EXPLAINING POLICY FAILURE: THE CASE OF EQUITY POLICY

Observations of Australian Government policy 1989-99 designed to increase the participation of people of low socio-economic status backgrounds in higher education.

Kathleen Marcella Wright

Discussion Paper No. 76
September 2000
ISBN: 0 7315 34190
ISSN: 10302190


This discussion paper is a revised version of a Policy Analysis Report written as part of the requirements for the Masters in Public Policy, Australian National University


Abstract

Ten years ago the Australian Government developed a strategy that has been described as 'unique in providing a national commitment to, and framework for, equity, which has itself been the stimulus for action in all institutions' (NBEET 1996: 11). One of the policy's objectives was to increase the representation of people from low socio economic (SES) backgrounds in higher education. Statistical data suggests that has not been achieved. Yet despite this evidence and changes of government the 1989 framework survives intact today. This report explores the development and of the policy framework, some of the current explanations of the policy's failure and asks if it is time to look afresh at equity in higher education.



Introduction

The policy period falls neatly into two parts with 1996 as the watershed. That was the year when the review of the Federal Labor Government's higher education equity policy was published and received by the new Coalition Government. The review, published as Equality, Diversity and Excellence: Advancing the National Equity Framework, found that most of the obvious barriers to the participation by disadvantaged groups had been removed, yet little progress had been made in improving the participation of students from low SES backgrounds. It suggested it was time 'to embark on a deeper examination of the reasons why some inequalities in participation and outcomes still exist in higher education in spite of the significant efforts of universities to redress the symptoms of disadvantage during the last five years' (NBEET 1996: ix).

For the new Minister, Senator Amanda Vanstone, the report documented the former Labor Government's failure to address equity issues seriously.

One of the great boasts of the Labor Government was that it expanded access to higher education. The truth is that the Labor Government failed in the achievement of equity…
People from the lower socio-economic strata and regional areas, who are under-represented in the higher education profile, have not been helped by Labor's lip-service to equality. People from lower socio-economic strata, who represent 25 percent of the 15-25 age group, remain at about 16 percent of the student body. For mature-aged students the under-representation is even more pronounced (Vanstone 1996 a).

She promised that the report, and equity issues, would be considered in the forthcoming budget. So what had been the Labor Government's equity policy and how did the Coalition change this?

Labor Government equity policies prior to 1990

The Federal Labor Government, elected in 1983 had introduced a number of measures to promote educational equity. At the school level, the focus was on increasing the proportion of young people who completed Year 12 of secondary education. AUSTUDY was introduced in 1986 with the aim of overcoming the financial barriers which prevented financially-disadvantaged students from completing secondary education and continuing into tertiary education. AUSTUDY provided targeted income support at comparable levels to unemployment benefits for full-time students. The Government hoped that policies which encouraged school retention and completion would increase both the numbers of school leavers eligible for higher education and the diversity of their backgrounds. To encourage the promotion of equity in higher education the Government introduced two initiatives: first a program of growth in funded places that favoured institutions likely to attract students from under-represented groups and secondly the Higher Education Equity Program (HEEP) in1985. HEEP provided a total of $3.5 million, on a submission basis, to institutions to pilot approaches addressing under representation.

However the real development of equity policies for higher education began with the 'White Paper' Higher Education: A Policy Statement (Dawkins 1988). This paper effectively abolished the binary divide between universities and the Colleges of Advanced Education (CAEs) leading to the formation of United National System (UNS) of higher education. The Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) was introduced in 1989 to ensure that students made some financial contribution towards the cost of their higher education. HECS was designed to have minimum deleterious impact on patterns of participation. Students were neither required to pay fees up-front nor was their access to higher education dependent on means testing based on contemporary circumstances. Instead under HECS repayments were interest-free and income-contingent, deferrable until former students had attained above average earning levels (Chapman 1996:46). The Government determined to use some of the revenue raised through HECS to increase the participation of people from financially and other disadvantaged backgrounds.

Greater participation in higher education was to be pursued for reasons of economic competitiveness, social cohesion and equity.

