-87 Triennium, Parkville: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1992) Schools Australia, 1991 and previous years, catalogue no. 4221.0, Canberra: ABS.

Barcan, Alan, (1980) A History of Australian Education, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Barcan, Alan, (1993) Sociological Theory and Educational Reality: Education and Society in Australia since 1949, Kensington: New South Wales University Press.

Bargh, Catherine, Scott, Peter & Smith, David (1996) Governing Universities: Changing the Culture? Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham.

Bassett, G W (1961) “Teachers and their children”, Australian Journal of Education, Vol.5, No. 1 (April): 11-21.

Beeson, G W., (1986) Amalgamation Strategies: Experience from Victoria College, Paper presented at Special Conference on Institutional Amalgamations in Tertiary Education, Armidale, NSW, 9-11 February, 1986.

Beeson, G.W., Stokes, D.M. and Symmonds, H. C., (1993) Flexible Delivery to the Workplace of a Bachelor of Applied Science Course: An Evaluation, DEET Evaluations and Investigations Program, Canberra, AGPS.

Bessant, B., (1976) Politics of Schooling, Carlton: Pitman.

Bessant, B., (1978) A Critical Look at the Functions of Australian Universities since 1939, Centre for Comparative and International Studies in Education, Monograph No. 1, Bundoora: La Trobe University.

Birnbaum, R (1983) Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Blake, L J., (Ed.), (1973) Vision and Realisation: A Centenary History of State Education in Victoria, Melbourne: Education Department of Victoria.

241 Blandy, R. and Covick, O. (Eds), (1984) Understanding Labour Markets in Australia, Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.

Boehm, E. A., (1979) Twentieth Century Economic Development in Australia, Second Edition, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Bolton, G., (1996) The Oxford History of Australia, Volume 5: The Middle Way 1942-1995, Second Edition, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre, (1988). Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bowden, John and Anwyl, John (1983) “Some Characteristics and Attitudes of Academics in Australian Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol 2, No 1: 39-61

Brennan, J., and McGeevor, P., (1988), “Graduates at Work, Degree Courses and the Labour Market”, Higher Education Policy Series, London: Jessica Kingsley.

Bureau of Industry Economics (1981), Changes in the occupational structure of the Australian workforce 1971 to 1976, Research Report 6, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Byers, P. C., (1981) “The Tasmanian Experience” in Anwyl, J.E. and Harman, G.S. (Eds) A Time of troubles: Proceedings of a National Conference on Australian Tertiary Education and the 1982-84 Triennium, Parkville: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne.

Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, (1980) Three Thousand Futures: The Next Twenty Years for Higher Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, B R., (1983) The Higher Education System, University of California Press, Berkley.

Coaldrake, P., and Stedman, L., (1998) On the Brink: Australia’s Universities Confronting Their Future, St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Council of Academic Staff Associations (CASA), (1982) College Education: The Victorian Cutbacks, Melbourne.

Cowan, R.W.T. (Ed), (1964) Education for Australians, Melbourne: F W Cheshire.

Craney, Jan and O’Donnell, Carol (1983) “Women in Advanced Education Advancement for Whom?”, Higher Education Research and Development, 2,2: 129-146

Cullen, R., (1993) “Government Policies and the Expansion of Access to Higher Education in Australia: A comment on the CAE Experience in Victoria” in V. Lynn Meek and G

242 Harman (Eds) The Binary Experiment for Higher Education: An Australian Perspective, Armidale: University of New England.

Davey, P., (1978) “Financing of Education” in Scotton, R B and Ferber, H (Eds), Public Expenditure and Social Policy in Australia, Volume 1, The Whitlam Years 1972-1975, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire,

Davies, Susan, (1989) The Martin Committee and the Binary Policy of Higher Education in Australia, Melbourne: Ashwood House.

De Lacey, P. and Moens, G., (1990) The Decline of the University, Law Press, Tahmoor, Australia.

Dickson, D.E.N., Killingsworth, J.S.M., Wilkinson, J. (1979) Report on Mature Age Education in Australia, Research and Consultancy Centre, Prahran, Melbourne.

Dixon, P B and McDonald, D (1993) An Explanation of Structural Changes in the Australian Economy: 1986-87 to 1990-91, Background Paper no. 29, Economic Planning Advisory Council, Canberra: AGPS.

Duerdoth, P and Vlahogiannis, N (1992) More than a School: Glendonald School for Deaf Children 1951-1991, Burwood: Victoria College Press.

Ewing, A W G and I R., (1951) General Report to the Commonwealth Office of Education (with appendix on Victorian needs).

Finn, B., Committee Chair (1991) Young people’s participation in post compulsory education and training, report of the Australian Education Council Review Committee, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Fomin, Feodora, Bessant Bob, Woock, Roger R., (1986) Co-ordination and control: Victorian teacher education 1970-1982, Occasional Paper No. 12, Melbourne: Melbourne College of Advanced Education.

Freidson, E., (1973) “Professions and the occupational principle” in E. Freidson (ed), The Professions and Their Prospects, Sage, London.

Goedegebuure, L (1992) Mergers in higher education: a comparative perspective. Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), Utrecht.

Goedegebuure, L and Van Vught, F (Eds) (1994) Comparative Policy Studies in Higher Education, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, Netherlands.

Goedegebuure, L, Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek, V. L., Van Vught, F and de Weert, E., (eds) (1994) Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), Pergamon Press, Oxford

243 Graduate Careers Council of Australia, Graduate Destination Survey, 1983-1991, Melbourne.

Gregory, R. G., (1993) “Aspects of Australian and US Living Standards: The Disappointing Decades 1970-1990”, Economic Record v. 69 no. 204: 61-76.

Gregory, R.G., (1995), Higher Education Expansion and Economic Change, Centre for Economic Policy Research, ANU, Paper presented to Conference on Efficiency and Equity in Education Policy, Canberra.

Gross, E and Western, J S (Eds) (1981) The End of a Golden Age: Higher Education in a Steady State, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane.

Harman, Grant (1981) “The Razor Gang Decisions, the Guidelines to the Commissions, and Commonwealth Education Policy”, Vestes, Vol.24, No.2.

Harman, Grant (1981) “Making Multi-Campus Institutions Work” in Anwyl, J.E. and Harman, G.S. (Eds) A Time of troubles: Proceedings of a National Conference on Australian Tertiary Education and the 1982-84 Triennium, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville.

Harman, Grant (1986) “Restructuring higher education systems through institutional mergers: Australian experience, 1981-1993”, Higher Education 15: 567-586

Harman, Grant (1988) “Studying Mergers” in Harman, G and Meek, V Lynn (Eds) Institutional Amalgamations in Higher Education: Process and Outcomes in Five Countries, Department of Administrative And Higher Education Studies, University of New England.

Harman, Grant (1989) “The Dawkins Reconstruction of Australian Higher Education”, paper delivered at the American Educational Research Association 1989 Annual Meeting, 27- 31 March, San Francisco.

Harman, Grant (1991) “Institutional Amalgamations and Abolition of the Binary System in Australia under John Dawkins”, Higher Education Quarterly, 45 (2), 176-198

Harman, Grant, Beswick, David and Schofield, Hilary (1985) The Amalgamation of Colleges of Advanced Education at Ballarat and Bendigo, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, the University of Melbourne, Parkville

Harman, Grant and Meek V. Lynn (1988a) Australian Higher Education Reconstructed? Analysis of the Proposals and Assumptions of the Dawkins Green Paper, Department of Administrative And Higher Education Studies, University of New England.

244 Harman, Grant and Meek V. Lynn (1998b) Institutional Amalgamations in Higher Education: Process and Outcomes in Five Countries, Department of Administrative And Higher Education Studies, University of New England.

Harman, G.S., Miller, A.H., Bennett, D.J. and Anderson, B.I, (Eds.) (1980) Academia Becalmed: Australian Tertiary Education in the Aftermath of Expansion, Australian National University Press, Canberra.

Hay, R., Lowe, D., Gibb,D and Anderson, B (2002) Breaking the Mould: Deakin University, the First Twenty-Five Years, Deakin University, Geelong.

Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, (HERDSA)(1982) Review of Equality of Opportunity and Accountability 1966-1982, 2: 89-128.

Hirsch, F. (1977) The social limits to growth, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Hulls, C A and Mellor, W L (1985) Income, Expenditure and Quality of Education at Victoria College: Report and Recommendations to the College Council, Victoria College.

Husen, T. (1979) The school in question, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jevons, F. R. (1981) “Amalgamation: The Deakin Experience” in Anwyl, J E and Harman, G S (Eds) A Time of Troubles: Proceedings of a National Conference on Australian Tertiary Education and the 1982-84 Triennium, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville.

Karmel, P (1962) ‘Some Economic Aspects of Education’, in Cowan, R.T. (Ed) (1964) Education for Australians, F W Cheshire, Melbourne.

Karmel, P. (1981) Education in the Eighties: Some More Economic Aspects of Education, ACER, Victoria.

Karmel, P (1984) “The Context of the Reorganization of Tertiary Education in Australia – A National Perspective”, Melbourne Studies in Education, Melbourne University Press.

Karmel, P (1990) Reflection on a Revolution: Australian Higher Education in 1989, AVCC Papers: No 1., Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, Canberra

Kelly, P. (1987) “Hawke’s Political Grenade”, The Weekend Australian, 25-26 July, 1987

Kerr, Clark (1971) “Forward: in Lee, Eugene C and Bowen, Frank M The Multicampus University: A Study of Academic Governance, New York, McGraw-Hill.

