Helen Zimmerman has been on the frontline of international education since she started teaching English to migrants in the 1970s. Now executive general manager of Australia’s largest English language and university pathway provider, she talks about the evolution of the Australian industry.
The PIE: How did you start in the international education industry?
HZ: I probably started way back with my father, who was a German immigrant. I got interested in different cultures simply because of growing up in 1950s Western Australia. Back then the staple meal was ‘meat and three veg’, but my father had these funny foods in the fridge which I loved. I went on to study Asian studies and Indonesian at ANU and spent a lot of time in Asia, finally becoming an ESL teacher in Indonesia and Australia.
That was around the time of the fall of Saigon and there was a huge demand for English language teachers. I worked in refugee and migrant education until the 90’s when I became a consultant. In 1994 the Australian Centre for Languages, ACL, approached me to be Director of Education. It was a fascinating and challenging time at ACL because the industry was experiencing a major downturn in Chinese students post Tiananmen Square.
“I think that we have not engaged well with Australian communities about the benefits of international education”
The PIE: What was your role there?
To take on the academic direction and leadership and also re-build ACL after the industry downturn. I saw our core purpose as working with people across cultures to build futures, whether they be international students or migrants and refugees.
The PIE: You were quite a pioneer in the industry, tell me how ACL expanded internationally.
HZ: When I joined, ACL was the specialist in academic English and study skills preparation for university. We had a centre at the University of Western Sydney as well as ‘pathwaying’ students into undergraduate and postgraduate programmes for many of the Sydney-based universities.
We were also successful in winning labour-market contracts for preparing migrants and Australians to get back into the work force. Then the Government put out to tender the Adult Migrant English Programme in the mid-90s and we were spectacularly successful in winning about 20% of the national delivery.
We went from a reasonably small organisation with two campuses, to having colleges across Western Sydney preparing migrants and refugees with the English language for effective settlement, work and further study. Around that time we also entered into a partnership with Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh to run the Australian University Studies Program.
In 2004 we acquired the Australian College of English, ACE, which up to then had been our largest competitor. ACE focused mainly on language travel/gap year students from Europe and Japan. At the time the ACL international student mix was probably 90% from Asia. It was very complementary.
“Before selling to Navitas we turned over around AUS$75 million, with a staff of about 500”
The PIE: Before you sold to Navitas, how big were you?
HZ: We turned over around AUS$75 million, with a staff of about 500. ACL had primarily operated in New South Wales, with offshore operations in Vietnam, Thailand and China. In the early 2000’s we began to move into online English language resource development and tertiary education in conjunction with an Australian university. The ACE colleges gave us a presence in Perth, Brisbane, Cairns, and additional colleges in Sydney, as well as strong teacher training expertise.
The PIE: And all these operations are still running through Navitas?[More>>]
HZ: Yes, apart from our TNE ventures. We have been fortunate to expand our delivery of the Adult Migrant Education Program in NSW to around 94% of clients. We are also in consortium with AMES Victoria to deliver the national distance/e-learning AMEP program. We are really the only significant private provider in this sector.
The PIE: Australia has had a tough few years. Do you see that as being on the turn now?
HZ: They are certainly committed to doing something about it. As are the peak and professional bodies. We’ve managed to come together and have been taking a position with government for quite a number of years now about needing a whole-of-government approach that supports and celebrates the benefits of international education.
“We had a debate about a small Australia or a big Australia and it sent messages that Australia wasn’t welcoming”
The PIE: Was that what was missing?
I think that desire was always there and then the downturn hit, but I think at the same time the paradigm changed completely. All of the things that we’re hearing about now are really about the impact of globalisation and the fact that we are so connected, and needing to look at a much more mutually beneficial relationship with learners and their source countries.
The changes on the visa regime were so sudden, really, and so extreme that it created problems. We had an election, we had a debate about a small Australia or a big Australia and it sent messages that Australia wasn’t welcoming. I think all of those things contributed negatively, together, with issues of safety and security for students.
The PIE: But the visa problem had to be addressed because of Australia’s record numbers, don’t you think?
HZ: Absolutely. The rogue practice was never quantified in a way and the media coverage was only focused on the negatives so people thought it was rampant, but it wasn’t. My assessment is that probably less than 5% of the industry was affected by bogus school closures. The majority of providers were very high quality and continuously received high student satisfaction ratings.
The PIE: What are your thoughts on the Chaney report?
HZ: I fully endorse the 35 recommendations and seven themes contained in the report but I’m just concerned with resourcing. The fact that the proposed Ministerial Coordinating Council for International Education (MCCIE) will only meet twice a year will be insufficient to ensure active engagement by stakeholders and implementation by governments. There was also hope that a five-year strategy would be forthcoming, but this has now been pushed back into the council’s proposed work plan.
“I endorse the recommendations and themes in the Chaney report but I’m concerned with resourcing”
The PIE: It still seems quite innovative that the Australian government backed the task force with business involved to write the report.
HZ: Yes, it’s great. I believe education is our most important industry. Unlike mining, knowledge is a renewable energy. We are good at delivering quality outcomes, not just at making money. However we need to adapt to changed demand and ensure students feel more welcome in Australia. Since 2009/10 export earnings have fallen by over 3 billion dollars. That’s people’s jobs, not only in the industry but in the support services around it, in the local communities.
The PIE: What is the average Australian’s understanding of the industry?
HZ: I think that we have not engaged well with Australian communities about the benefits of international education and international students to Australia and our place in the world. The importance of the industry is better understood in rural and regional communities where international students are welcomed for the diversity they bring as well as contributing to local tourism and service businesses.
We need to do a better job in the big cities and counter the myths that are around, for example that international students take places from domestic students. There is a big ‘hearts and minds’ engagement strategy that’s needed.
