Opinion: Measuring what matters: Why “distance travelled” could transform tertiary education in New Zealand

When I spoke at the Tūwhitia conference a few years ago about ‘Provider Premium’, I argued that the New Zealand system was too focused on lag measures, such as course completion, first-year retention, and qualification completion, while undervaluing (or even ignoring) the growth learners make along the way. I was therefore thrilled to see the conversation now embedded in the recently released Tertiary Education Strategy (TES) 2025–2030, which calls for stronger measures that “better capture the progress individuals make relative to their starting points,” especially for learners with lower prior achievement. This acknowledgement matters, because it’s elevating what I’ve previously described as provider premium, or what the TES now calls “distance travelled”, alongside traditional metrics, reconnecting tertiary education to its purpose – lifelong capability building and equitable prosperity, without losing sight of economic outcomes.

The moment we’re in

The Government’s TES sets five priorities: Achievement; Economic Impact and Innovation; Access and Participation; Integration and Collaboration; and International Education, and positions tertiary education as a lever for productivity and growth. It is explicit that this is an “unapologetic” refocus on results, with stronger emphasis on graduate outcomes, completion, innovation and commercialisation. That clarity is welcome, and somewhat overdue, given the sector’s financial pressures and a tougher macro environment. But it also raises a challenge, as a system designed to chase outputs can unintentionally incentivise selection effects (admitting those most likely to succeed) rather than value‑add (investing to lift those who have the most to gain from that success, and supporting those institutions that do the heavily lifting too). “Distance travelled” is the bridge between those two imperatives.

The current context makes this urgent. In recent years, New Zealand’s economy has struggled to grow, outward migration has accelerated, and unemployment has ticked up. Universities and education providers are being asked to do more with less, while also proving impact in tighter time frames and budgets. The TES is hopefully part of a wider programme to strengthen universities and the science and innovation system, with the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) aligning investment with the new priorities and will, in the future, release plan guidance to embed these priorities in funding decisions. If we want these changes to improve equity as well as productivity, distance‑travelled metrics need to become part of the investment logic – not a footnote.

What do we mean by “distance travelled”?

At its core, “distance travelled” measures the progress a learner makes from their starting point - academic readiness, socio‑economic context, prior achievement, and non‑academic capabilities - through to specific milestones. It reframes performance from “Did you hit the finish line?” to “How far did you move toward it?” In practical terms, it includes:

• Academic uplift (diagnostic baseline → course‑level achievement → credential).
• Employability development (work‑integrated learning, career confidence, network strength).
• Wellbeing and belonging (engagement, retention, connection to community).
• Research and innovation participation (exposure to inquiry, entrepreneurship pathways).

Importantly, this approach does not discard outputs. It contextualises them. A programme that moves a cohort from low prior achievement to credible employment outcomes may be delivering more societal value than one nudging already‑high performers to marginally higher salaries. The TES explicitly signals the need to strengthen outcome measures with progress indicators that recognise learners’ starting points; that is the invitation for us to get specific.

Why system‑level adoption matters

Providers who have piloted variations of distance‑travelled measures in student support, foundation programmes and WIL (work‑integrated learning), but fragmented approaches won’t shift behaviour. We need a system‑level architecture so that:

1. Funding follows improvement, not just absolute outcomes. TEC’s investment approach under the new TES can embed “value‑add” metrics into plan guidance and performance expectations - rewarding uplift for underserved groups, regional learners, and those entering through alternative pathways.
2. Data links school → tertiary → work. Without longitudinal data, distance travelled risks becoming anecdotal. The TES prioritises integration and collaboration. We should use that mandate to build cross‑sector data sharing that is privacy‑safe but analytically rich, connecting learner profiles to tertiary milestones and labour market outcomes.
3. Equity becomes measurable at scale. New Zealand’s tertiary system must widen participation while also lifting achievement. Distance‑travelled metrics make equity tangible by recognising genuine progress for learners who start further back, rather than penalising providers serving them.