Kerr, Edwin (1987) “The Organisation of Higher Education in Australia: Options for the Future” in Whither Binary, Report of A Seminar on the Organisation of Higher

245 Education in the 21st Century, 17-18 March 1987, Western Australian Post Secondary Education Commission.

Koder, L. M. (Ed.) (1989) In Transit: Sydney CAE 1982-1989, Sydney College of Advanced Education, Sydney.

Koder M & McLintock P (1988) “Sydney CAE” in Harman and Meek (Eds) Institutional Amalgamations in Higher Education Department of Administrative And Higher Education Studies, University of New England.

Lee, Eugene C and Bowen, Frank M (1971) The Multicampus University: A Study of Academic Governance, New York, McGraw-Hill.

Maglen, L., (1985), The Changing View of the Economic Role of Education, Occasional paper No. 9, Australian College of Education, Melbourne, Australia.

Marginson, S. (1992) “Education as a Branch of Economics” in Melbourne Studies in Education, La Trobe University Press, Bundoora, 1-14.

Marginson, S. (1993a) Education and Public Policy in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

Marginson, S. (1993b) Educational credentials in Australia: average positional value in decline (CSHE Research Working Papers 93.4), Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville

Marginson, S. (1997) Educating Australia: Government, Economy and Citizen Since 1960, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Marginson, S and Considine, M (2000) The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Marshall Neil (1990) “End of an era: the collapse of the “buffer” approach to the governance of Australian tertiary education”, Higher Education, 19: 147-167.

Marshall, N and Walsh, C (Eds) (1992) Federalism and Public Policy: The Governance and Funding of Australian Higher Education, Federalism Research Centre, Australian National University, Canberra.

Mc Collow, J and Knight, J (1993) “Higher Education in Australia: An Historical Overview” in M. Bella, J. McCollow and J. Knight (eds) Higher Education in Transition. Brisbane: University of Queensland.

McNichol, D (1993) “The Binary experiment: Failure of a System, Success of its Institutions” in V. Lynn Meek and G Harman (Eds) The Binary Experiment for Higher Education: An Australian Perspective, University of New England, Armidale.

246 Meek, V Lynn (1990) “The rise and fall of the binary policy of higher education in Australia”, J. Education Policy, Vol.5, No.3: 282-292

Meek, V Lynn (1991) “The transformation of Australian higher education from binary to unitary system”’ Higher Education, 21: 461-494

Meek, V. Lynn (1992) “The Management of Multicampus Institutions: some conceptual issues in historical and social context” in Journal of Tertiary Education Administration, 14:1, 11-28.

Meek, V Lynn (2000) “Diversity and marketisation of higher education: incompatible concepts?” in Higher Education Policy (13): 23-39

Meek, V Lynn, Goedegebuure, Leo, Kivinen, Osmo & Rinne, Risto (eds) (1996) The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education, Pergamon, Oxford

Meek, V Lynn, Goedegeburre, Leo, Huisman, Jeroen (2000) “Editorial” Higher Education Policy (13), 1-6

Meek, V Lynn and Harman, G (1993) The Binary Experiment for Higher Education: An Australian Perspective, Department of Administrative, Higher and Adult Education Studies, University of New England, Armidale.

Meek, V Lynn & Wood, Fiona (1997) Higher Education Governance and Management: An Australian Study, AGPS, Canberra

V. Lynn Meek and Fiona Q. Wood (1998) (eds) Managing Higher Education Diversity in a Climate of Public Sector Reform, Evaluations and Investigations Program, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra

Meredith, David and Dyster, Barrie (1999) Australia in the Global Economy: Continuity and Change, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne

Moses, Ingrid (1991) “The Binary Experience - Success or Wasted Effort”, Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration, Vol.13, Number 2,153-163

Morrish, Ivor (1970) Education Since 1800, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London

Norris, K. and Wooden, M. (1996), “The Changing Australian Labour Market”, Australian Centre for Economic Performance, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Neave, G and Van Vught F.A. (1990) Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship Between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

247 Neave, Guy (2000) “Diversity, differentiation and the market: the debate we never had but which we ought to have done” in Higher Education Policy (13):7-21

O’Donnell, Carol (1985) “The Relationship between Social Class, Labour Market Segmentation and Education Credentials” in Melbourne Studies in Education, Melbourne University Press: 137-162.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1974) Towards Mass Higher Education; Issues and Dilemmas,( Conference on Future Structures of Post-Secondary Education, Paris, 26-29 June, 1973), OECD, Paris.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, (1989) Education and the economy in a changing society, Paris, OECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, (1991) Alternatives to Universities, OECD, Paris.

Partridge, P.H. et al (1965) Tertiary Education in Australia, Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Pirie, M (1988) Privatization, Wildwood House, Aldershot, United Kingdom

Polesel, J and Teese, R (1998) The ‘Colleges’: Growth and Diversity in the Non-university Tertiary Studies Sector (1965-1974), Evaluations and Investigations Program, 97/20, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Australian Government Printing Office: Canberra.

Pratt, John (1997) The Polytechnic Experiment 1965-1992, The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press: Buckingham.

Pusey, Michael (1991) Economic Rationalism in Canberra, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne

Riesman, D (1958) Constraint and variety in American education, Doubleday, New York.

Ross, Alec M (1981) “Tertiary Education for what, for whom, how much and for how many in the 1980s” in Hore, T, Chippendale, P and West, L (Eds) A New Era for Tertiary Education, Darling Downs Institute Press, Queensland.

Ross, Bob (1991) “Relevance Revisited: Some Reflections on an Australian senate Standing Committee Report on Higher Education”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol, 10, No.1: 93-103.

Ryan, M and Senyard, J (1984) On their Selection: Participation, Equity and Access in Higher Education, Report of a study initiated by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, Melbourne

248 Scott, Peter (1995) The Meanings of Mass Higher Education, SRHE & Open University Press, Buckingham.

Semel, Susan F., (1994), ‘Writing school history as a former participant: problems in writing the history of an elite school”, in Walford, G (1994), Researching the powerful in education”, UCL Press, University College London, pp. 204-220.

Smith, B and Watts, D (1985) “The co-ordination of higher education in Australia”, Vestes, 1, 4-8.

Stadtman, V A (1980) Academic Adaptations: Higher Education Prepares for the 1980s and the 1990s, Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco

Sumner, Robert J (1989) “Masters Degree Programs in Colleges of Advanced Education: Graduate Characteristics and Outcomes”, Higher Education Research and Development, 8 (2): 181-189

Teichler, U (1988) Changing Patterns of the Higher Education System: The Experience of Three Decades, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Teichler, U. (1991 ) “Towards a Highly Educated Society”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 11

Thompson, Paul (1978) The Voice of the Past: Oral History, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Toombs, W and Harman, G (eds) (1988) Higher Education and Social Goals in Australia and New Zealand Department of Administrative and Higher Education Studies, University of New England and the Australia-New Zealand studies Centre, Pennsylvania State University.

Turner, I. S. (1943) The Training of Teachers in Australia: A Comparative and Critical Survey, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne

Treyvaud, E R and McLaren, John (1976) Equal but Cheaper: The Development of Australian Colleges of Advanced Education, Melbourne University Press, Carlton.

Trow, M. (1984) “The Analysis of Status” in B. R. Clark (ed.), Perspectives on Higher Education, pp. 132-165, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Walford, G (1994), Researching the powerful in education, UCL Press, University College London,1994

Wark I (1973) “The Functions of Tertiary Institutions in Australia” in R McCraig (Ed) Policy and Planning in Higher Education, University of Queensland press, St. Lucia

249 Western Australian Higher Education Council (1991) Planning for Higher Education in Western Australia: Issues for Discussion, Western Australian Office of Higher Education, Perth

Wilenski, Peter (1986) Public Power and Public Administration, Hale and Ironmonger, Sydney.

White, D. (1987) Education and the State: Federal involvement in educational policy development, Deakin University Press, Deakin University, Geelong.

Whitlam G, (1985) The Whitlam Government 1972-1975, Viking, Melbourne

Wilkes, J (Ed.) (1965) Tertiary Education in Australia, Australian Institute of Political Science (Proceedings of 31st Summer School), Angus and Robertson, Melbourne.

Williams, Bruce (1988) “The 1988 White Paper on Higher Education”, Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration, Volume 10, Number 2, 111-126

Williams, Bruce (1989) “Political Economy of Higher Education Reform: The 1998 White Paper” in Pope, D and Alston, Lee J (Eds) Australia’s Greatest Asset: Human Resources in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, The Federation Press, New South Wales

Williams, Bruce (1992) What is Now a University? Higher Education Changes in Australia and Britain. Working Papers in Australian Studies, Working Paper No: 73, Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London.

Yow, Valerie Raleigh (1994) Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists, Sage Publications, California

Unpublished papers:

Beeson G W (1986) Amalgamation Strategies: Experience from Victoria College, Paper presented at Special Conference on Institutional Amalgamations in Tertiary education, Armidale, NSW., 9-11 February 1986.

Kings, C B (1976) Some Social Characteristics of Students Entering Rusden State College – Preliminary Findings, Rusden State College: Clayton.

Neave, Guy (1991) On Bodies Vile and Bodies Beautiful: The Role of ‘Buffer’ Institutions between Universities and States, Keynote Address to the 5th International Conference on Higher Education, Edinburgh, 30 August – 1 September 1991.

250 Ramsey, Gregor (1979) Mergers in the Advanced Education Sector: Problems and Possibilities, Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Administration, Perth, 25-29 August 1979, DUA 90/085, Box 1-2, Item 8.

Unpublished Theses:

Bain, A (1971) The Martin Report and its Implementation, Unpublished B.A. Honours thesis, Australian National University.

