TEC has responded to my earlier post about a possible restructure there. The following text is part of a note going out via TEC Now shortly and it is clear that no restructure is happening right now, but there may be one as a result of two policy changes. (Thanks again to TEC comms, for a speedy and detailed response – they’re on a roll this week.)

We would like to bring you up to date on a number of recent developments that will affect the TEC.

Firstly, Cabinet has recently agreed to clarify that the Ministry of Education is the Government’s principal advisor on policy relating to tertiary education. The TEC will retain the role of providing advice to the Minister on the implementation of policy and the operational considerations and impacts of policy initiatives.

Secondly, as recently announced, there are some changes to the way Training Opportunities funding will be administered.  From 2011, the Ministry of Social Development will oversee 40% of current sector funding, focusing their investment on preparing clients for employment. TEC will continue to administer the remaining 60% of funding.

In light of these decisions, the TEC Board is considering what changes, if any, are required in its organisation to ensure that it is well-positioned to deliver the Government’s priorities for tertiary education.

The change RE the shift of TO money is fairly straightforward (but will affect some roles), but the shift in policy responsibility could be VERY significant. Elizabeth Eppel (ex MOE tertiary head honcho) and Ann Clark (ex TEC general manager) were known to discuss on occasion the placement of tertiary education policy advice in the early to mid 2000s, and Janice Shiner (ex TEC CE) sought and gained the primary policy advice role in tertiary education (well, things weren’t quite that civilised or simple). That left the MOE in a rather weak policy role, advising on the TES and sector monitoring, but often not dealing with the detailed policy issues or, to be frank, appearing that relevant to the rest of the sector. On the other hand, the TEC has run a fairly self-contained policy shop in some ways, sometimes without that much openness to the wider sector.

Giving the MOE the primary policy role does shift things back to a more standard policy/operational split, but there are many practical issues to work out. Will the MOE boost its staffing and depth of expertise so that they can fulfil the wider role? Will the TEC recategorise a lot of current “strategic” policy work as “operational” and thereby retain their power? Will any of this matter outside of Wellington?