The Midwifery Council has led an intriguing change process in recent times, culminating in several providers changing their degrees and a university dropping out of the market. What other industry group is wielding so much power?

As you might be aware, midwives are in shortage in many parts of the country, and the Midwifery Council (MC) has been doing what it can to double graduate numbers as soon as possible. During a related review of midwifery standards from 2005-07, the MC identified many areas of improvement, with extra time for practical work being a key change. In order to fit in the extra hours, the MC decided that  programmes should shift from 3 EFTS to 4 EFTS, but still be offered over 3 years, with 45, rather than 34, teaching weeks. Providers were told of the changes in August 2007 and told to be ready by 2010.

In response, Otago Polytechnic and CPIT gained approval for a joint programme with online options (check out their joint site), while Wintec also gained approval (NB approval was from both ITP Quality and the MC). AUT developed a proposal but was initially turned down by the Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP), but was later approved by them and the MC. Massey gained CUAP approval for a four-year degree but did not seek MC approval after it became clear they would not get it. Massey’s reasons for the four-year degree were  (as reported by the MC):

• welfare – students needed time to earn money during holidays and with their families, including student holiday care for children;
• pedagogy – students needed time off from learning;
• staff research – staff needed time to research; and
• student retention – some students might prefer a four year programme.

The MC considered Massey’s issues and disagreed – their background paper is worth a read for those interested in the details. Personally, I think Massey’s arguments are weak. This is a vocational degree and people want to get a job as soon as possible, so a longer year is unlikely to be a problem. That longer year will involve breaks anyway, which will largely be aligned with school holidays. The main issue for the University was probably research time, but if you compress study, you could easily hire more staff to carry the load (as I imagine AUT is doing). I also wonder whether research is that important in this area – midwifery falls into the nursing PBRF subject panel, which had the lowest research performance in the whole tertiary sector in 2006 (see 2006 TEC PBRF report, p.100) - it was under half of the score of education! Now Massey was the top performer in nursing research, but it still had a very low score – education is the MC’s priority and also, by observation, the providers’ priority in midwifery.

As a result, Massey is not enrolling new midwifery bachelor degree students in 2010 - students in the old programme will continue, along with postgraduate degree students. Massey has played an important role in training midwives – Midwifery Council examination datashows that 26 of the 98 examination candidates in 2008 came from Massey – but now Otago and CPIT are offering courses in Wellington, Palmerston North and Wanganui (apparently working with UCOL in Palmie at least). I wonder whether Massey will be able to re-enter the undergraduate market.

The title suggested that midwives might be the strongest group in tertiary education and I was only half joking. As an industry group they have managed to push through a major change in qualifications and bring most of the providers with them. Massey baulked (with CUAP’s active support, as I understand it) but the MC stood their ground. The MC seems to be on track with a new approach that will deliver more competent graduates into the workforce at a quicker rate. I wonder how many registration bodies, ITOs and industry groups could say the same? We still need to see whether it works, but I am encouraged to see the MC being so proactive with tertiary education providers. It may also be a precursor for other debates if qualifications are to be rationalised, thereby giving national industry groups more say.