Riehm, R. H. (1989)The Amalgamation which formed Victoria College: A Case Study of Events and Change as it Affected Administrative Staff, Unpublished MBA thesis, RMIT.

Woods, Graham J, Rhetoric and Reality: Unintended Outcomes in the Evolution of the Victoria Institute of Colleges, Unpublished Ph.D thesis, 1978, La Trobe University

Typescript and Manuscript Sources

Deakin University Archives

DUA Series 24, Box 7, Council Minutes SCV Toorak

DUA Series 459, Box 6, SCV Rusden Council Meetings

DUA Series 531, Box 10-11, Prahran College of Advanced Education, Council Minutes

DUA Series 26, Box 4, SCV Burwood Council Minutes

DUA Series 25, Box 1, Victoria College Council Meeting Minutes, 1982-1991

DUA Series 68, Box 3, Victoria College Principals Advisory Group documents

DUA Series 69, Box 1, Victoria College Directors Advisory Group (DAG) documents

DUA Series 68, Boxes 1-3, Principal’s Advisory Group (PAG) meetings

DUA Series 122, Boxes 1-2, Planning Committee for Amalgamation of Victoria College

DUA Series 176, Box 1, SCV Rusden Broadsheet

DUA Series 371/1 Principals’ Committee Meeting papers and notes

DUA Series 722, Box 5-7, Item 68, SCV Toorak Notes from Principal

DUA Series 721, Box 1 Prahran Steer Sheet

DUA 784/1 Reports – “Planning and Development/Objectives (Victoria College)

251 DUA Series 790, Box 1, Victoria College Submissions to Government and Reports on Education Policy 1982-1990

DUA Series 01008, Box 11, Item 92 Graduate Destinations 1982-1992 Victoria College GCCA Data

DUA Series 812, Box 1, Item 3, Sue Chambers and Rose Typuszak (1990) Final Report of the 1990 Survey of Students

DUA 88/18, Victoria College, Director’s Office, Director, Dr Colin Campbell, Registry Files 1979-1988

DUA 90/085 Correspondence Files. Victoria College, Corporate Planning and Services. Head of Toorak campus. Mr Des Taylor.

DUA 92/018 Correspondence Files. Victoria College Director’s Office, Corporate Planning and Services. Head of Toorak campus. Mr Des Taylor.

DUA 92/153, Box 2, Registry Files. Deakin University, Office of the Pro Vice Chancellor (Planning)

DUA 93/023, Office of the Director, Victoria College, Committee Meetings/Correspondence, 1981-1991

DUA 93/024, Office of the Director, Victoria College, Committee Meetings/Correspondence, 1987-1992

DUA 93/025, Office of the Director, Victoria College, Committee Meetings/Correspondence, 1976-1991

DUA 93/026, Office of the Director, Victoria College, Committee Meetings/Correspondence, 1987-1991

DUA 93/079, Office of the Director, Victoria College, Correspondence/Committee 1980- 1992

Victoria College, (1988) Education Profile, DUA 90/085, Box 17-20, Item 175

DUA 92/018, Box 8-11, Item 76, Reports (Rusden State College, C B Kings (1976) Some Social Characteristics of Students entering Rusden State College – Preliminary Findings)

Victoria College (1982) Towards an Academic Profile for Victoria College 1983-1987 (DUA 784/1)

Victoria College Planning and Research Unit (1984a) 1984 Review of Participation and Opportunity Within the College, Report No.1 – Results of Student Survey

252 Victoria College Planning and Research Unit (1984b) 1984 Review of Participation and Opportunity Within the College, Report No.2 – Study of Student Progress in Selected Courses.

Victoria College, Annual Report, 1982 – 1991 (inclusive)

Victoria College News Sheet 1982-1991 (inclusive)

Newspapers

The Age, Melbourne

The Australian, Melbourne

253 Appendix 1

Biographical details of persons interviewed.

Dr Graham J Allen

Graham Allen, B Com, MEd, PhD (Melb), FACE, worked as a primary teacher for a number of years before becoming a teachers’ college lecturer specialising in social science and psychology. He also taught in universities and colleges of advanced education. Prior to becoming Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission in 1978, Dr Allen had been successively Head of School of General Studies at Chisholm Institute of Technology, Principal of Melbourne State College and Vice-President of the State College of Victoria. He became Chief Executive of the Victorian Ministry of Education on 1 September 1986 and remained in that position until 25 October 1988. Dr Allen died in 2000.

Dr Ian Allen

Donald Ian Allen, BCom, BEd, MA, DEd, FACE was Principal of Coburg State College from 1979 –81. Dr Allen was an Executive Director in the Ministry of Education between 1982 and 1987 and Deputy Chairman of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission from 1989-1993. His early career included a period as a teacher with the Victorian Education Department. He subsequently held a number of academic appointments, including Director of Professional Programs at Simon Fraser University.

Dr Geoff Beeson

Geoff Beeson, BSc, BEd, PhD (Melb), FACE, FATEA, FRSA was Associate Director of Victoria College from 1982-1991, and Pro Vice-Chancellor and professor at Deakin University from 1993-1998. Dr Beeson currently works as an education consultant with particular focus on the governance and administration of higher education, and student learning. His research interests have included science education, student learning, teacher education, and educational administration, and he has published nationally and internationally in these areas.

Dr Colin Campbell

Colin Campbell, BSc, BSc (Hons) (Melb), LLB (La Trobe), PhD (Cantab), was Director of Victoria College from 1981 to 1991. Dr Campbell began his career as an academic as a

254 Research Fellow in the Research School of Chemistry at the Australian National University. He then held a number of administrative positions, including Deputy Usher of the Black Rod in The Senate and was subsequently Executive Officer and Secretary to the Board of Advanced Education in South Australia. Prior to taking up the position of Director of Prahran College of Advanced Education in 1980, he was Deputy Director-General (Operations) of Technical and Further Education in South Australia. Dr Campbell was Deputy Vice- Chancellor and professor at Deakin University from 1992 until 1994. He currently practises as a Barrister and Solicitor.

Dr Norman Curry

Norman George Curry, BA (Melb.); MEd (Melb); PhD (London) was Principal of the State College of Victoria at Toorak Teachers College 1977-81. Dr Curry attended Melbourne Boys High School before undertaking studies at the University of Melbourne. His long and prestigious working life included positions as Lecturer, Snr Lecturer and Sub-Dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne 1959-1974; Vice Principal Melbourne State College 1975-76; Vice President of the State College of Victoria 1978-1980; and Director General of Education 1982-1985.

Donald Gibb

Don Gibb, MA, BEd (Melb) was the Rusden staff elected representative on the Victoria College planning committee in 1981. He taught history and Australian studies at Monash Teachers' College, Rusden State College, Victoria College and Deakin University from 1971. He was appointed as an Associate Professor in 1990 as part of Victoria College’s Foundation Professoriate. He is the author of a number of books and articles on Australian Studies.

Peter Nattrass

A J Peter Nattrass, BCom, BEd, MA (Hons) (Melb), TPTC, MACE was Principal of the State College of Victoria at Burwood from 1977 to 1981. In the mid 1950s he joined the Education Department’s Curriculum and Research Branch, and in 1960 joined the first of the teachers’ colleges (Coburg) where he was to spend the rest of his career. From 1962-65 he was attached to the Ministry of Education in Northern Nigeria. He joined the staff at Burwood Teachers College in 1968 as a senior lecturer, became Head of the Department of Education and Psychology in 1970, Dean of the School of Teacher Education in 1975 and Principal in

255 1977. He was an Associate Director of Victoria College (Academic Programs) and Head of Campus (Rusden) from 1982 to 1988.

Michael Selway

Michael Kinglsey Selway, B.Ec. (Sydney) was Deputy Registrar at Canberra CAE prior to being appointed as Registrar of the Interim Senate of the State College of Victoria in 1973. From 1979 to 1986 he was Executive Director at the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission. He subsequently held a number of other senior positions including General Manager Resources and Policy Co-ordination Division of the Victorian Ministry of Education and Managing Director of the Victorian Education Foundation.

John Scutt

John Reginald Scutt was educated at Fort Street High School, prior to studies at Sydney Teachers’ College and the University of Sydney. He was Registrar of the Canberra College of Advanced Education 1968-74; Secretary to the Schools Commission from 1974-76; and Secretary of the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals from 1976 to 1990.

Des Taylor

D D Taylor, BA, BEd (Melb), MSc, MAdmin (Monash) was Assistant Director (Corporate Planning and Services) at Victoria College from 1982 to 1991. From 1988 to 1991 he was also Head of Campus (Toorak). After experience as a Mathematics teacher in High Schools around Victoria, Des Taylor was appointed to the staff of Rusden (then Monash Teachers College) in 1967 to establish a Mathematics Department. He was born in central Victoria and went to Bendigo High School prior to attending the University of Melbourne. He was active in the International Society for Higher Education Research and contributed to a number of international publications on higher education. Des Taylor died in 2000.

256 Appendix 2

Chronology 1853-1991

1853 Melbourne University established

1854 Prahran Mechanics Institute established

1945 Bendigo Teachers’ College (closed since the depression) reopened

The PhD introduced into Australia by the University of Melbourne

1946 Ballarat Teachers’ College (closed since the depression) reopened

1950 Larnook Teachers’ College established

Geelong Teachers’ College established

Secondary Teachers’ College established

1951 Toorak Teachers College established

1952 Technical Teachers’ Training Centre established (became Technical Teachers’ College in 1954)

1954 Burwood Teachers’ College established

Glendonald Teachers’ College established

1957 Murray report: Report of the Committee on Australian Universities,(Canberra 1957) under the chairmanship of Sir Keith Murray, chairman of the Universities Grants Commission of the United Kingdom.

