Vice-Chancellory

NationalCentreforStudent

EquityinHigherEducation

Vice-Chancellory

Building100

Kent Street BentleyWA6102

GPOBoxU1987

PerthWA6845

22July2016

Tel: +61892661573

Email:

Web:ncsehe.edu.au

HigherEducationReformFeedback

HigherEducationGroup

AustralianGovernment

Departmentof EducationandTraining

GPOBox 9880

Canberra ACT2601

Email:

ToWhomItMayConcern

Submissionto:DrivingInnovation,FairnessandExcellenceinAustralianHigherEducation

ThankyouforprovidingtheNationalCentreforStudentEquityinHigherEducation(NCSEHE)withan opportunityto makeasubmissionontheDrivingInnovation,Fairnessand Excellencein AustralianHigherEducationIssuesPaper (“IssuesPaper”).Australiahasastrongrecenthistoryinusingdepartmentalissuespapersto drivethepolicyagenda inhighereducationandensurethatattentionis focusedon issuesof nationalimportance.Weanticipatethatthis paperwillbenoexception.

AbouttheNCSEHE

TheAustralianGovernmentestablishedtheNationalCentreforStudentEquityin HigherEducation(NCSEHE), currentlybasedat CurtinUniversity,withthepurposetoinformpublicpolicydesign,policyimplementationand institutionalpracticeinordertoimprovehighereducationparticipationandsuccessformarginalisedand disadvantagedpeople.

InAustraliaand internationally,theNCSEHEactsasa conduitfordiscussionandresearchon issuesaffecting studentequityinhighereducationpolicy,practiceandanalysis.Inkeepingwithitspurpose,theNCSEHEaimsto connectstudentequitypolicywiththeactivitiesof highereducationinstitutionsandnationalequityoutcomes,through its inputintocomparativeassessmentof institutionalstrategies,systemicassessmentsof policyachievementsand assessmentsof nationalpolicymakingin viewof thisevidence.Aspartof thismission,theNCSEHEstrivesto ‘close thegap’betweenequitypolicy,researchandpractice,conductingactivitiesthroughthreecoreprograms:

•EquityPolicyandProgramEvaluation(EvaluationProgram)–providingleadershipandsupportin developinganationalapproachandresourcestoevaluatethe impactof initiativestoincreaseparticipationof peoplefrom lowsocio-economicstatus(lowSES)backgroundsandotherequitygroupsinhighereducation.

•EquityPolicyandPlanningResearch(ResearchProgram)–furtheringequitypolicyandplanningin Australia,sharingknowledgeandcapabilitiesdevelopedin Australia,andprovidingevidenceonthe impactof policyonequityoutcomesinthesystem.

•StudentEquityDataandAnalysis(DataandAnalysisProgram)–providinganalysisandavailabilityof

nationaldatasetsonstudentequityinhighereducation.

CurtinUniversityisatrademark of CurtinUniversity of Technology. CRICOS ProviderCode00301J

TheSubmission

ThissubmissiontotheIssuesPaperfrom theNCSEHE,asbefittingitsmission,willfocusonequityandfairnessin highereducationpolicy.TherearethreekeyreportstheNCSEHEpreparedfortheAustralianGovernment Departmentof EducationandTraining–andattached/linkedto thisletter–that indicatetheextentto whichworkthat hasalreadybeenundertakencanprovideimpetusandsupportforthegovernment’sintentionsinthecoming years.

Thereportsdiscussedare:

1. AFrameworkforMeasuringEquityPerformancein AustralianHigherEducation:(i)FinalReportand(ii) ForwardPlan,writtenbyDrTimPitmanandMrPaulKoshy,NCSEHE.

2. PathwaystoHigherEducation:Theefficacyof enablingandsub-bachelorpathwaysfordisadvantaged

students,writtenbyDrTim PitmanandProfessorSueTrinidad,NCSEHE;ProfessorMarciaDevlin, FederationUniversityAustralia;DrAndrewHarveyandMrMattBrett,LaTrobeUniversity;andDrJade McKay,DeakinUniversity.

3. EquityScholarshipsProvisionandImpacts,writtenbyProfessorGailWhitefordandProfessorSueTrinidad,

NCSEHE.

Thesethreereportsarebrieflysummarisedbelow.

