Fair go for all but not at any price
Vice-Chancellor Paul Johnson
Email: paul.johnson@latrobe.edu.au
As Australian students begin the new University year, few would be aware of the radical changes that lie ahead for universities across the country.
The way students will be admitted, universities funded, research organised and rewarded is all set to change following the Commonwealth Government’s adoption of the long awaited Bradley Review.
Last year Federal Minister for Education Julia Gillard announced a series of major policies: to increase the proportion of young Australians with a qualification at bachelors level from around 30% today to 40% by 2025; by 2020, 20 per cent of higher education enrolments at undergraduate level should be of people from low socio-economic background and from 2012 Universities will be funded according to how many domestic students they admit.
These policies create opportunities for growth, innovation and structural change in higher education on a scale unknown since the 1960s.
The higher education environment will become increasingly competitive. Universities will move into offering flexible learning and cross-disciplinary research. Opportunities for tertiary education will also come from private-sector companies and TAFEs.
This is good news for existing and future students and employers alike
But the policies will also remove from universities many long-standing certainties about revenue and enrolments, and will create new expectations about the level and consistency of performance in teaching and research.
I welcome this renewed focus on encouraging more of our young people to complete high school and go on to higher education.
It comes at the right time. Australia is lagging in the proportion of our population with degree-level qualifications.
In Australia only 32 per cent of young adults have been to university.
Compare this with Sweden’s national target of 50 per cent of all people up to the age of 25 participating in higher education – a target they have almost achieved. The UK too has almost reached it target of 50 per cent of all those up to the age of 30 by 2010 – they’re currently at 43 per cent.
Both these countries have made substantial inroads into encouraging and then supporting disadvantaged young people through higher education.
In Australia we have not been as successful. In spite of the abolition 20 years ago of up-front university fees and the introduction of a mass university system, young disadvantaged people still comprise only 15 per cent of admissions, about 92,000 students.
The government has set a high target. The question is how are we going to get there because get there we must.
Without greater equity in our higher education system, Australia will not realise the high-level knowledge and skills it needs to compete with the most successful economies of the world.
Economics aside, equality of opportunity is a moral imperative.
Universities have a major role to play because they carry a responsibility for the education of our future leaders, workforce, innovators and problem solvers.
But they also have a moral duty to deliver quality. So the drive for equity must not result in second-rate course offerings as a way of attracting a more diverse range of students to meet funding targets.
Instead it must focus on providing programs that offer students highly flexible study options and clearly defined professional outcomes.
But universities are not the only players in this vision of equity.
There are many reasons why students from poorer areas are not enrolling. These include community and family issues arising from parental attitudes, poverty and lack of aspiration, as well as poorer results at school.
We can only make a difference to low disadvantaged enrolment if governments around the country play their part and schools are prepared to rise to the challenge.
The Australian Council for Education Research is correct in saying we need to improve the numeracy and literacy of economically disadvantaged students at school so they can perform better throughout the education system.
There are other issues too. We need to look at how to link the senior high school curriculum and how it is taught with the first-year university curriculum. We need a new assessment system – one which identifies students with the potential to do well at university but who do not rank well in high school exams And we have to look at how to help students finance their higher education experience.
To achieve the national target of 20% of disadvantaged students, the Centre Link income support system will require large-scale reform to address the diversity of the student population and demands for a flexible learning environment.
We also need to look again at how Australia deals with the rising number of young students opting for part-time study. They need to work to survive. Part-time students are not eligible for Youth Allowance or Austudy and scholarships are only aimed at full-time students. This needs to be addressed.
Helping disadvantaged students is critical to our economy, education system and our sense of social justice. If we do not, we have failed.
Nevertheless, we cannot afford to lower standards in an effort to address equity. There must be more investment to expand the overall system. Providing a financial incentive for universities for increasing participation for disadvantaged groups is just that – a financial incentive for individual universities and not a moral imperative.
The challenge is to find people who can benefit from and succeed at university who may not be identified through current processes.
I believe that we can become more courageous in our admission policies to attract a more diverse student population. Strong leaving exam results are only part of the equation. The ability and potential in a student to think well, solve problems, be creative must be included too.
For there is no question: whatever tertiary institute you go to - your life opportunities will significantly improve.
Contact:
Phone: