Análisis de datos

There was almost unanimous support in submissions for the Government’s targets for participation by low SES students and students from other under-represented groups. However, on average, universities indicated that low SES students are more expensive to teach and support than other students, although it is not clear whether these views conflate the costs of low ATAR students with the costs of low SES students. If low SES students are to achieve outcomes comparable to other students and they are associated with higher costs of teaching and support, these costs should be recognised by government and reflected appropriately in the funding model.

In its response to the Bradley Review, the Government allocated additional funding to assist in increasing the participation rate of low SES students in higher education through the HEPPP. The HEPPP comprises distinct ‘partnership’ and ‘participation’ elements. The partnership element of the HEPPP aims to assist universities to undertake outreach activities and build relationships with schools, VET providers and other organisations that comprise the community of potential students from low SES backgrounds. Funding will be available from late in 2011 for collaborations and partnerships that aim to raise low SES student aspirations and provide encouragement and support for low SES students to engage in higher education.

The ‘participation’ element of the HEPPP provides an incentive for universities to enrol low SES students and to help meet the costs of achieving the Government’s participation target that

20 per cent of higher education students will be from the lowest SES quartile by 2020. The funding is provided to institutions as an enrolment loading in respect of each domestic low SES undergraduate. Over the first four years, funding per annum for participation is $42.9 million, $84.9 million,

$133 million and then continues at $133 million (indexed) each year after that.

From 2013 the HEPPP incentive payments for low SES participation targets are drawn from a fixed allocation that means that the per capita amount awarded to institutions will reduce as the number of low SES students increases. This prediction is based on the evidence seen in the way the per capita

value of Enabling Loading has declined as the enrolment numbers have increased. This would be an undesirable outcome because universities will continue to bear the costs of programs and activities aimed at increasing the participation and retention of low SES students. While the ongoing costs of increasing low SES participation are not known, it is likely that the larger cohort of low SES students expected to enrol in university over the next decade will have different needs compared with the more highly selected group of low SES students that is currently in the higher education system. There was broad agreement in submissions to the Panel that the participation funding that will be provided under the HEPPP is a positive initiative. However, views differed on the adequacy of its value, which will be approximately $1,000 per EFTSL. According to information provided by universities to the Panel, the estimated additional cost of increasing the participation of low SES students ranged from nothing to around $2,000 per EFTSL. The majority of institutions put the figure at between $500 and $1,000 per EFTSL. The University of South Australia argued that the costs of low SES students were approximately $2,000 per EFTSL. Regional universities and universities that enrol a high proportion of low SES students were more likely to emphasise the extra costs and support structures that were needed. In contrast, those universities where low SES students comprised a relatively small proportion of total enrolments were less likely to raise as an issue the extra cost of low SES students. It is possible that these institutions enrol only a selective group of high-performing low SES students who do not require additional support.

The Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education also raised concerns about funding for students with disability and the impact on learning outcomes. During consultations they referred to high levels of hearing impairment, diabetes, blindness and other disabilities among Indigenous students and the high costs of some treatment and supports, such as hearing loops, which were necessary for student participation. The Panel noted this concern and the fact that low SES disadvantaged Indigenous students present a range of costs in addition to those for educational support. However, the issue was considered generally beyond the scope of the Review since it relates to the Disability Support Program.

The Panel concluded that the cost to universities in meeting the needs of low SES students was a core component of funding for teaching and learning.

6.2.1 supporting low ses participation in the long term

The Panel concluded that universities should continue to receive incentives to enrol low SES students and that such an incentive should be included as a loading on base funding.

The Panel therefore recommends that the participation allocation currently earmarked for distribution through the HEPPP should be maintained in real terms, at the value of $1,000 per EFTSL, as an enrolment loading for low SES students. This low SES loading would be implemented in a similar manner to the current Enabling and Regional Loadings which are part of the Commonwealth Grant Scheme and used to supplement base funding.

Submissions varied on whether to keep the HEPPP separate or whether it should be rolled into the base. Some universities argued that all funding for equity, including programs for Indigenous students and people with disability, should be rolled into the base as these costs were intrinsic to overall teaching costs. The Panel considers that as it is recommending simplifying the balance of contributions between government and students, a loading for low SES students is the best option, rather than rolling the funding into base funding.

6.2.2 supporting school–university partnerships

The Panel was impressed at the number of partnership activities that universities reported they were developing. Many interesting and innovative arrangements are now being developed through universities taking the initiative to build stronger partnerships with schools and other organisations serving lower SES status communities. Universities are also responding to the call to build stronger partnerships with VET providers to provide successful articulated pathways between VET and higher education qualifications.

Allocation of the majority of the HEPPP partnership funding is starting in late 2011, so its impact cannot be assessed. When projects are implemented they will build on current initiatives to provide universities with further resources to improve partnerships with schools and education providers to improve participation. The HEPPP partnership funding will help universities expand their role in establishing pathways to higher education and will complement the range of assistance and support provided by universities, education providers and governments.

Partnership activities can be strengthened and improved in many different ways to ensure that they are sustainable in the longer term. The Panel recommends that the Government consider options to extend and strengthen partnership activities when the HEPPP is reviewed. In particular, the Panel suggests that the Government should consider expanding the funding for partnership activities to other parties such as VET providers, non-profit agencies, and especially schools. More direct funding of all partners, rather than just one—the universities—may assist in widening the range of activities and initiatives aimed at increasing the incentives for low SES students to engage in higher education. However, the Panel considers it important that there should be additional funding allocated, rather than expecting expansion of these activities under the existing funding allocation.