Search Results

Attempts to make higher education more equitable more readily succeed at the aggregate (sector) level than at the institutional, with students from disadvantaged groups being overrepresented in low-status institutions. It is suggested that this is because policies of 'fairness' (i.e. proportional representation) dominate the contemporary policy framework and are strongly resisted by elite universities. However, using the Australian higher education sector as an example, this paper argues that equity policy is actually a mix of 'proportional fairness' and 'inclusion' and elite institutions resist not because the policy is deficient but because it might actually work. An alternative approach to higher education equity policy is proposed; one which requires elite institutions to engage meaningfully with disadvantaged students but allows them to retain their status advantage.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less

Whether or not disadvantaged students are realising the same benefits from higher education as their peers is of fundamental importance to equity practitioners and policymakers. Despite this, equity policy has focused on access to higher education and little attention has been paid to graduate outcomes. The Australian study reported here used national data to investigate relationships between disadvantage and graduate outcomes. The study provides critical insights into how access to higher education does, or does not, lead to improvements in post-graduation equity. The study reveals that outcomes are not equal for all students and that higher education disadvantage persists for many students after they have completed their studies. Whilst the specific findings relate to the Australian university sector the broader discussion of the article is relevant to higher education policy more generally, especially in terms of how governments align institutional processes to measure and scrutinise achievement in relation to public policy objectives.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less

As a result of the Bradley Review (2008) of higher education, Australian universities are under pressure to enrol more students from diverse social and educational backgrounds. This paper considers how the recognition of lifelong and life-wide learning (commonly known as 'recognition of prior learning' or RPL) might be used to enhance higher education access for a larger and more diverse group of students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Within a critical theoretical framing, the paper presents selected findings from a larger research study of the admission policies and practices of different types of universities. The focus here is on the Australian Technology Network (ATN) group, which prides itself on championing principles of participation and equity, consistent with the goals of the Bradley Review. To complement a discourse analysis of university policy documents, findings from interviews with staff involved in the development and enactment of admission policy at one ATN university are analysed. Findings reveal that the ATN group is well-positioned to deliver increased enrolments of students from disadvantaged backgrounds through RPL. However there is evidence that current admission policies and practices focus on notions of academic quality and meritocracy, and this might act to undermine attempts to make the sector more accessible. Implications for admissions policy development which harmonise with the Bradley reforms are also discussed.

Published abstract. Show less

This project was conducted by a team from Curtin University and the Australian Council for Educational Research and funded by the Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment through the National Priorities Pool Program (NPPP). This report details the findings of a feasibility study for the Department of Education and Training (DET) into the development of a higher education student equity ranking index. The purpose of the study was to determine whether it was possible to measure higher education equity performance at the institutional level and convey each institution's relative performance through an 'equity rank'. The ranking was to be based on institutional performance in regard to equity-group students, including students from low socio-economic backgrounds; students from regional/remote areas of Australia; Indigenous students; students with disability; and students from non-English speaking backgrounds.

Edited excerpt from publisher's website. Show less

This report details the findings of the 'Enabling programmes for disadvantaged student groups project', which was funded as part of the Australian Government Department of Education and Training National Priorities Pool funding 2014 round with the research undertaken in 2015. The project team conducted a review of current enabling programs and reported on: (1) the extent to which current enabling courses offered by Australian higher education providers are an effective means of increasing access to, participation and success in undergraduate courses for domestic students from disadvantaged groups; (2) the appropriateness of enabling courses as a pathway to university for disadvantaged groups compared to other pathways; (3) the variability in quality between enabling courses that impacts on their effectiveness for disadvantaged student groups; and (4) what, if any, particular practices or means of delivery should be incorporated into enabling courses to enhance their effectiveness for people from disadvantaged groups. For the purposes of this report, 'disadvantaged students' were primarily defined in line with the six officially recognised equity groups of students ('the equity group of students'): low socio-economic status (low SES) students; students from regional and remote areas; Indigenous students; students with a disability; students from a non-English speaking background (NESB); and women in non-traditional areas of study (WINTA).

In relation to their reasons for choosing the pathway they did, both enabling and vocational education and training (VET) students shared similar motivating and driving factors. The distinction between the two was evident in that enabling students were primarily seeking a way to access and prepare for university, while this was a secondary consideration for most VET students who were seeking vocational skills or access to a specific vocation. When asked how their chosen pathway could have been improved, the majority of enabling students were satisfied with the enabling program and how it prepared them for university, while VET students were less satisfied with their pathway and saw room for improvement. By and large, the VET and enabling pathways serve distinct cohorts of students and act in a complementary, not contrasting fashion. It is a case of enabling and VET, not enabling or VET.

Edited excerpts from publication. Show less