Implications of the Bradley Review
recommendations for student equity groups
The University of Melbourne
Centre for the Study of Higher Education
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.
The University of Melbourne
“By international standards
has high-quality
but
CentreAustralia
for the Study
of Higher Education
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 highperforming 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. The University of Melbourne
3.
Centre
for the in
Study
of Higher Education
This underrepresentation
greatest
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
students
Total
Low
SES
The University of Melbourne
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)
Centre for the Study of Higher Education
>
The Bradley recommendations:
Towards universal higher education?
•
•
•
Expansion of overall participation in HE, targets for identified
groups
The University of Melbourne
Funding for outreach, loading for low SES enrolment
Centre
for the
Study of Higher Education
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
The University
of Melbourne
improve
equity?
Centre for the Study of Higher Education
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 The
and/or
institutionsof Melbourne
University
2. Expansion of theCentre
academic
workforce
for the Study
of Higher Education
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 &
1. New campuses The
and/or
institutions
University of Melbourne
pricing
policies
2. Expansion of theCentre
academic
workforce
for the Study
of Higher Education
>
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 &
1. New campuses The
and/or
institutions
University of Melbourne
pricing
policies
2. Expansion of theCentre
academic
workforce
for the Study
of Higher Education
>
Contingent
on national
4. More open entry
policy
settings
5. Curriculum innovation & diversification,
and
for accessibility and relevance
institutional
6. Strategies for retention in first year
cultures
3. Institutional mission differentiation
1. New campuses The
and/or
institutionsof Melbourne
University
2. Expansion of theCentre
academic
workforce
for the Study
of Higher Education
3. Institutional mission differentiation
4. More open entry
5. Curriculum innovation & diversification,
for accessibility and relevance
6. Strategies for retention in first year
Not simply a matter of $, these require shifts in
institutional policies and priorities, and new
academic cultures and attitudes
>
1. New campuses The
and/or
institutionsof Melbourne
University
Complex
at this
2. Expansion of theCentre
academic
workforce
for the Study
of Higher issues
Education
>
3.
4.
5.
6.
nexus — the
Institutional mission differentiation
extent and
nature of
More open entry
institutional
Curriculum innovation & diversification, differentiation
will be central
for accessibility and relevance
to the goals for
Strategies for retention in first year
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?
Melbourne
(as the UA responseThe
to theUniversity
Bradley reportof
described
it, there
are “differential circumstances
Centre for of
theinstitutions”)
Study of Higher Education
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?
>