The larger and the more diverse is the pool from which we draw our skilled work force, the greater is our capacity to take advantage of opportunities as they emerge. The current barriers to the participation of financially and other disadvantaged groups limit our capacity to develop the highest skilled workforce and are a source of economic inefficiency… (Dawkins 1988:7);

[Higher education] promotes greater understanding of culture, often at odds with majority attitudes and, in doing so, supports the development of a more just and tolerant society (Dawkins 1988:7).

The Government is committed to the development of a more equitable higher education system with improved opportunities and outcomes for all Australians. It believes that higher education should be acknowledged as a legitimate aspiration for those who satisfactorily complete 12 years of schooling or can demonstrate the equivalent capacity as mature age students (Dawkins 1988:53).

Equity was to be promoted in two ways. Firstly, by encouraging expansion in the university system. Secondly, in recognition that growth alone would be not be sufficient, by supplementary measures to encourage the participation of certain groups which were under represented in higher education compared with their numbers in the population. The White Paper established the government's intention to develop a national approach that promoted equity objectives as integral to institutional planning and review processes, and encouraged both innovation and application of proven approaches. It recommended the development of 'a statement of national equity objectives [to] form the basis for further negotiations between the Commonwealth and institutions on the development and funding of their equity proposals' (Dawkins 1988:53).

1990-The new national equity policy

The statement of national equity objectives in higher education was published as A Fair Chance For All: Higher Education That's Within Everyone's Reach in February 1990. It had five main components: an overall objective; clarification of the Commonwealth responsibility; the objectives, targets and strategies for each identified disadvantaged group; the requirement of institutions to develop plans that reflected institutional circumstances and the arrangements for monitoring institutional performance.

The policy objective was 'to ensure that Australians from all groups in society have the opportunity to participate successfully in higher education. This will be achieved by changing the balance of the student population to reflect more closely the composition of society as a whole' (DEET 1990:2).

The Commonwealth took responsibility for co-ordinating national action to promote equity in higher education by: developing a national overview; encouraging institutions to set goals; administering specific purpose programs and monitoring national progress towards the achievement of the overall policy objective. As part of the above, the government committed itself to funding an extra 49,000 places in the 1989-91 triennium and to provide extra funding specifically targeted to address under representation.

The statement identified six groups as being significantly under-represented in higher education:

· people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds;
· Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;
· women (particularly in non-traditional courses and postgraduate study);
· people with disabilities;
· people with non-English speaking backgrounds;
· people from rural and isolated areas.

The rationale for including people from low SES backgrounds was evidence from studies that indicated participation in higher education was closely linked to socio-economic status and the participation rates of people from socially disadvantaged backgrounds were low and had not changed in the period 1970-85. The government was concerned that large sections of the Australian population did not have access to the social and economic benefits of higher education and their potential to contribute was not fully taken up.

Objectives, targets and strategies were set, until 1995, for the sector to address the needs of each of the six groups. For people from low SES backgrounds, the objective set was to improve levels of participation 'so that the mix of commencing students more closely resembles the mix of the general population' (DEET 1990:14). All institutions were set the target of developing special entry arrangements by 1992. Strategies identified for achieving the objective and target above were: further development of special entry arrangements; bridging and supplementary support programs; awareness programs in disadvantaged areas; subsidised child care; improved links with Technical and Further Education (TAFE) and outreach with long-term unemployed people.

Universities were asked to review their 1988 Statements of Intent and formulate institutional equity plans to include:
the resources which each institution had committed to equity programs and initiatives;
how each institution had identified and targeted priority disadvantaged groups given its circumstances;
the equity objectives, targets and strategies which the institution had developed in respect of those priority groups;
how the institution would monitor and measure progress towards achieving identified objectives and targets.
Institutions were required to report annually on their progress in achieving their objectives in the annual educational profiles discussions with the Department.

