Response to the DEEWR Discussion Paper : An indicator Framework for Higher Education Performance Funding

The Council of Australian Directors of Academic Development (CADAD) is the peak professional body of Directors who have responsibility for academic development within their universities. The mission of CADAD is to promote and advance research, policy and practice as it relates to the leadership, management and development of higher education learning and teaching. Membership of CADAD is open to Australian universities eligible for funding under the Australian Higher Education Support Act (2003) and who are members of Universities Australia. Each university nominates one representative. Membership is not open to other organisations or individuals. (See Appendix for more information about CADAD and full list of member institutions.) This response is made by the members of the executive of CADAD in relation to those aspects of the discussion paper which are focused directly on available evidence and research related to teaching and learning. The views expressed in this Response are as members of the Executive of CADAD and focus on the areas in which CADAD is qualified to comment. We do not purport to represent the views of the universities at which we are employed. The following is written in two parts. The first explores the issues and assumptions that apply across a number of the proposed indicators and recommends broad adjustments and changes to better account for the performance of institutions and achieve the Governments' stated objectives. The second section examines in more detail the specific indicators and measures identified in the Quality of Learning Outcomes. The Government is seeking to introduce higher education performance funding for teaching and learning, which will serve the dual objectives of extending reach and enhancing quality. Performance funding will be delivered via individually negotiated targets against indicators of performance. The Discussion Paper identifies a number of indicators and how the measures will be articulated and seeks feedback on these. While the discussion paper makes it clear that there are dual objectives for the performance funding, we argue that these should be separated into two distinct components that are reported and funded separately. It is appropriate that the Government should set a social and political agenda and provide incentives and programs to achieve these. However, by combining these into a number of the quality indicators, the Government runs the risk of confusing higher education stakeholders on what might be reported as quality but is not: rather it is a social and political agenda. For example: Student …