The University of Melbourne > Centre for the Study of Higher Education Implications of the Bradley...

The University of Melbourne >Centre for the Study of Higher Education

Implications of the Bradley Review recommendations for student equity groups

Will the Bradley recommendations improve equity?

Richard James

Director, Centre for the Study of Higher Education

University of Melbourne


First, a broadbrush sketch of the Australian equity context

1. Social class differences in school completion rates and levels of achievement are central to the present inequalities in access to higher education.

“By international standards Australia has high-quality but relatively low-equity schooling compared with other high-quality countries. It also has far too few young people finishing upper secondary schooling or its equivalent.” (p.69)

“Improving equity will require a focus on low performance, not on disadvantaged social background per se, but we cannot ignore the fact that poor performance is more strongly related to social disadvantage in Australia than in some other high-performing countries” (p. 73)

McGaw, in Marginson & James (2008) Education, Science and Public Policy: Ideas for an education revolution.


2. Persistent, near static, underrepresentation (in share of places) for people of low SES, rural/remote people and Indigenous people.

3. This underrepresentation greatest in the universities and courses for which there is the most demand.

4. Hints of growing social polarisation between universities.

5. First year attrition a problem for many universities, but this problem is (perhaps surprisingly) quite evenly dispersed across student sub-groups. Retention rates for low SES and rural are generally on a par with other groups. However, retention is a particular issue for remote people and Indigenous people.


First year attrition 2006, illustrative universities (%, DEEWR data for commencing domestic students)

All Low students SES

Total 18.5 20.4

No. 1 uni 8.6 9.0

No. 9 uni 13.8 11.8

No.18 uni 18.1 16.3

No.27 uni 22.2 21.6

No.36 uni 32.7 34.8

(Worst uni 35.7 37.6)


The Bradley recommendations:Towards universal higher education?

• Expansion of overall participation in HE, targets for identified groups

• Funding for outreach, loading for low SES enrolment• Student entitlements, student income support

The first attempt at a policy framework for ‘universalising’ participation in Australian undergraduate education. PLUS, Bradley also attempts to unlock the stasis in equity policy since Lin Martin’s original work.

Social, political and educational issues and tensions are inevitable as the nation (and the HE sector) develops a new conception of the purposes and structures of higher education. The interactions between the recommendations in the Bradley package will be critical to the outcomes.


So, will the Bradley recommendations improve equity?

Cautiously, yes, but there are no guarantees.


There are six interlocking conditions for achieving expansion and equity on the scale proposed by Bradley:

1. New campuses and/or institutions

2. Expansion of the academic workforce

3. Institutional mission differentiation

4. More open entry

5. Curriculum innovation & diversification,for accessibility and relevance

6. Strategies for retention in first year


Reliant on federal

funding & pricing policies




4. More open entry




Reliant on federal

funding & pricing policies




4. More open entry



Contingent on national

policy settings

and institutional

cultures





4. More open entry



Not simply a matter of $, these require shifts in institutional policies and priorities, and new

academic cultures and attitudes





4. More open entry



Complex issues at this nexus — the extent and nature of

institutional differentiation will be central

to the goals for expansion and

equity.


Some of the unknowns, gaps

1. Can higher demand for higher education be generated? (demand has been rising only slowly)

2. How would equity targets be set at institutional level?(as the UA response to the Bradley report described it, there are “differential circumstances of institutions”)

3. What would be the effects of a competitive model for outreach and low SES enrolment? Why not a collaborative approach?

4. How would student entitlements be married with institutional selection policies? (Much to be worked through here)

5. Can undifferentiated, low-status bachelors degrees be avoided?

6. How can conceptions of equity be broadened to more effectively embrace postgraduate education & international education?

The University of Melbourne > Centre for the Study of Higher Education Implications of the Bradley...

Documents

Transcript of The University of Melbourne > Centre for the Study of Higher Education Implications of the Bradley...