Equity policy 1991-6

By 1991 the Commonwealth had implemented its policy by creating a framework of regulatory sticks and financial carrots that encouraged universities to promote equity. A structured reporting format for equity plans was introduced with the requirement that universities quantify their participation targets and identify priorities for equity groups. These changed requirements facilitated comparisons between institutions. HEEP funding ceased to be project-based and became an incentive-based scheme, with the Government allocating HEEP funding on the basis of performance and achievement of successful educational outcomes for designated equity groups. The overall annual amount of HEEP funding remained at $5 million; in 1994 the highest HEEP allocation was $128000 awarded to seven institutions (Reid et al 1995:234).

The other major development of the policy was the development of system-wide performance measures. A Fair Chance For All had highlighted the need for such measures in order to monitor progress towards equity objectives and targets, at both national and institutional level. Lin Martin's proposals, published in 1994 as Equity and General Performance Indicators in Higher Education were adopted. She recommended that the simplest and most practical way of identifying students' socio-economic status was to use their postcodes.

This approach uses the Index of Occupation and Education, developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), that provides a measure of the average occupational and educational characteristics of residents of postcode areas. Students' socio-economic status would not be determined by say collecting information on their, or their parents', occupational and educational backgrounds, but would instead be estimated using the Index value for the postcode of students' permanent home address. Students from low SES backgrounds were defined as those whose 'postcodes of home location fall within the lowest quartile of the population of a given catchment region determined by the value of the ABS Index of Education and Occupation' (Martin, 1994:135). This approach despite its recognised limitations, which are discussed later, was adopted on a trial basis for three years.

Martin also developed performance indicators for each designated group to measure their access, participation, success and retention in higher education. Participation, for example, is measured as the proportion of each equity group's participation in higher education as a ratio of what might be expected from each equity group's share of the total relevant population, derived from census or other data. For these purposes the general population is considered to consist of 25 per cent High SES, 50 per cent Medium SES and 25 per cent Low SES. In the case of Low SES students' participation for a given area this is defined as the ratio of total low SES students to total High SES students (Ramsay et al 1998: 125).

These quantitative indicators were adopted by DEET for use by universities in their equity planning. Ramsay's assessment is that the use of these measures introduced greater accountability to all universities and facilitated measurement of relative progress within and across the system. Linking HEEP funding to the equity performance of institutions 'encouraged universities to engage more seriously with their equity plans' (Ramsay et al 1998: 18).

In 1995 the Higher Education Council (HEC) was asked by the Minister to assess the progress to date towards meeting the original policy equity objectives and to advise 'on the appropriate foundation, principles, broad national policy objectives and means of monitoring achievements of the system in meeting these equity objectives over the next five years' (NBEET 1996: iii).

Coalition equity policy 1996-9

The Vanstone years 1996-8

As noted already, by the time that report Equality, Diversity and Excellence was published in July 1996 the Coalition formed the new Government. The Department became the Department for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) with Amanda Vanstone as Minister. The report identified a new goal and set of principles on which the equity framework, through to 2000, should be based. The new principal objective for equity across the system proposed was

To enhance the capacity of the higher education system to contribute to Australia's social, cultural, political and economic vitality and strength through system and institutional action, which embraces the full diversity of the community and results in a student profile that fairly reflects that diversity (NBEET 1996: 73).

Amongst its recommendations were these:

that from 1997 equity plans should be prepared by institutions on a rolling triennial basis;
that HEEP funding to institutions should be awarded triennially on the basis of performance against institutions' own targets and the integration of equity in the institutional framework;
that the six designated groups be retained for equity planning and management;
that specific priority be given to students from low SES backgrounds, with additional action and funding to attract more low SES students through:
· awareness programs, particularly those developed in partnership with other levels and sectors of education;
· target access programs;
· programs offering financial and social support;
· programs designed to address ways in which the culture of higher education works to discourage or exclude such students; and
· programs which encourage such students to consider higher level courses (NBEET 1996: 81).