1959 Establishment of the Australian Universities Commission, later the Universities Commission

Coburg Teachers’ College established

Frankston Teachers’ College established

1961 Monash University established

Monash Teachers’ College established

1963 The development of tertiary education in Victoria, 1963-1972 (Ramsay Report).

1964-5 Martin Report: Tertiary Education in Australia: report of the committee on the future of tertiary education in Australia to the Australian Universities Commission under the chairmanship of Sir Leslie Martin.

257 1965 The Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education (CACAE) established under the chairmanship of Sir Leslie Wark.

The Victorian Institute of Colleges (VIC) established in Victoria.

1967 Prahran Technical School affiliates with the V.I.C. and becomes Prahran College of Technology

1969 Sweeney report: Report of the Inquiry into Salaries of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers in Colleges of Advanced Education, under the chairmanship of Justice C.A. Sweeney.

Wiltshire report: Report of the Committee of inquiry into Awards in Colleges of Advanced Education, under the chairmanship of Mr. F.M. Wiltshire.

1971 The Australian Council on Awards in Advanced Education established.

The Australian Commission on Advanced Education established as a statutory authority to replace the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, later renamed Commission on Advanced Education (1974)

1972 Gordon Institute of Technology and Geelong Teachers’ College merged to form Deakin University

Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts in the Commonwealth’s Role in Teacher Education.

State College of Victoria (SCV) established to coordinate development and activities of teachers’ colleges.

“Larnook” in Armadale (teaching domestic science), “Glendonald” in Kew (teaching of the deaf) and the Monash Teachers’ College combined under the name “SCV Rusden” to form a multi-campus college.

1973 Report of the Inquiry into Academic Salaries, under the chairmanship of Justice W.B. Campbell.

Karmel and Bull report: Report of the Proposal of the Government of Victoria for a Fourth University in Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo, December 1973.

Cohen report: Teacher Education, 1973-75: report of the special committee on teacher education, under the chairmanship of Professor J.W. Cohen.

Swanson and Bull report: The location, nature and development of institutions of tertiary education in Sydney, Melbourne and the Albury-Wodonga region, March 1973: report to the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

258 The establishment of the Remuneration Tribunal.

The Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education established.

Non-Government Teachers Colleges 1974-5, report to the Commission on Advanced Education.

Prahran College of Advanced Education (name changed from Prahran College of Technology - 21/2/73)

1974 Open tertiary Education - Draft Report of the Committee on an Open University to the Universities Commission under the Chairmanship of Professor P. Karmel.

Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education, TAFE in Australia: first report on the needs in technical and further education under the chairmanship of M. Kangan.

Australian government introduced the non-competitive means-tested Tertiary Allowance Scheme to replace the Commonwealth University, Advanced Education and Technical scholarship schemes.

Australian government abandoned Section 96 Matching Grants and took over complete control of the financing of tertiary education.

Abolition of tuition fees for universities and colleges of advanced education.

1975 May - Commission on Technical and Further Education established.

August - Triennium Submissions, 1976-78, of the four educational commissions rejected and the triennium deferred.

1977 Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) established; a single body with responsibility for making financial recommendations to the Australian government for the development of all forms of tertiary education with three councils concerned with the university, advanced education and technical and further education sectors (known from 1981 as the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC).

1978 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Post-Secondary Education under the chairmanship of Professor P H Partridge recommends reorganisation of the administrative structures for post-secondary education in Victoria.

Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission established.

1979 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (Williams

259 Report) (28/2/1979)

1980 Teacher Education in Victoria: Interim Report of the Committee of the Victorian Enquiry into Teacher Education Report to the Victorian Minister of Education, Melbourne, February, 1980. (Asche Report)

Report of the National Inquiry into Teacher Education (20 August, 1980)

SCV and VIC dissolved.

1981 Ministerial Statement: Review of Commonwealth Functions (Razor Gang Report) 30/4/1981

CTEC Report for 1982-84 Triennium, volume 1

Ministerial Statement: Victorian Colleges of Advanced Education, announces Prahran CAE to merge with SCV Colleges at Rusden, Toorak, Burwood (Mr Lacy, Minister of Educational Services, 5 May, 1981)

Statement on Commonwealth Education Policy and Financial Guidelines to the Commonwealth Education Commissions (Hon. Wal Fife, 4/6/1981)

Institution Number 1 Planning Committee- First Meeting, 6 July

CTEC Progress Report on Consolidations (July 1981)

CTEC Report for 1982-84 Triennium, volume 2

VPSEC endorses TAFE Board recommendation that TAFE Sector be separated from Prahran CAE (14/10/81)

Victoria College established 23 December, 1981

1985 Review of the Structure of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and Arrangements for Co-ordination and Consultation with States and Institutions (Chairman: Mr H R Hudson) (25 March, 1985)

Income, Expenditure and Quality of Education at Victoria College, Report to the College Council, C A Hulls and W L Mellor (April, 1985)

Fee paying courses commence at Lilydale Study Centre (August 1985)

1986 Award courses commence at Lilydale Study Centre

1987 Higher Education: A Policy Discussion Paper (The Green Paper ), Hon. J.S. Dawkins, Minister for Employment, Education and Training, December 1987

1988 Discussion Paper: Options for the Development of Higher Education Structures in Victoria (Yellow Paper), VPSEC, February 1988.

260 Higher Education: a policy statement (White Paper), Hon. J.S. Dawkins, Minister for Employment, Education and Training (July 1988)

A Higher Education Plan for Victoria, Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission (August 1988)

Victoria College granted “Declared status” effective as of 1/12/88

1989 Report of the Task Force on Amalgamations in Higher Education (NBEET), April, 1989

1990 Options for the Development of Victoria College within the expanding Victorian Higher Education System, VPSEC July 1990.

Assessment of the relative Funding Position of Australia’s Higher Education Institutions, Hon. Peter Baldwin, Minister for Higher Education and Employment Services (August 1990)

Base Adjustments Required to Bring Victorian Higher Education Institutions within the Funding Band Defined by the Commonwealth Relative Funding Model, VPSEC

1991 Amalgamation of Victoria College with Deakin University (December 31 1991)

261 Appendix 3

Historical Overview of the Constituent Colleges

On 5 May 1981 the Victorian Government announced that a major new multi-campus college would be formed through the amalgamation of SCV Burwood, Prahran CAE, SCV Rusden and SCV Toorak. The four institutions that were to form Victoria College had quite different histories and orientations. Even the three SCV colleges, which might have been expected to have considerable similarities, had disparate cultures. Each college brought to the new institution a unique history. Each brought its own strengths and aspirations. The following section provides a brief overview of the history of each of the colleges and the particular orientation that each brought to the new institution, Victoria College.

Toorak Teachers College For almost thirty years Toorak Teachers’ College provided primary teacher education courses for Victorians. Established in 1951, the College moved to Stonnington in Glenferrie Road, Malvern in 1957. Originally a private home, Stonnington is an impressive 40-room mansion, which served as a vice-regal residence for seven of Victoria’s State Governors between 1901 and 1931. Early in 1982, the recently appointed Director of the new Victoria College, Dr Colin Campbell, also established his office at Stonnington.

Student life in the early days of Toorak Teachers’ College was vastly different from that of the later Victoria College students who occupied the site from 1982, when Stonnington became one of the four campuses of the merged college. Until 1969 students, clad in the regulation Toorak Teachers’ College blazer, gathered for weekly assemblies at the Gardiner Picture Theatre or on the back lawn of Stonnington to be addressed by the Principal, Mr Lord (and, on at least one occasion – on a white horse!).1

By the time the third Principal, Mr Joseph James St Ellen, took up his position in 1962 there were over 500 students and 58 staff at Stonnington. This caused Mr St Ellen to recommend “that Stonnington should be used for administration and that new buildings should be provided for teaching”.2 Subsequently, two major new buildings were completed, the first in 1968. By 1969, Toorak had 792 students and it grew even larger when, in 1975, it absorbed the independent teacher training college at Mercer House.3 A second new building, constructed in 1976 to house students in the new Bachelor of Education course, and according to the former Registrar of the State College of Victoria

262 …was one of the first buildings funded by the Commonwealth for Teacher Education in the State, and it should never have been put up. It was such a small site. It was such a waste of money and we tried to stop it, but we were all great buddies then. The Senate was made up of all the Principals then, no one would have a go at each other, and so the building went up.4

Situated in “very close, tight and prestigious residential area” Toorak was vulnerable not just because of its small and inefficient site, but also because of the ongoing concerns of residents about parking and the presence of large numbers of students in the local area. College management were acutely aware of the need to “alleviate the tremendous pressure which was placed on people like Lindsay Thompson and local Liberal Party branches because of the antipathy to the presence of the college in the local area”.5 This antipathy, of course, remained an ongoing issue after the College became a campus of Victoria College and limited the possibilities of any further expansion on the site. 6 Nevertheless ten years after the merger a wide range of primary teacher education courses continued to be offered at the Toorak campus, many of them courses developed by the former SCV Toorak, including the Bachelor of Education Primary and Graduate Diplomas in Children’s Literature, Music Education, and Literacy Education.

The demands by the Tertiary Education Commission for a reduction in teacher education student number and resources led the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission to consider whether closure of at least one teachers’ college to effect the Commonwealth’s reductions might ultimately be more successful than simply reducing each institution to a greater or lesser extent. Toorak was the likely target for closure and, indeed, since 1979 had been subject to very considerable reductions in student numbers.7 Its site was limited, it was located in an area of Melbourne that was already well served by other educational institutions and the local residents were less than enthusiastic about the presence of its students.8 Of course closing down any institution is politically unpopular and closure was always an option of last resort.