1. AFrameworkforMeasuringEquityPerformanceinAustralianHigherEducation

Sincethereleaseof theDepartment’sdocumentonequitygroupidentificationinA FairChanceforAllin 1990,and thesubsequentMartinReview(TheReviewof EquityandGeneralPerformanceIndicatorsinHigherEducation)in

1994,AustraliahasusednationaldatacollectionstrategiestomonitorandplanforequityoutcomesinAustralia, throughtheuseof indicators.Thissawtheidentificationof keyequitygroupsin Australianhighereducation:

•lowsocio-economicstatus(LSES)students;

•studentswithdisability;

•Indigenousstudents;

•studentsfrom regionalandremoteareas;

•womeninnon-traditionalareasof study(WINTA);and

•studentsfrom anon-Englishspeakingbackground(NESB).

AstheIssuesPaperreports,equitygroupscontinueto beunder-representedinAustralianhighereducation.1This observationhasunderpinnedmajorpolicyinitiativesin recentyears,especiallytheHigherEducationPartnershipsand ParticipationProgram(HEPPP),whosefundingis allocatedonthebasisof institutionalenrolmentof lowSES

studentsin undergraduatecourses.

TheNCSEHE’sproject,A FrameworkforMeasuringEquityPerformancein AustralianHigherEducation(“the Framework”),contributesto thedevelopmentofthisimportantsystem.Itdescribestheresultingworkandfinal recommendationon theform of anewequitycollectionsframeworkforAustralianhighereducationand is accompaniedbyaForwardPlanforitsoperationalisation.

TheFramework(627kB)is intendedtobuildonthislegacy.Indoingso, itwill:

•provideasetof indicatorsthatwillallowthemeasurementof institutionalandsystem-wideachievementin the highereducationsectoragainsttheGovernment’scommitments,targetsandgoalsinrelationtoequity;

• informpolicythroughtheprovisionof relevantinformationto supportthedevelopmentof evidence‐based policy;
• fosterinformeddebatethroughtheprovisionof keyinformation;

•provideaplatformwhichwillguideevaluationof programsbygovernmentandactivitiesbyInstitutions;and

•informpracticewithin,andsupportequityin,thehighereducationsystem.

1AsperTable1(p.11)of theIssues Paper.

WorkontheFrameworkinvolvedwidespreadconsultationwiththeDepartment,externaldatacollectionagenciesand institutionsand incorporatesfeedbackfrom a widerconsultationwithpractitionersandadministratorsandresultsfrom thetestingphaseof theproject.

Importantly,theFrameworkhasbeenestablishedin viewof thedevelopmentof thedemanddrivenenrolmentsystem inhighereducationandpossibleextensionof theHECS-HELPprogramtonon-universityhighereducationproviders (NUHEPs).

TheFrameworkwillreportonspecificinstitutionalandsystem-wideperformanceamonghighereducationprovidersin termsof theaccess,participationandperformanceof thesixgroupsof under-representedstudents(equitygroups)in highereducation.Additionally,theFrameworkcanbe extendedtoincludeanynewidentifiedequitygroups.

TheFrameworkreportsaseriesof Indicatorsforequityperformanceinhighereducation.Itis hierarchicalin structure and is comprisedof threeTiers:

1. Context(Pre-highereducation)– coveringpre-primary,primaryandsecondaryeducationresults;

2. Performance(Highereducation)–coveringall129Australianhighereducationproviders(seeAppendixB)

anduniversitystudentsatall levelsof study;and

3. Outcomes(Post-highereducation)–coveringgraduatesfrom highereducation.

EachTierhasrelatedDomainsandwithineachDomainarespecificIndicatorsthatmeasurehighereducationequity performance.UnderlyingeachIndicatoraredatawhichrepresentthemeasurementof thatIndicator.Detailsof the Frameworkcanbefoundin itsfinalreport.

TheForwardPlan(816kB)forthisprojectoutlinesthreeoptionsfortherolloutof theFramework:

•Option1(ContinueReportingintheCurrentContext);

•Option2(SeparateReportingof EquityPerformanceData);and

•Option3(Developmentof aStandalone‘EquityReport’).

Currently,theFrameworkandproposedForwardPlanforthisprojectawaitpublicrelease,butwewouldstrongly recommendthat itfeatureinpolicyinitiativesthatflowfrom policiesinitiatedin, anddeliberationson,theIssues Paper.