Although Senator Vanstone had expressed dissatisfaction with the Labor Government's approach, the report was presented to Parliament. Whilst its subsequent official status remained unclear, Ramsay et al note that it set 'clear directions for progress, directions which have been taken up, at least to a degree, by DEETYA' (Ramsay 1998:27).
In the 1996 Budget Statement the Government announced its intention of reducing the operating grants of universities over forthcoming years and its encouragement of universities to find other sources of funding. Universities could now expand the range of courses for which they charged post graduate fees and would be allowed to offer fee-paying places up to 25 per cent of the total enrolment in any undergraduate course, except medicine, once they had filled their quota of Commonwealth-funded places. Equity was used to justify this change in fee-charging policy. 'It is fundamentally unfair to young Australians that overseas students wishing to purchase a place at an Australian university may do so, while Australian undergraduate students are denied the same opportunity' (Vanstone 1996:b).
Changes to HECS and student income support were similarly justified in terms of equity. The Minister argued that expansion of higher in higher education had resulted in higher rates of participation by middle class people and falling participation rates by the poorest. 'There is no evidence that the expansion in higher education has improved equity in higher education' (Vanstone 1996:e). This evidence provided a context for changes to HECS. Three tiers of HECS charges were introduced based on the costs of the course taken and the likely future benefits to the individual. Changes were made to the repayment schedules so that individuals started paying sooner and at lower income levels. These were justified because, 'It just doesn't seem fair to ask teachers with low course costs and lower income prospects to make the same contribution as doctors with higher course costs and much better incomes' (Vanstone 1996:e).
The age of independence for AUSTUDY was raised to age 25 and changes made to the Actual Means Test. These were justified because of community concerns that 'students from more affluent backgrounds who are undertaking lengthy periods of study currently bypass parental means testing at age 22 and receive AUSTUDY assistance to the end of their courses. This is not an equitable situation, nor is it making proper use of the taxpayer dollar' (Vanstone 1996 :d). The Minister announced the replacement of AUSTUDY from January 1998 by a new Youth Allowance, which would apply to full-time students until the end of the year in which they turn 25 (Vanstone 1996:f).

The Minister was adamant that there should not be insuperable financial barriers to participation, '..if the required entry standard has been achieved for higher education, a disadvantaged background should not limit access to university' (Vanstone 1996:b). Two specific equity measures were announced in the 1996 Budget: an allocation of $ 5.28 million for HEEP; funding of $36 million over four years to award up to 1000 new students, each year, an equity and merit scholarship that gave full exemption from the HECS charge (Vanstone 1996:b). Later the same year she announced that the Commonwealth would provide $16 billion to universities to create 13,000 more undergraduate places over the next three years of which, 660 new places would be targeted to institutions in 'regions of low participation and provision' (Vanstone 1996:g).

In August 1997 Minister Vanstone raised concerns about the fairness of using Tertiary Entry Requirement (TER) scores as the major selection criterion for higher education entry and announced $1million to pilot other creative selection processes. Arguing that the whole concept of a single index of academic merit places was fundamentally flawed and led to class and regional bias she said,

If the TER is not a fair measure of the intellectual capacity students for lower socio-economic groups, it is not a fair way of allocating public funding for undergraduate study. In fact, a system which allocates funds solely on the basis of TERs looks very much like a system that advantages people from higher socio-economic groups (Vanstone 1997:h).

The Government had kept the equity policy framework, maintained HEEP funding and introduced some new initiatives. However, its encouragement to universities to charge fees for undergraduate and post graduate study, the increases in HECS repayments and the changing student financial support arrangements, were changes that could potentially deter people from low SES backgrounds from participating in higher education. It is evident that the although the rhetoric of equity was retained it was also changing, from that of social justice for under-represented groups, to one of comparative 'fairness' between individuals and groups.

The West Review 1998

In January 1997 Minister Vanstone had appointed a Committee chaired by Roderick West to 'review Australia's higher education system in order to develop a policy and financing framework to enable the sector to meet the nation's social and economic needs in the next two decades' (West 1998: iv). The Committee reported in April 1998 to the new Minister, David Kemp.

Central to the Committee's vision of Australian higher education was a commitment that no Australian should be denied access because of their social background or financial circumstances. It considered that equity outcomes to date were disappointing and, noting that equity issues are complex, suggested that these need to be addressed on several levels. Its equity proposals were based on a model of empowering individual students, who are members of targeted equity groups, to make their own choices about support requirements and preferences.