In 1980, the overcrowding on the Prahran College of Advanced Education site and the failure of Toorak to obtain approval from the Tertiary Education Commission to broaden its educational profile through an accredited Arts Degree led the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission to require that the two institutions collaborate with a view to an eventual merger. SCV Toorak has excellent facilities and should be preserved as a focal point for advanced education studies. The Commission believes, however, that the continuation of the College as a teacher education centre in its own right cannot be justified but that teacher education should

263 continue if other activities were introduced. In the Commission’s opinion, the conduct at the Toorak campus of some academic activities already established at Prahran CAE, and the combined use of Toorak’s facilities, could substantially solve the problems of both colleges.9

Initial discussions proved successful, so that by the second half of 1980 the Prahran CAE School of General Studies had moved to the Glenferrie Road campus of SCV Toorak College, with a shuttle bus service being provided between the two campuses. Had not the four-way merger been forced upon the colleges in 1981, it is likely that a full merger between these two Colleges would have taken place by 1984.

During the turbulent latter years of its existence as an autonomous State College, the Principal at SCV Toorak was Dr Norman Curry. He was to report later that like other affected institutions, SCV Toorak had come to the conclusion that “a single purpose institution didn’t have much future” and had reluctantly pursued negotiations regarding a merger with Prahran CAE. 10 Nevertheless, on 11 June, 1980 following the release of the Ministerial Statement, a deputation from SCV Toorak, including Dr Curry, Mr L Bell and Mr A Trethewey, met with the Minister for Education, the Hon A J Hunt to discuss: the lack of consultation prior to the announcement of the proposed four college amalgamation; the need for assurances to students concerning the opportunity to complete their courses, wherever possible on the Toorak campus; and the need for assurances to staff concerning their existing contracts of employment.11

Reflecting some twenty years later on these events the former Principal of SCV Toorak observed that when the pressure for major mergers had become so strong, that …I won’t say we welcomed it, but we certainly saw the merger with Rusden, Burwood, Prahran and ourselves to be a far more sensible move really, than the merger between Prahran and Toorak. But I still wished those things had never happened.12

The reductions in intakes of the previous few years had led SCV Toorak to undertake a number of actions that meant it was relatively well positioned for the merger process. Tight budgetary controls had been implemented in response to earlier funding reductions. Consequently, the College had a “very healthy surplus” and “we were trying to persuade some staff that they might think about leaving, by introducing a fairly attractive redundancy scheme”, because it was clear to the Principal and others that it would not be possible to sustain current staffing levels.13 Given the severe funding cuts that accompanied the amalgamation decision, these financial reserves of Toorak were to prove extremely valuable in assisting the new institution to meet its obligations to staff.

264 In 1981 when the amalgamation was announced, SCV Toorak was, according to the former Principal, Dr Norman Curry: …A good institution. It was small enough for people to feel that they belonged, both staff and students. There was a sense of family, a sense of sharing, a sense of mutual interdependence.14

Like SCV Burwood, SCV Toorak had a strong sense of its own identity. It collaborated with Prahran at the behest of the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, which had imposed such severe reductions in the number of students that the College was permitted to enrol, that its continued existence was under threat. It also cooperated in the merger process that led to Victoria College because there was no alternative, but like the other three institutions, it did so reluctantly.

In 1981, its last year as an independent institution, SCV Toorak had 1,281 students, 159 staff, a budget of $5,308,000 and an accumulated financial surplus at 31 December 1981 of $1,723,000.

Burwood Teachers’ College - 1954- 1973 SCV Burwood, like SCV Toorak, concentrated mainly on providing primary teachers with their initial training and with graduate and upgrading courses.

The Burwood Teachers’ College had been founded in 1954, but commenced operations in a group of halls belonging to the Box Hill Methodist Church in Oxford Street, Box Hill, because its new buildings on land overlooking Kooyongkoot Creek were not ready for occupation until October of that year.

In 1975 SCV Burwood, as it was then known, became the first of the constituent colleges of the State College of Victoria to offer a degree course in teacher education. This followed a decision by the SCV Interim Senate to accredit a Bachelor of Education course in physical education submitted by the College. In a News Release at the time, the SCV’s Vice- President, Mr Douglas M McDonnell, said that the Interim Senate’s decision represented an “historic mile-stone for the SCV, and illustrates our determination to meet one of our major objectives - to improve the quality of teacher education in this State”.15

By the time Mr A J P Nattrass took over as Principal of SCV Burwood in 1977, the College had 1425 full-time and 331 part-time students enrolled in teacher education courses. It was at the forefront of many initiatives in teacher education and according to the former Principal,

265 staff had a “tremendous sense of mission”.16 The College actively encouraged its staff to obtain higher qualifications, reporting in 1979 that since it had become an autonomous institution the number of higher degrees held by members of its staff had increased from five in 1974 to 41 at the end of 1979.17 The same report noted that Mr Ian Edwards of the College’s Art Department had spent eight weeks as a member of the University of New South Wales Archaeological Expedition in Pella in Jordan, taking the dual roles of Field Supervisor and Ceramic Technologist.18

On his return from an overseas tour to investigate issues of organisational management, where he had witnessed the havoc wreaked by institutional mergers, the Principal, Peter Nattrass, concluded that: Amalgamations/mergers are to be avoided and these are best avoided if an institution has a reputation for vigour, excellence and a demonstrated capacity to meet community needs. Diversification outside teacher education is essential and fields such as health and recreation have distinct potential.19

Until late in 1981 when it became part of Victoria College, SCV Burwood made every effort to demonstrate its capacity to respond to community needs. In a presentation to the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission in September 1980, the Council of SCV Burwood outlined the College’s aim to develop Burwood as a multi-purpose college of advanced education centred on the eastern metropolitan region of Melbourne.20 The Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission considered that Burwood’s location, as the only higher education campus in the north east of Melbourne situated between Monash and La Trobe Universities and the city, made it a critical aspect of the Commission’s strategy for educational development in the rapidly growing north eastern suburbs of Melbourne.21 The Burwood campus was an important focus for growth in the ten years following the creation of Victoria College. The Burwood campus continued to provide the primary teacher education programs of the former SCV College along with a number of new programs such as business studies that were transferred from the Prahran campus.

Burwood also contributed to the new Victoria College its expertise in special education, which would form the basis of a number of new course areas for the new College, including mental retardation and psychiatric nursing. The SCV Burwood had developed considerable expertise in the education of teachers working with disabled children, stretching back to the visit to Australia of Professor A W G and Lady Ewing and their report on the education of deaf children.22 On 30 August 1974, as a consequence of a Ministerial Inquiry into Special Education in Victoria, the Senate of the State College of Victoria announced that it had

266 approved the establishment of an Institute of Special Education for career teachers of the handicapped. The Institute, the only one of its kind in Victoria, located at the State College of Victoria at Burwood, was to provide additional training for qualified teachers to enable them to specialise in the education of handicapped people - children, adolescents and adults. The range of handicaps will be unlimited, and will include the blind, deaf, autistic, physically and intellectually disabled and people with specific learning disabilities.23

Leo Murphy became the first Dean of the Institute of Special Education at SCV Burwood in 1975, after over twenty years as Principal of Glendonald.24 The new Institute of Special Education soon became widely known, both inside and outside Victoria, for its extensive range of training courses for teachers of people with disabilities. It also continued to cater for the needs of the community for vocational training at a para-professional level, and for many years, its five certificate courses of one year’s duration were unique in Victoria.25 Soon after the establishment of the Institute, in November 1976, the first group of students in the SCV system completed the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Education in Special Education at SCV Burwood. All three were overseas students: Susan Bow, the Principal of the Hong Kong School for the Deaf; Monica McGarrigle, a graduate in special education of the University of British Columbia and Ng Yee-ho, Inspector (Education of Deaf and Partially Hearing Children) in Hong Kong.26 Following the retirement of Leo Murphy in 1977, Dr Simon Haskell, an outspoken advocate for disabled people, became Dean.27

When the amalgamations were announced in 1981 the College had an enrolment of 1471 EFTS students; there were 116 (EFT) academic staff and 86 general staff. Funding for 1981 was $6,216,000 and the accumulated financial surplus at 31 December 1981 was $455,000.

Monash Teachers’ College – SCV Rusden SCV Rusden was established in 1966 as Monash Teachers’ College in new permanent buildings close to Monash University to provide secondary education courses parallel with those of the Secondary Teachers’ College at Melbourne. It became autonomous in 1973 when it was amalgamated with ‘Larnook’ in Armadale (a specialist college for teachers of domestic science) to form the State College of Victoria at Rusden.28

The career of Bill Watson, Principal of SCV Rusden from 1972 to 1977, provides a very interesting case study of how teacher education in the period prior to World War 2 often provided the only accessible route to post-school education for many young Victorians. In an interview shortly after his retirement as Principal, he recalled his first day as a Junior Teacher at Bentleigh West State School when he was “a few months off his 16th birthday”. Like many

267 Victorian families his parents were unable to afford to send their children to the University of Melbourne and teaching was one of the few routes through which educational ambitions could be realised. After three years as a Junior Teacher, he was able to enter Melbourne Teachers College where he obtained the TPTC (Trained Primary Teacher’s Certificate) qualification. After a period of war service, he gained a B.A. from the University of Melbourne and then spent some time in the Curriculum and Research Branch of the Education Department, before becoming one of the foundation staff at Burwood Teachers’ College.