2. PathwaystoHigherEducation:Theefficacyofenablingandsub-bachelorpathwaysfordisadvantaged students(7MB)

ThePathwaystoHigherEducationreportconsiderstheefficacyof avarietyof sub-bachelorpathwaystohigher education,withimplicationsforfuturepolicyonsuchprogramsandtheirimportanceto ensuringfairnessinthe system.Thereportrepresentsthemostcompleteandup-to-datestudyof thiskind,specificto the Australianhigher educationsector.Itskeyfindingsinclude:

•Morethanhalfof studentsadmittedintohighereducationdo notusean ATARandtransitionviaalternative pathways.Greaterattentionneedsto be paidto thetransparencyof highereducationadmissionsprocesses inthesealternativepathways.Students,parentsof studentsandthemedianeedtobe bettereducatedin this regard.

•Agreaterproportionof studentsenrolledin andtransitioningviaenablingpathwaysarefrom recognised equitygroups2thananyof theothersub-bachelorpathwaysexamined.

•Intermsof rawnumbers,enablingprogramsaresecondonlyto VETstudiesintransitioningmoreequity- groupstudentsto Bachelor-levelstudiesthantheothersub-bachelorpathwaysexamined.

•Studentsfrom recognisedequitygroupswhoarticulateviaan enablingprogramgenerallyexperiencebetter first-yearretentionratesthanthosearticulatingviamostothersub-bachelorpathways.

2Namely: Aboriginal andTorres StraitIslanders;peoplefromlowsocio-economic status background;peoplewithadisability;peoplefromregional andremoteareas; peoplefromnon-Englishspeakingbackgrounds; andwomenenrolledinnon-traditionalareasof study.

Therefore,wethink itof criticalimportancethatmeasuresdesignedtoimprovethetransparencyof highereducation admissionprocessesgiveappropriateconsiderationtothefullrangeof alternativepathways,includingenabling programs,sub-bachelorprogramsandVET.Thesepathwaysaddadegreeof complexityto anyproposedadmissions transparencyframework.Itis essentialthatthiscomplexityberecognised,otherwiseprospectivestudentswillbe misinformed.

Ourresearchrevealsmuchvarietyinthestructure,durationandfocusof enablingprogramsthatwillneedto be accommodatedinanadmissionstransparencyagenda.Thisvarietydoesnotfit neatlyintotheprinciplesproposedby the StandardsPanel.Forexample,studentscannotbe expectedto haveequalknowledgeof howvariousadmissions processestreatenablingandpathwaysprograms(Principle2), andpresentinginformationaboutdiverseentry pathwaysin acomparableform(Principle6)risksdriftingintooverlyelaborateandlengthydescriptions.

Somesuggestionsforhowthesechallengesmayberesolvedinclude:

•Integratinginformationaboutkeyentrypathways(e.g.enablingandVET)withinanyadmissionstransparency framework;and

•Informingstudentsthedegreetowhichtheseprogramshavecurrencywithininstitutionaladmissions processes.Forexample,institutionalpoliciesthat indicatethatstudentsmaygain entryfollowingapathways programarepotentiallymisleadingwithinatransparencyagendaifinstitutionaladmissionspracticesdonot valuethis pathway,ordo valuethispathwaybutwithlimitedprospectof success.

Finally,abroaderquestionrelatingtopathwaysprograms,andparticularlyenablingprograms,is theextentto which theseprogramscouldorshouldalignwithanynationallyagreeddefinition.Thereareimportantpolicyimplicationsof knowingwhichtypesof enablingprogramsaremoreeffectivethanothersandthis questioncouldbeconsideredin moredetailbytheHigherEducationStandardsPanel.

3. EquityScholarshipsProvisionandImpacts(5MB)

Australianuniversitiesprovideequityscholarshipsto newandcontinuingstudentsasastandardpractice.Theequity scholarshipsthataremadeavailableacrossuniversitiesvaryin amountanddurationandalsoinstatedeligibility criteria.Aprocessthroughwhicheligibilityis determinedandthroughwhichthescholarshipsareadministered,also variessignificantlyfrom institutionto institution.Untilrelativelyrecently,therehasbeenlittledataavailablewhich reflectsbothinstitutionalpractice(s)intheprovisionof equityscholarshipsandthe impactsontherecipients–the students–of thesescholarships.Thisis an issueof concernforfundersandprovidersalikegiventhattheaggregated numberof scholarshipsofferedhas,in an uncappedandHEPPPfundedcontext,raisedsignificantlyintheperiod between2009and2016.Addressingtherangeof issuesassociatedwithanuncappedenvironmentis currentlythe focusof thenewlyformedHigherEducationStandardsPanel(HESP,2016).