'We start to move beyond a focus on equity groups and gross participation rates and concentrate on individuals. Difference need not be the same as inequality. Policies which focus on equal access will make a difference in the end only when individuals traditionally excluded from post-compulsory education are liberated to make an impact' (West 188:137).

The Committee proposed a number of fundamental changes to the present regulatory and funding frameworks for higher education and its proposals for changes to the present equity framework were set in that new proposed context. The Committee proposed that the government move to a form of student centred funding so that students 'should have a direct relationship with universities and a real say in what universities provide' (West 1998:15). It suggested that the present negotiations between the Commonwealth and institutions be replaced by a consumer model in which students had the 'purchasing power'. All students should have access to loans with repayment contingent on future income. Institutions would be allowed to set fees for all students, initially to an upper limit set by the Commonwealth for students receiving government funding for tuition. The impact of allowing institutions to set fees for all students on access and equity objectives would be monitored.

West proposed that existing arrangements for equity funding for institutions through targeted grants, based on submissions and/or performance, would be retained initially. They would be replaced first, by the government reserving a number of funded student places for targeted equity groups and, eventually, through supplementary grants targeted to members of equity groups. To overcome the risk that some institutions would withdraw their interest in equity once present funding and reporting arrangements were withdrawn, the Committee proposed that 'institutions should provide detailed information as part of the more general consumer protection information that is publicly available' (West 188: 137).

Equity policy post-West

The Government ignored West's recommendations but press reports, in October 1999, of a leaked cabinet submission by Minister Kemp indicated his personal support.

Kemp's blueprint to reconstruct higher education contains three main elements-the deregulation of fees to allow universities to charge unlimited fees for courses, the abolition of the low-interest-rate HECS system in favour of market-rate loans and a voucher system to encourage movement between public and private campuses (Sydney Morning Herald: 1999).

However in the political controversy that followed the Government eschewed Minister Kemp's submission and has since reaffirmed that fees will not be de-regulated, vouchers will not be introduced and the current HECS system will remain (DETYA a, 2000: 5). The Australian has suggested that the Government, having abandoned the West proposals does not currently have a blueprint for higher education (The Weekend Australian: 2000).

The equity policy framework which has been much-criticised by the Coalition remains in place. $6 million HEEP funding was allocated in 1999 although not, this time, on the basis of Departmental assessments of equity plans. Instead a base payment of $80,000 was made to every university and the remaining $1.9 million allocated on the basis of the number of students from each equity group enrolled at each university, adjusted to reflect academic success and retention of each group. Reflecting the Commonwealth's current priorities, 40 per cent of funds were for students from an urban low SES background (DETYA a 98). Evidence that the present policy framework will remain in place for some time can be found in Higher Education Equity Plans for the 1999-2001 Triennium, where DETYA indicates that, in future years, tables of performance indicators for each institution about each equity group will be published with the Equity Plans (DETYA 1999 b: v).

Minister Kemp has noted that the problem of changing participation is complicated identifying the factors that affect entry as including: a lack of aspirations and knowledge of the sector; educational and financial barriers and an over-emphasis on TER scores. Nevertheless, 'The Government will continue to ensure that disadvantaged students enjoy expanded access to university places' (Kemp:1999). However later that year he announced the abolition of the Equity and Merit Awards created by Minister Vanstone in 1996; the relaxation of the 25 per cent cap on the proportion of non-overseas undergraduate students who may be offered full-fee places and the demise of the Higher Education Council which had been responsible for commissioning a number of reports that explored the equity aspects of Government policies.

Patterns of participation in higher education by people from low SES backgrounds since 1991

In 1999 DETYA published two statistical profiles on the participation of people from low SES backgrounds. Equity in Higher Education and Higher Education Report for the 2000 to 2002 Triennium which are the sources of the data below. These indicate that the policy objective of A Fair Chance For All 'that the mix of commencing students more closely resembles the mix of the general population' has not been achieved.