A practical framework we can adopt

Here is an example of a three‑layer framework that providers and TEC could implement based on an adaptation of a United Kingdom case:

Layer 1: Baseline profiling (Entry)

• Collect a standardised set of indicators at enrolment: prior achievement bands, diagnostic literacy/numeracy, digital fluency, work experience, and wellbeing markers.
• Map these to agreed starting‑point profiles (e.g., foundational, intermediate, advanced). This creates the denominator for distance travelled.

Layer 2: Milestones (During study)

• Define semester‑level milestones across academic, employability, and belonging domains. Examples: completing gateway courses; participation in WIL or micro‑internships; verified skills (e.g., problem‑solving, teamwork); engagement with support services; leadership roles in clubs or community.
• Use rubrics (scoring tools) with clear descriptors (progressing → proficient → advanced) to capture movement. Importantly, weight milestones differently depending on starting‑point profiles to avoid bias.

Layer 3: Outcomes (Exit + 6–24 months)

• Track credential completion, quality of employment (field relevance, earnings bands, progression), further study uptake, and contribution to innovation/entrepreneurship.
• Evaluate outcomes relative to the baseline profiles: a learner moving from foundational to stable, relevant employment within 12 months represents substantial distance travelled.

System guardrails

• Auditability: Shared definitions and periodic moderation across institutions.
• Equity weighting: Recognise providers serving higher proportions of underserved learners.
• Transparency: Publish institution‑level dashboards that include distance‑travelled indicators alongside raw outcomes, so stakeholders can see both performance and progress.

In my view, this type of framework aligns directly with the TES priorities - achievement, access, integration and collaboration - and supports TEC’s plan‑and‑invest cycle. It also builds the narrative that universities and tertiary providers are delivering real value‑add, not just counting completions.

Addressing common concerns

“Isn’t this subjective?”
It doesn’t have to be. Rubrics, baselines, and external moderation can make progress measures reliable. Many institutions already use competency frameworks for WIL and graduate attributes; the system challenge is standardisation and comparability, not feasibility. The TES is clear that monitoring outcomes and system performance must improve, and distance‑travelled metrics are part of that improvement.

“Will this reduce focus on economic outcomes?”
I don’t think so. It should strengthen them by distinguishing who made gains, and how much. In an environment where the Government is unapologetically focused on economic growth and productivity, demonstrating value‑add for learners from diverse starting points is a compelling funding case.

“Isn’t this an extra reporting burden?”
Yes, initially, but once it is established, it replaces fragmented internal measures with standardised, shared metrics that better capture what the TES says it wants: results that matter. TEC’s upcoming plan guidance and templates provide the ideal moment to embed these expectations, so investment flows to providers that can evidence uplift as well as absolute performance.

Let’s dream a little and imagine what success could look like in three years – assuming everything was in place.

If we act now, by 2028 we should be able to show:

• Improved completion and retention for cohorts with lower prior achievement, evidenced by uplift relative to baselines.
• Better employment outcomes for those cohorts, with demonstrable progression within 6–24 months post‑study.
• Stronger regional and industry partnerships, with distance‑travelled measures embedded in WIL and micro‑credential pathways - exactly the integration TES calls for.
• A more resilient narrative for New Zealand’s tertiary sector: not only how many students we graduate, but how far we move people, and how that contributes to productivity and inclusive growth.

The TES has reframed the conversation toward outcomes and economic impact. Whether we agree with that or not, that is the focus of this current Government. But if we want a system that drives growth and expands opportunity, we must measure the journey, not just the destination. “Distance travelled” gives us the lens to do that fairly, rigorously, and at scale. My fingers are crossed that we can maintain the momentum to embed progress metrics in the heart of our system, so New Zealand’s tertiary education measures what truly matters: learner growth, capability, and contribution.

Dr Tere McGonagle-Daly, Ngāti Whakaue ki Maketu, Te Arawa, is the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Students and Global Engagement at Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University. He has held senior positions at universities in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom.