This paper presents the outcomes of web‐based research examining 16 Australian and New Zealand University Policy Frameworks. The research explored the various ways in which Australasian Universities articulate University Policy Frameworks (through Policy on Policy, or ‘meta‐policy’ statements and other mechanisms), and undertake policy development and review. The paper explores the hierarchical relationships between governance and policy instruments, approval authorities and University policy scope. The paper examines various Australian University Policy Cycle models, including those identified as ‘value adding’. The paper explores policy promulgation methods including Policy Websites and Policy Repositories, and examines the range of tools available to support the Policy Cycle. The role of ongoing monitoring and evaluation is examined, and policy review mechanisms to support continuous policy ‘quality’ improvement. The research suggests some key criteria for the quality management of University Policy Frameworks from an Australasian, cross‐Tasman perspective.

Powerpoint slides only

New Zealand tertiary education organisations (TEOs) and Australian tertiary education providers both face regulation increasingly reliant on institutional policy to evidence compliance. Whereas the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) Tertiary Evaluation Indicators require evidence that institutional policies and practices are ‘legal and ethical’ and ‘minimise barriers to learning', Australian providers must comply with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) Threshold Standards and evidence policy implementation, benchmarking and improvement over time. Policy and compliance practitioners on both sides of the Tasman are grappling with these issues and in some instances, duplicating effort to respond to requirements. This session will draw on a study involving document analysis of publicly available, internet-based institutional meta-policy (that is, policy on policy) and associated resources of some New Zealand and Australian tertiary education providers, and reflect on contemporary policy management themes emerging from Association for Tertiary Education Management (ATEM) Institutional Policy Network forums, ATEM teleconference policy group discussions, and discussions held (December 2012) with staff from select New Zealand universities and polytechnics. These reflections span institutional policy management systems and processes, and experiences regarding policy implementation compliance. While many institutions have established systems for developing institutional policy, few have publicly available information demonstrating how policy is ‘legal and ethical’, few appear well placed to evidence compliance, and there are limited resources available to support value-adding policy cycle stages required to comply with regulator requirements. This session explores avenues for trans-Tasman policy borrowing, networking, and information-exchange to collaboratively face these regulation-driven institutional policy challenges.

Sensible, implementable, reviewable policy systems and processes are pivotal governance artefacts for New Zealand tertiary education organisations, but how do you know if your institution stacks up? This presentation will explore outcomes from the Institutional Policy Project involving collaboration between Otago Polytechnic, the University of Melbourne, University of California – Berkeley, and Papua New Guinea’s Pacific Adventist University and Island Research and Consultants. This research explored New Zealand tertiary education organisation policy practitioners’ conceptions of policy, policy development systems and processes (including policy cycles), and institutional meta-policy (including policy frameworks). Policy borrowing and practice reframing will be promoted by highlighting exemplary policy systems and processes from New Zealand and comparator countries, and establishing a framework for a practical Policy Toolkit.

Globally, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, research and development (R&D), and innovation are considered critically important for national productivity, economic competitiveness and societal wellbeing. This paper explores the findings of the STEM: Country Comparisons project that considered STEM in East Asia, the Anglo-sphere, Western Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. The research revealed a global turn to STEM, and this paper discusses trends and parallels regarding government STEM policy and structural responses, school and tertiary level STEM education participation, comparative performance through PISA and TIMSS assessments lenses, STEM R&D, and issues concerning gender and under-represented groups including Indigenous peoples. The paper discusses programs and solutions including curriculum and pedagogy reform, teaching-related initiatives, and strategies to redress current systemic disparities.

The WIL Project was undertaken in 2010 to develop a new Work Integrated Learning (WIL) Policy using the staged University Policy Development Cycle. This cycle represents an adaptation of the stepped policy development process depicted in the Australian Policy Cycle (Althaus, Bridgman, & Davis, 2007). This paper examines the process undertaken to examine two key research questions – What is the University of Tasmania’s position regarding WIL; and How should these guiding principles be reflected in formal policy documentation? The project involved a number of elements, including a WIL Project Manager, a WIL Working Party, a literature review, data collection, benchmarking as policy learning (Lundvall & Tomlinson, 2002; Paasi, 2005), WIL Discussion Forums, and an extensive series of interviews. The project dovetailed with the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT) WIL Provocations Symposium. Consultations and deliberations involved collegial governance structures. This paper reveals the diversity in work-related curriculum offerings and disciplinary approaches at Australian universities, and suggests that establishing clear definitions is an important step towards developing minimum academic standards or obligations. This paper reports tensions between University-wide umbrella policy provisions and requirements by local academic sections for a high degree of specificity. This paper suggests that the process of asking complex academic policy questions is self-perpetuating, as more questions are raised which demand policy responses. Finally, in developing a uniquely University of Tasmania approach to work integrated learning, the project confirmed the importance of ongoing dialogue and collegial governance to guide learning and teaching policy development.