The proportion of students from low SES backgrounds has remained at a steady 15 per cent of the total student population between 1991 and 1997 although on the postcode definition 25 per cent of the total population would be termed low SES (DETYA 1999 a:13). Within that gross figure there are differences in participation rates when analysed by age, State, institution, and course level and type. Thus the access of low SES people aged 25 and over in 1997 was only 13.5 per cent of commencing students and a number of institutions show significant differences when the SES profiles of their intakes of students of students under 25 years and over are compared. Equity in Higher Education notes that the states with the highest proportion of people from low SES backgrounds have the lowest rates of low SES access to higher education (page vii). The commentary points out that Tasmania, followed by Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia had the highest percentage of low SES students among the commencing cohort (page 36).

There are large variations between universities in the proportion of low SES school leavers that are enrolled, ranging from a low of 5.4 per cent of total commencing students at Macquarie University to a high of 40 per cent at Central Queensland University. Once students from low SES backgrounds enrol at university they tend to do as well as the rest of the student population and there is little difference between the retention and success rates of the two student groups. There is also more uniformity between institutions in respect of retention and success relative to other students, with a very small range between the institutions with the highest and lowest results. Generally older students achieve slightly lower success rates than the 'school leaver' group.

When level of course is examined, low SES students are under-represented in higher studies, both by research and by course work. They are over-represented in sub-degree and enabling courses. On a field of study basis, low SES students are over-represented in Agriculture, Education, Engineering, and Nursing. They are under-represented in the more prestigious disciplines of Law, Architecture, Dentistry and Medicine (DETYA, 1999a:7-9).


Some current explanations for policy failure

Analyses suggest a range of reasons why the equity policy may have failed. These are discussed below under three headings: explanations that focus specifically on the equity policy; secondly those that assess the impact of other government policies; and thirdly explanations which look beyond government policy.

1 Explanations that focus specifically on the equity policy

This section discusses three different types of critique of the equity policy; first in terms of the inadequacy of the assumptions that underpinned it, second aspects of the policy design and third the implementation strategy.

Taking the assumptions first, A Fair Chance For All is a 'top down' policy based on the meritocratic assumption that, in Australia with its commitment to a 'fair go' higher education institutions will recruit students on academic merit regardless of who they are. Under representation is thus constructed as an aberration or 'inefficiency' which for a variety of reasons, national economic competitiveness, social justice or cultural cohesion, should be addressed; it is assumed to be remediable, principally by the policies of government. There is an assumption that under-representation can be addressed without doing anything too fundamental to the market economy. Indeed, equity is constructed as benefiting the economy, by ensuring that all those who could benefit for higher education are able to access it and in turn make a full contribution to it. The policy makes the assumption that the attitudes of people from low SES backgrounds to higher education contribute to the lack of participation and changing these is part of the policy agenda. There is an assumption that academic potential does not vary greatly between different socio-economic groups and that the concept of educational equity is unproblematic for universities.

Such assumptions led the Labor Government to expect the participation of people from low SES backgrounds in higher education to increase as the result of a combination of government policies that encouraged completion of secondary education, growth in higher education and special programs to remove structural and attitudinal barriers to participation. Although the rhetoric of the Coalition Government and the West Report speak less about social justice and more about the importance of individuals achieving their potential, the underlying assumptions are the same.

The historical intractability of under representation and the recent statistical evidence challenge the validity of these meritocratic assumptions yet they are quite consistent with other assumptions and models, for example those that suggest that societies 'reproduce' patterns of advantage and privilege. These predict that an expansion of higher education opportunities and removal of barriers would not increase participation by people from low SES backgrounds. The new opportunities might be taken up instead by those socio-economic groups with unmet demand which are best placed educationally and/or financially and only when their demand is satisfied would more disadvantaged groups gain access (Western et al 1998:2). Or perhaps those who already have a dominant position in higher education successfully resist any challenge by taking steps to maintain their position, such as sending their children to private schools (Birrell et al 2000:59). Clearly one possible explanation for the policy failure is that it is based on invalid meritocratic assumptions about Australian society.

