Opinions

An alternative vision of future education is as technology enabled services, focused on lifelong learning, targeting learners predominantly global and online. This vision presents challenges to those operating with infrastructure, processes and staff and leadership profiles, and offering learning products, meant for the old model of higher education. It presents opportunities for those with changed mindsets to be bold and innovative.

The Accord presents an exciting, energising and unique opportunity for equity and inclusion to be on the front page and in the lead position in change in our sector. It is unleashing long awaited energy and enthusiasm from those that have shown dedication to its cause and case for lifetimes, most fully by those with lived experiences.

It is easy to think we are alone in going through a once in a generation review of higher education and that all the answers we need should come from within. Before jumping to that conclusion, one of several reality and sense checks can come from contrasting our experience and thoughts towards solutions, with lessons others learned trying the same.

We might all need to accept a different funding and regulatory environment in the future. We might all need to accept that more than there being winners or losers as our system evolves to meet the needs of our learners and cities, that there is strength in collectively supporting diversity of providers with differences in mission.

Given the links between technology use and equitable engagement, technology should have a central role in lifting equity in higher education. Technology should also play a more central role in the Universities Accord process and what it leads to, potentially in conjunction with the Australian and global EdTech sector and industry. A fuller embracing of technology in teaching and learning will improve both quality and equity of the university system. At a time when we’re looking to increase student numbers and include more diverse Australians in university than ever before, the power of technology to achieve policy aims can’t be overlooked.

We might have to make technology enabled employment a venue for future oriented, relevant lifelong learning facilities by smart learning facilitators from a new model of higher education. This needs embodied mind sets in higher education leaders and from leaders of the accord. We might need to get out of our higher education bubble and create a psychological safe innovation environment that separates performance and learning zones and rewards them differently and separately. The Tertiary Education Commission on its own may not be the answer to that. A learning capability for the sector that gives space to think and debate and create the future might be the piece that is missing at present.

At a time when the Australian Universities Accord is looking to reposition the sector and its institutions for a doubling of student completions by 2050, primarily from under-represented equity groups, ignoring the full potential contribution of AI to achieving that end, is an oversight. The most significant recent breakthrough productivity technology needs a bigger place in our plans than that. Given limitations of funding and the issues with student pipelines from our school system, this might be the only means of realising the vision.

A great trigger to many successful businesses and start-ups, including in the technology and education fields, arises from founders and innovators with a strong personal passion driven by their formative experiences. Such a foundation for entrepreneurship is often complemented by how these experiences shape approaches to leadership.

Have we got the policy settings, and all the institutions we need, for the outcomes and headline goals the report is setting? Or is there much more we could learn about real change from other sectors and continuing and ongoing insights from more diverse, best practice global higher education innovation?

There are few and scarce examples of how we could intentionally get to a different university model for the future by starting again and creating wholly new, differentiated, student focussed, globally relevant learning providers. These would be intentional and driven by metrics of student engagement, completion rates and of what graduates go on to achieve in leadership and future study. These go beyond immediate graduate employment rates and starting salaries. Our measures of suitability for a changing future might be better served by status in innovation than historical reputation in research rankings and prestige.