Bill Watson became Principal of Monash Teachers’ College in 1972 - the year before it became a constituent college of the SCV and was renamed Rusden. He was deeply involved with the movement that led to the establishment of the State College of Victoria, but expressed some concern about its future: The critical issue which the SCV faces is that must gain full acceptance in academic circles by ensuring that its standards are equivalent to any other component of tertiary education in Australia… But it’s not easy - there are a lot of pressures, mostly from outside, which appear to me to be locking our colleges into an inferior position. Part of the problem is Australia’s ‘elitist’ educational structure. It’s all one open system with different institutions performing different functions and all institutions should be equal. However we’re stuck with a stratified system of an elite and subordinate strand, and the State College needs to ensure that it doesn’t become part of the lower strand.29

Rusden developed a strong reputation in a number of program areas. In the area of physical education, its Senior Lecturers included Ross Smith who coached the St Kilda football team in the 1977 and 1978 VFL seasons. Many students also attended SCV Rusden because of its range of studies in the creative arts. Drama courses obtained a high reputation and “…the CVs of many actors had a Rusden experience”.30 Demand for places in the media studies course was particularly strong and the College offered the only degree course in dance in Australia. Rusden’s unique courses, such as home economics, dance and physical education, were amongst its strengths and these continued to attract strong student demand when they became part of Victoria College’s educational program. Curiously, it seems that these unique, but non-traditional courses, were not viewed favourably by Monash University when it was suggested that the University might absorb Rusden in discussions that took place in the months preceding the announcement of the amalgamations to form Victoria College.31

By 1977, Rusden was the second largest of the nine colleges in the SCV system, with an enrolment of over 2,133 students. The College saw itself as preparing students to not only to

268 become secondary teachers but also to take careers in other spheres such as media, theatre, home economics, physical education and the environment. Certainly academic drift was apparent at Rusden by this time. As a former staff member recalled: Certainly, the notion that the B.Ed secondary course was equivalent to university degree/Dip Ed was well established. In fact, students by the end of the 1970s were accepted for honours directly from Rusden courses. I think the Rusden academic community thought it important that what they were doing was recognised by universities.32

Dr Paul J Wisch who took over as Principal in 1977, was born and educated in North America, and had a distinguished career in education both in the USA and Australia, having been a consultant both to the Wark Committee and the Tasmanian Government. After graduating with the USA degrees of AB, MsEd and EdD, Dr Wisch subsequently worked as a high school counsellor, elementary school principal, lecturer in USA universities and Pakistan.

Rusden was organised into ten departments, nine of which were located at Clayton. The tenth, the Department of Home Economics, was located in two nineteenth-century mansions and four portable classrooms in Orrong Road, Armadale, in facilities generally acknowledged to be unsuitable for tertiary-level teaching. Indeed the relocation of Home Economics to the Clayton campus had been the source of considerable correspondence between the Tertiary Education Commission, the State College of Victoria and the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission on the grounds that The present facilities at Larnook are completely unsuitable for a tertiary institution. The view expressed in the report is “that it would seem inappropriate that decisions on major construction relating to teacher education should be deferred until the Victorian Post- Secondary Education Commission has resolved the longer term future of all the institutions within the SCV network.” … I have postponed writing to you on this question until the attitude of the Victorian Education Department had been established. You will see from the attached letter from the Director-General of Education that our concern is shared by the State Education Department, as there is no question of continued demand for teachers of home economics. The Rusden course is the only one preparing teachers of home economics for secondary schools in this state. 33

Although one of the early achievements of the new Victoria College was to transfer the Home Economics Department from Larnook to refurbished facilities at the Rusden campus, the staff of Larnook had been strongly opposed to the forced amalgamation with the other three colleges. “Larnook: The End of an Era?” was the caption on the cover of the September- October 1981 edition of the Home Economics Association of Victoria (HEAV) Newsletter. 34

269 In the face of the “forced amalgamation” to form Victoria College, the Home Economics Association of Victoria had taken matters into its own hands and proposed the rationalisation of facilities and staff in home economics at Larnook with those of human nutrition at Deakin University as being. This proposal was “strongly supported by Home Economics Association of Australia (HEAA), the Home Economics Association of Victoria (HEAV), Deakin and the great majority of home economics staff at Larnook”.

The Rusden Council reacted strongly to this proposal, writing to local politicians on 26 June 1981 that although it would have preferred to see Rusden remain “…an autonomous, diversified College of Advanced Education”, nevertheless the actions of the Home Economics Department were “divisive and detrimental to the welfare of Institution One” (the temporary name for the new institution along with Rubertop).35 As the letter explained, the Home Economics Department was not a “State capable of secession”, nor an “independent, discrete unit”, and its shift to Deakin University would remove some 350-400 students from the overall enrolment of the new Institution and seriously diminish educational opportunities for students in the south-eastern region of Melbourne.

The letter also pointed out the difficulties faced by Rusden in transporting students and staff between its two campuses 14 kilometres apart. In a rhetorical question, and one that would be more seriously considered some nine years later, the letter went on One must ask what problems will be faced by a university, its students and staff, with its main campus some 60 to 70 kilometres distant? It concluded by requesting support for the Rusden Council’s motion that that the transfer of any departments was a matter for the Council of the new Victoria College once it was appointed.

As to why the Rusden Council should have behaved in a such a heavy-handed way, one can only surmise that it was genuinely concerned not to jeopardise the new “Institution One” and, in the event that a last minute reprieve from the merger was to be obtained, (it was still actively lobbying Canberra) it did not wish to lose one of Rusden’s unique departments. In any event, it was to be another ten years before this proposal eventually come to pass.

In 1981, Rusden had 1645 full-time and 572 part-time students engaged in secondary teacher training at both undergraduate and graduate level. The courses offered in many cases were also seen, however, as equipping graduates to be employed in areas other than teaching. Many of its specialties, such as sports science and women’s studies were to become even stronger in the new institution. The Rusden expertise in resource conservation studies was the

270 foundation for the successful new Faculty of Science headed by Dr David Stokes established at Victoria College soon after the College was created.

At the time of the amalgamation, the College employed 299 members of staff (175 academic and 124 general staff). Its 1981 budget was $8,327,000, and its accumulated financial deficit at 31 December 1981 was $379,000.

Prahran College of Advanced Education Prahran College of Advanced Education traced its origins to 1854, just one year after the University of Melbourne was established, when a group of public-minded men met in a room in Chapel Street to form a Mechanics’ Institute “…for the mental and moral improvement of the members”.36 The Institute organised debates and lectures and provided reading rooms and a subscription library.

The Institute expanded its offerings to include art classes in 1870, establishing a School of Art and Design, and in 1878, an exhibition of student work graced the opening of the Town Hall’s library. In 1909, the Institute became a Technical Art School, providing secondary technical education and apprenticeship training in a variety of areas. Subsequently it moved to premises at 134-138 High Street and soon became known locally as “Prahran Tech”. Vocational training classes for returned servicemen were introduced in October 1918, and during the Depression, classes were set up to help boys find employment and students assisted the Salvation Army with food distribution to the needy.

From 1960, Prahran Technical School as it was then known, offered tertiary-level diploma courses in Art and Design. In 1962 the institution began to offer such courses as Business Studies and in 1966 a Department of General Studies evolved. The “Tech.” survived quarrels, mass resignations and a government inquiry before moving into buildings at 142 High Street as Prahran College of Advanced Education (CAE) where it offered a range of courses in Arts and Design, Commerce and General Studies. In many ways, Prahran CAE exemplified the strengths of the college system – the ability of colleges to develop innovative education programs in response to emerging industry and community needs. Certainly Prahran’s pioneering work in art and design education became recognised in the 1960s when the photography component in the College’s graphic arts course grew into the first diploma course in Photography offered in Australia.37

Dr Armstrong and the Community College model

271 On December 19, 1967, the Prahran Technical School became Prahran College of Technology, an affiliate of the Victoria Institute of Colleges, which had been set up after the Martin Report. Dr David Armstrong was appointed director in 1972, ending a tradition that the College’s principal came from the art and design field. Dr Armstrong was a strong advocate of the community college concept which led him into conflict with the Victoria Institute of Colleges, notably over the Council’s decision to rename the institution Prahran College of Advanced Education to better represent its role in the community and because it “reflected more precisely our objectives than the alternative ‘Institute of Technology”.38 Although Dr Law wrote to Dr Armstrong suggesting that “your Council consider using the title Prahran Institute of Advanced Education”, the College held firm and on 21st February 1973, the Governor of the State of Victoria amended the provisions of the previous Order in Council to rename the college “Prahran College of Advanced Education”.

Colleges were subject to considerable regulation under the management of the Victoria Institute of Colleges, including highly prescriptive staffing establishments that detailed not only the number of staff to be employed but also their classification level. Under such circumstances it is no wonder that there were occasional confrontations, nor that institutions would aspire to achieve the autonomy that universities were perceived to have. During his time as Principal of Prahran CAE, Dr Armstrong became an outspoken critic of the Victoria Institute of Colleges and its operations, describing it as such a highly political body…I don’t mind rational argument and confrontation, but getting a course through the V.I.C. system is like nailing jelly to a wall. It is a highly political system, very subjective, arbitrary and the rules change.39

David Armstrong’s attempts to impose his educational philosophy on the college generated some internal tensions. Although some opponents of the community education as propounded by Armstrong saw it as an attempt to downgrade the academic standards of the college, Prahran CAE forged ahead with attempts to represent itself as an institution concerned with the community. In information provided to graduating students in April 1980, the College described itself as providing degree and diploma courses with a strong vocational orientation.[and] the College is also deeply committed philosophically and by its geographic location, to provide learning experiences of other intensities and durations and for other purposes. To this end, it has established a constituent school of Technical and Further Education.40

The slogan “small but human” was devised to convey its special relationship with the community, however students went one better in describing it as “crummy but chummy”. It

272 is assumed that students were referring to the generally old and crowded facilities at the Prahran campus as “crummy” rather than to quality of its educational programs.

