Another example of divergence between the NZ approach and the approach taken in Australia (and the UK)!

Peachey’s views reflect a traditional conception of merit defined exclusively in terms of of secondary secondary attainment. I understand the logic, I just don’t agree with it and don’t think it’s in NZ’s best interests.

By comparison, Australia is following offshore examples, notably the UK, by extending access. Firstly, by making funding demand-driven and secondly, consequently, by extending entry beyond the senior secondary certificate. For example, Sydney University has announced it will broaden it’s entry requirements beyond the Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (based on senior secondary certificates).

Taking this further, there’s a recognition in Australia that while tertiary participation has improved in the last ten+ years, the participation of low-SES students has been static. Remedying this requires addressing the performance of schools, looking at student motivation and reconsidering curriculum. It also requires that entry is not solely based on senior secondary attainment. Peachey’s approach is, IMHO, likely to reduce social equity and effect labour productivity.

Peachey’s comments justify reducing funding and access. That’s not to say these aren’t his genuine personal views, they may well be, they’re also politically convenient.

And while I agree there’s too many low value qualifications, including degrees, that problem can be addressed without reducing access.