Aspartof itsnationalmandatetohighlightandaddressissuespertainingtostudentequityin Australia,theNCSEHEcommissionedareviewof fourrecentAustralianstudiesfocussedonequityscholarships.Thepurposeof thisreview wasto:

•identifywhichscholarshiparchitecturesaremostappropriate;

•determinewhichequitystudents-relativetoneed–benefitmostfrom scholarships;

•identifywhatthethresholdamountsforscholarshipsarethathavemostimpact;and

•identifybestinstitutionalpracticeforadministeringscholarships.

Basedonthisanalysis,thereviewof foursignificantstudiesaimedtoalsopositrecommendationswithrespectto:

•Policy–forfundersandproviders;

•Institutionaladministrationof equityscholarships;and

•Futureresearchpriorities.

Intermsof researchrecommendationswhatis requiredis to provideevidenceof theimpactof scholarshipsinorderto determinethetrue impactof whatis apatchworkof offeringsacrossthesectorcurrently.

Thefindingsindicatethatsignificantfundsaredevotedtoscholarshipsandevaluationpracticeis diversein termsof ascertainingitslikelyimpactandefficacyof thosefunds.Thereis scopeforinstitutionsto‘own’aspectsof their scholarshipspracticeandimplementevaluationframeworksthroughwhichtheinstitution-levelimpactsof scholarshipsbecomemorevisible.Thiswouldallowforimprovementof processesontherun,andalsoto acquit againstfunding.

Whatneedsinvestigationis howmuchof thisinformationmayalreadybecapturedthroughexistingcollections.For instance,thefirstandfinalyearquestionnaireof theUniversityExperienceSurvey(UES),whichis completedbya largenumberof students,couldform thebasisof datacollectiononscholarships.

Iftherearegaps intheUEStheycanbeaddressedthroughthe introductionof amodulein theUESforscholarship recipientsonly.Thiswouldprovidethetypeof dataneededto accesstheimpactof scholarshipswithoutnecessarily initiatinganewsurvey.Thechallengewouldbeto ensurethatmorescholarshiprecipientscompletedtheUESand theadditionalquestions.Completionof theUEScouldbea conditionof scholarships.

Adatasetonscholarshipholdersof thistypewouldallowforsophisticatedstatisticalmodelling,includingmultivariate analysis,tobeundertakenatinstitutional,stateandfederallevelsto determinecausalrelationshipsbetweenstudent background,age,scholarshiptype,duration,universitycontext(equitysupportinfrastructure)etc.Thiswill complementtheextant,descriptivestatisticsavailableandprovideamoredetailedpictureof the impactof scholarships.Thiscouldcomplimentanational,multimethod,longitudinalstudythattracksindividualstudentsfrom

equitybackgrounds.Thisshouldincludethosewhohavebeeninreceiptof ascholarshipsothatintra-and inter-group comparisonscanbemadeonarangeof indicators(includingaccesstoanduseof socialandacademicsupport).

Thiscouldalsoincludeethnographicresearchcomponentwithindiscretesocio-demographiccommunities(e.g.

remotecommunities)andsocio-culturalcommunities(e.g.Indigenous,CALDcommunities)toilluminatethemeanings associatedwithcommunitymembers(inreceiptof anequityscholarship)engagingin highereducationand impacts

onaspirationandattainment.

ConcludingRemarks

Weprovidelinkstothesereportsinthisletter.Wetrustthattheyproveto be asourceof discussionanddebateasthe

Departmentshapesthehighereducationpolicyagendaforthecoming years.

Inaddition,theNCSEHEhasconductedanexerciseto‘identifythegaps’in itsownhighereducationresearch program,onewhichsummariseskeyresearchoutcomesanddiscussespotentialfutureissuesfacingequityprograms in Australianhighereducation.

Wewouldbehappytoprovidefurthercommentonthereportsprovided,ourfutureresearchdirection,orother mattersasrequired.

Yourssincerely

ProfessorSueTrinidad

Director

NationalCentreforStudentEquityinHigherEducation