During the 1970s the common model for community colleges in North America was to provide a multi-purpose curriculum, which after two years of study, enabled students to transfer to a four-year college or university. This was the model in California and although there have been several revisions of the Californian Master Plan for Higher Education, Community Colleges have remained as an important and clearly defined component of the Californian education system. In Australia, however, the pre-eminent role of central state and federal bureaucracies in managing higher education resulted in a much reduced level of local community involvement. Although the Martin Committee did investigate the American community colleges model education bureaucrats or policy makers did not seriously consider it for introduction into Australia. By contrast Dr David Armstrong did make a concerted effort to introduce this model at Prahran.

Certainly the aspiration of Prahran to evolve into a community college was strengthened by its “dual-sector” composition, that is its provision of both advanced education and technical and further education programs within the one institution. These links were seen as very important in making education accessible to students from disadvantaged backgrounds because they provided alternative points of entry. Both David Armstrong, and his successor, Colin Campbell, shared a vision of Prahran as a college that would effectively integrate TAFE and advanced education. In Dr. Armstrong’s words the college would “provide within its walls and beyond, ladders and safety nets for all persons who wish to participate in the act of learning”.41 Moreover within the College itself, the idea of integrating TAFE and advanced education appears to have gained acceptance as evidenced by the endorsement of the concept of a multi-level institution by the 100 participants at a staff and council seminar held in November 1979.

One of the distinguishing features of Prahran CAE, and one that it brought to Victoria College, was its focus on supporting non-traditional students to participate in education. By 1979 the college had an enrolment of 2,487 effective full-time students, of whom 1,355 were in advanced education courses and the remainder in technical and further education.42 In that year it offered a range of short non-credit courses with over 2000 people enrolled in community education programs. During this period some 54 per cent of advanced education students at Prahran CAE were enrolled part-time, the fourth highest proportion in the Australian CAE sector.43 Mature age students accounted for approximately two thirds of enrolments in Business Studies courses at Prahran.44

273 The Prahran CAE staffing establishment approved by the Victoria Institute of Colleges for the 1980 academic year provided for a total of 199 advanced education sector staff. 45 Although the College had the power to select members of the advanced education staff within the classification levels provided by the Victoria Institute of Colleges, technical and further education staff were appointed centrally by the Education Department, a practice which did not assist the development of an integrated multi-level institution.

The capacity of Prahran CAE to expand was severely constrained by its location on a small, congested inner-metropolitan site. With the exception of a multi-storey teaching building completed in 1978, buildings were generally old and perennial space shortages had led to a number of nearby terrace houses being occupied for college activities, including its administration offices. This meant that relationships with Prahran City Council were not always as harmonious or cooperative as might have been wished, with Council expressing concern about the loss of revenue resulting from the transfer of rateable properties to educational purposes.

During the period between Dr Armstrong’s departure to the Australian Bicentennial Authority and the arrival of the new Director, Dr Colin Campbell, from South Australia in July 1980, Dr John Milton-Smith acted as Director of Prahran CAE. At a Wednesday afternoon graduation ceremony in April of that year, the guest speaker, Ms Eve Mahlab, described her recollections of post-war Prahran and the place of the College within it: …To me, Prahran symbolises the reality of Australia. It is urban, it is unpretentious, it is diverse, and it is bustling. Prahran is a place which is truly multi-cultural and cosmopolitan, where the best and worst of all cultures can be seen and where they operate together for a truly synergistic effect. The tradition of education at Prahran College is very old. Since its inception it has had a commitment to education for traditionally disadvantaged groups.46

Prahran’s new Director On Monday, 28 July 1980, the new Director of Prahran College of Advanced Education took up his position. In an editorial entitled “New Man at Prahran” the editor of the Southern Cross (the local community newspaper), Mr Peter Isaacson, who was also President of the College Council, provided a brief commentary on events at Prahran CAE. 47 The former Director, Dr David Armstrong who had led the College for seven years had, he said, “wrought many changes, attracted a scintillating staff of deans and lecturers, established numerous new courses and upgraded old ones [and] inevitably made enemies.” There were those who

274 thought he moved too fast, and those “who thought him callous”. By contrast, the new Director, Dr Colin Campbell, he stated, …is quieter, less flamboyant, more thoughtful. His scholarship and calmness, his wide administrative experience in a variety of education posts, are just what Prahran College of Advanced Education needs right now. PCAE is not an easy College to govern. Its restricted campus, inadequate resources and miserly funding contribute to a mental and physical claustrophobia which is reflected in an atmosphere often charged with emotion and near hysteria. In an environment of contracting Government expenditure, the new Director he concluded, “had a formidable task ahead of him”.

The task was to prove vastly more formidable than anyone could have envisaged in mid 1980. The arrival of Dr Campbell coincided with the beginning of one of the most tumultuous decades in the history of colleges of advanced education. Its early years saw forced mergers of colleges accompanied by draconian reductions in funding, increasingly prescriptive policy directives from the federal government and finally, at the end of the decade, the disappearance of the advanced education sector altogether.

In the months preceding Dr Campbell’s arrival, negotiations had been taking place regarding the possible linking or merger of Prahran CAE and its nearest academic neighbour SCV Toorak. Initially suggested by the newly created Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, this “arranged marriage” between “a no-nonsense middle-of-the-road college dedicated to the training of primary teachers” and the “outgoing, free-wheeling college regarded as something of a maverick in the college system” at first seemed unlikely.48

However, the Advice to the Advanced Education Council: Tertiary Education in Victoria 1982-1984 Triennium published by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission in May 1980 contained recommendations that Toorak should be “preserved as focal point for advanced education” only if it introduced other activities. The Report also noted that while Prahran was a “strong institution demonstrating potential for expansion” it was severely constrained by physical facilities and therefore a combination of Toorak and Prahran was considered to be “advantageous from all points of view”. It recommended that the two colleges should enter into contractual arrangements to achieve common academic policies with a view to full amalgamation.

By the time of the new Director’s arrival at Prahran in July 1980, serious discussions were in progress. In an interview with radio 3RRR on the day following taking up his position, Dr

275 Campbell indicated his support for the talks currently occurring between Toorak and Prahran and hoped that they would “lead to what could be a fairly exciting concept in advanced education in this State”.49

In early 1981, the orientation edition of Flash: Prahran College Student Union Newspaper, published the “Director’s Message” welcoming all new and returning students to Prahran College. This advised students that some of the earlier problems associated with the move of the School of General Studies to the SCV-Toorak campus in the previous year had been overcome and “that this year we will learn to operate successfully as a dual campus college, whilst preserving the Prahran identity”. The article went on to describe the new programs which would be offered in 1981.

The College’s stated objective at this time was to develop as “a socially responsive multi- level tertiary institution offering students a broad range of learning opportunities at different levels designed to provide them with vocational, personal and professional skills”.50

As we have seen, one of the great strengths of the colleges of advanced education was to expand intellectual activity into new fields as well as across disciplines to meet changing labour market needs. Colleges such as Prahran CAE were at the forefront of these initiatives, developing a wide range of courses across a number of fields of study. In the advanced education sector, it offered a number of unique Graduate Diploma courses, such as Museum Studies and Personnel Administration. It also offered undergraduate programs in business studies and in art and design. In 1981 three new courses were offered including a Bachelor of Arts, offering major studies in English Communication, Jewish Studies, and Behavioural Studies and the Bachelor of Fine Art. The Diploma of Interpreting and Translating also introduced in 1981 would be the first professional course in Victoria to train interpreters and translators in Greek and Italian to an internationally recognised standard. As this thesis will show these vocational courses and others like it continued to be the main focus for the academic program which developed in the new Victoria College.

Planning for a possible merger between Toorak and Prahran proceeded in an orderly manner through a Joint Steering Committee which, by 1981, had led to three sub-groups being established: a Joint Academic Committee; an Educational Objectives Committee; and a Community Education Committee.

276 A paper jointly from Norman Curry, Principal, SCV Toorak and Colin Campbell, Director, Prahran CAE to the Joint Steering Committee dated 16 February, 1981, stated that to assist the three committees and any others which may be set up in the coming months, …it is desirable to lay down a working model for the possible structure of a new college. There are many models, of course, but the most obvious one at this stage comprises a School of TAFE and four schools in the Advanced Education area, together with other units such as LRC [Library Resource Centre], Community Education, Educational or Computer Services and Administrative Support… It should be noted that the School of TAFE contains more than twice the EFTS numbers of any other School and a case could be made for it to be subdivided into 2 or 3 components”.51

Undaunted by any thought of merger, or by the economic and political uncertainties of the period, students continued to seek admission to these and other Prahran CAE courses. In March 1981, the Director reported that, because of the “quota and funding restrictions imposed by the coordinating authorities”, it had been necessary to turn away thousands of students who had applied for courses at Prahran. 52 Because funding was provided by the Commonwealth Government and distributed amongst colleges and universities according to parameters determined by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, these two bodies strictly controlled the number of students which each institution was permitted to enrol and institutions that exceeded their enrolment targets did not receive any additional funding.

On 27 May, 1981, Flash: Prahran College Student Union Newspaper, contained a “Stop Press” from the Director of PCAE advising students that the formal merger with SCV-Toorak toward which the two colleges had been working, had now been overtaken by recent events. As a consequence of statements made by the Prime Minister following the Report of the Razor Gang and the State Minister for Education, Mr A J Hunt: Prahran College is now to merge with the State Colleges at Toorak, Rusden and Burwood under one governing Council by the end of 1981.

Dr Campbell went on to inform students that “a planning committee will be established to organise the merger and the Directors of the Colleges have asked that the planning committee contain representatives of both staff and students”.

On the same day Dr Campbell was reported as stating that …the Victorian Minister for Education, Mr Hunt, had not spelt out any advantages, financial or educational, to be gained from the proposed merger…[and ] that the merger taking place between Prahran and Toorak had demonstrated that initially the operating costs were greater”.53

277 As this thesis has argued, the lack of a clear articulated rationale for the mergers together with the substantial funding reductions that accompanied the amalgamation were issues that were to bedevil Victoria College as it attempted to establish itself as a cohesive multi-campus tertiary institution.

At the time of the merger in 1981 Prahran College of Advanced Education was a multi-sector tertiary institution which provided degrees and diplomas through its Advanced College Schools, as well as preparatory, access, bridging, apprenticeship and certificate courses to 767 full-time and 1192 part-time students in its Technical and Further Education College Schools. The College also had 1350 advanced education students and a budget of $5,097,000. It employed 125 academic staff and 121 General Staff (including staff shared with TAFE). Its accumulated financial surplus at 31 December 1981 was $106,000.

The Constituent Colleges

1 Morna Sturrock, (1990) Stonnington: A Centenary History, Victoria College Press, Burwood, p 95

2 Ibid p.113 3 Since the 1920’s the Associated Teachers’ Training Institution (A.T.T.I.) had conducted a programme for primary teachers similar to the apprenticeship system which prepared students to teach in Government schools. In 1930 a separate sub-primary course was started and given recognition by the Council of Public Education in 1933. In 1944 three-year part-time courses for sub-primary and primary education were introduced, and the A.T.T.I became identified with Mercer House, where primary, sub-primary, and junior-secondary courses for teachers in independent schools continued to be offered until 1975. Mercer House was absorbed into the State College of Victoria, Toorak, after the Commonwealth Government refused to fund it as an independent institution.

4 Interview of M K Selway by author, 10 April 1999

5 Interview with Dr N Curry, 30 May, 2000.

6 Interview by author with Dr N Curry, 30 May 2000.

7 Interview by author with Dr Graham Allen 9 April 1999. 8 Interview by author with Dr Graham Allen 9 April 1999. 9 Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission Meeting 80/6, VPRS 8531/P1, Unit 3.

10 Interview by author with Dr N Curry, 30 May 2000.

11 State College of Victoria at Toorak, Council Minutes, Meeting No. 5/81. Deakin University Archives, Series 24, Box 7.

12 Interview with Dr N Curry, 30 May, 2000.

278

13 Ibid

14 Ibid

15 Kevin Randall, Public Relations Officer, SCV, 21 Coppin Grove, 1975

16 Interview A J P Nattrass 21 August 2002 17 Burwood State College Annual Report 1979: 1954-1979 Twenty-Five Years of Teacher Education, Burwood, p. 19. Table 2 of the Report shows the degrees per staff member riding from 1.2 in 1974 to 1.8 in 1979. 18 Ibid p.19 19 A J P Nattrass, Report of Principal’s Overseas Visit, September-November 1978, held by A J P Nattrass.

20 Additional Information for the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, supplied by Burwood State College. VPSEC Meeting 80/11, Agenda Item 3, Attachment 2, VPRS8531/P1, Unit 3.

21 Information supplied by M K Selway in interview, 10 August 2002. 22 In 1949 Professor A W G Ewing and Lady Ewing of Manchester University were invited to Brisbane to provide advice to educators in that State. They were subsequently invited to Victoria. The 13 recommendations included in their report - General Report to the Commonwealth Office of Education (with appendix on Victorian needs) – included the following:

That since our experience leads us to a firm conviction that modern methods of educating deaf children call for a supply of teachers who have undergone full time training in them, provision be made to ensure that an adequate number of trained teachers of the deaf is available.

Blake, L J (Ed) Vision and Realisation, pp 931-932; 1009-1010.

23 State College of Victoria Media Release, Friday, August 20, 1975, State College of Victoria, 21 Coppin Grove, Hawthorn, VPRS 3037, Unit 1.

24 Leo Murphy had a significant influence on the education of the deaf and was the first Head Teacher of the newly established Glendonald School for Deaf Children. A fuller account of the School’s history and Leo Murphy’s contribution to the education of the hearing impaired is to be found in More than a School: Glendonald School for Deaf Children by Paul Duerdoth and Nicholas Vlahogiannis, Victoria College Press 1992.

25 Certificate of Child Care in Special Education; Certificate for Teacher Aides in Special Education; Certificate in Aural Rehabilitation; Certificate in Education of the Mentally Retarded; and Certificate in Education of the Hearing Impaired.

26 SCV News, November/December 1976

27 Dr Simon Haskell, MA, PhD, joined the staff of SCV Burwood as a Senior Lecturer in December 1975. Formerly a Lecturer at the University of London, Institute of Education, and Senior Educational Psychologist with the Spastic Society, Dr Haskell has been a visiting Professor of Educational

279 psychology at the University of Calgary in Alberta. He acted as a consultant on the education of the physically handicapped to many governments throughout the world, and was a recipient of Sweden’s Folke Bernadotte International Award for outstanding work in the field of cerebral palsy.

28 The new institution was named after George William Rusden, an early educational pioneer, who rode over 10,000 miles in order to establish national schools in Victoria before it became a colony separate from New South Wales. 29 SCV News, July-August, 1977, No. 2-77, VPRS 3037, Unit 1.

30 Information supplied by Associate Professor Don Gibb on 23 April 2003. 31 “Rusden was offered to Monash, and Monash didn't want it. It made sense for the University to absorb Rusden being adjacent to it. There were major degree level studies which could be used along with the property. The University in negotiation could not accept programs like dance, home economics, media, physical education so the Commission was left with Rusden as a problem.” Interview with Michael Selway 10 April, 1999.

32 Information supplied by Associate Professor Don Gibb on 23 April 2003. 33 September 25 Letter to Professor P H Karmel, Chairman, Tertiary Education Commission, Private papers of Dr N G Curry.

34 VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 24, Copy of Newsletter Editorial attached to letter to Dr G Allen from President and Vice-President HEAV, dated 9 November 1981.

35 DUA Series 459, Box 6, Rusden College Council Meeting 7/81, Principals Report Attachment C8 36 L B McCalman (1983) Pioneer and Hardy Survivor: The Prahran “Mechanics” since 1854, Prahran Historical Series No. 3, Prahran Historical and Arts Society, East-Side Printing, South Yarra.

37 VPRS 8536/P1, Unit 276. Letter to Chairman, VPSEC from Mr V Majzner, Prahran Faculty of Art and Design, 21/04/1983

38 VPRS 4055/P2 Unit 3, Correspondence between Dr David Armstrong, and Dr. P. Law, Vice- President, Victoria Institute of Colleges, 16 January, 1973.

39 Noble, op. cit. p.49

40 VPRS 4055/P2, File 4/2/22, Part 2, Certificate of Degrees, 30 April 1980, Degrees and Diplomas, Degree Conferring Ceremonies, Prahran College of Advanced Education 41 Noble, op. cit. p. 49

42 Its relative size can be judged from the fact that in the Victorian college system at that time there were 11 colleges with larger advanced education enrolments and 10 with smaller numbers of enrolments.

43 Noble op. cit. p.49

44 Dickson, D.E.N., Killingsworth, J.S.M., Wilkinson, J. (1979) Report on Mature Age Education in Australia, Research and Consultancy Centre, Prahran, Melbourne, p.88

280

45 VPRS4055/P2 Unit 53. Staffing of colleges required the formal approval of the V.I.C. Not only was it necessary to gain approval for total staffing numbers but the V.I.C. also regulated approval of the classification levels within each category of staff. Thus in 1980, of the 116 academic staff, the approved establishment was made up of one position at Principal Level III, one position at Head of School I, two positions at Head of School level III, one position at Head of Department/Principal lecturer I, six positions at Head of Department/Principal Lecturer II, two positions at Principal Lecturer III, 32 positions of Senior Lecturer I/Senior Lecturer II, 58 Positions at Lecturer I/Lecturer II, and 13 positions of Tutors/Demonstrators of various levels.

46 VPRS4055/P2 Unit 8. Address by Eve Mahlab at Prahran College of Advanced Education Graduation Ceremony, Wednesday, 30 April 1980.

47 Southern Cross, July 9, 1980

48 Education Age, 28/10/1980, p.17

49 Transcript of Interview between Steve Waurn, Radio 3RRR and Dr Colin Campbell, 29/7/1980.

50 Prahran College of Advanced Education, Background Papers for Meeting with VPSEC, March, 1981, p.19

51 PCAE Education Specification, Ibid. p.24.

52 Southern Cross, 18/3/1981, p. 13

53 The Age, 27/5/1981, p.15

281

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s: Roche, Vivienne Carol

Title: Razor gang to Dawkins: a history of Victoria College, an Australian College of Advanced Education

Date: 2003

Citation: Roche, V. C. (2003). Razor gang to Dawkins: a history of Victoria College, an Australian College of Advanced Education. PhD thesis, Education, University of Melbourne.

Publication Status: Unpublished

Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/38837

File Description: Razor gang to Dawkins: a history of Victoria College: an Australian College of Advanced Education

Terms and Conditions: Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by the copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner. Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their own personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.