Turning now to the policy design two aspects have been identified as problematic. First, the equity policy identifies just two main agents of change, the Commonwealth and universities. Although the latter are expected to work with schools, TAFE, and community groups to develop outreach programs it is clear that universities are envisaged as taking the initiative in establishing the equity agenda and networks. The national equity policy has been criticised for not recognising factors which affect participation that lie outside the control of the higher education system, cut across portfolio lines and across federal, state and local government responsibilities (NBEET 1999: 96).

The second aspect of the policy design which has been critiqued is the concept of 'target equity groups'. This, with its suggestion of discrete and fixed social groups, has been critiqued as both conceptually and operationally flawed. Subsequent research indicates that there is considerable overlap between groups, particularly between 'low SES' and 'rural and isolated' and 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander' groups such that a recent report concluded 'overlapping membership of equity target groups is the main locus of disadvantage…advances might be made by targeting patterns of individual membership of both these equity target groups' (NBEET 1999:95). Similarly Ian Dobson et al in their study of the performance of equity group undergraduates found that it is 'both more accurate and more useful to conceptualise the students as individuals with one or more equity characteristic'(Dobson et al 1998:58). Such findings call into question the concept of distinct equity groups.

Further using postcodes to identify people as from 'low SES' and 'rural and isolated' backgrounds is, operationally flawed. Martin had recognised how the validity of postcodes as an indicator of socio-economic status is reduced by the variations within often relatively heterogeneous and geographically large postcodes and had recommended that sample sizes be no less than 200 in order to maintain statistical validity (Martin cited in Ramsay et al 1998: 18). The postcode methodology cannot take account of possibilities that students from higher status occupational backgrounds may be poor and students from the same geographical area may report different parental incomes (Postle et al 1995a:81). It has also been criticised for limiting institutions' capacity to develop internal monitoring of participation and success by variants such as course, school or faculty (Ramsay et al 1998: 18). The Australian National University's Equity Plan for the triennium 1999-2001, for example, notes 'The University continues to have problems with the Martin methodology of defining the low SES indicator' (DETYA 1999b:16). A recent report Differential Access to Higher Education: The Measurement of Socioeconomic Status, Rurality and Isolation recommends that the use of postcodes be replaced by measures based upon the characteristics of individual students, and specifically recommends asking students about their parents' occupation and educational level at the time the students attended secondary school (Western et al 1998:xii).

These criticisms suggest that beyond proposals for better definition, classification and analyses of target equity groups there are questions to be asked about the adequacy of a policy framework that reifies the causes, incidence and experience of social disadvantage and inhibits the development of appropriate policy responses.

Finally there is a third type of criticism which focuses on policy implementation. Predictably, the amount of government funding has been criticised as inadequate for the purpose. There are two aspects to this criticism. Firstly that the total of HEEP funding has been insufficient in absolute terms, never amounting to more than $ 6 million. Once distributed between universities this resulted in 1999 to a maximum of allotment $168,000 (University of Western Australia) and a minimum of $80,000. Such sums are such a small proportion of universities' total income that they provide neither the financial incentives, nor the means, for universities to address equity. The second type of criticism in the literature is that the amount of funding for equity is small relative to funding for other higher education change initiatives. Thus the Committee for Quality Assurance (CQAHE) had $76.8 million to distribute to universities; Band 1 institutions received $7653 million. This huge disparity in funding for quality and for equity led university staff to both question the government's relative priorities and to argue that this signalled to universities the comparative attention that should be paid to equity and quality change agendas (Postle et al 1995: 110).

There is evidence also of a lack of commitment, at present, by the Commonwealth to executing its responsibilities within the policy framework. For instance, the Commonwealth published Equity in Higher Education which indicates both the persistence of overall under representation and, variations in participation by State, institution and course level/type, yet concludes

It is hoped that the paper will be useful, in particular to university administrators and others concerned with equity issues in higher education, and that it will be included in the information which institutions draw upon when assessing their own achievements and adjusting their policies to address the needs of the educationally disadvantaged (DETYA 1999 a :61).

The document appears not to require DETYA to assess or adjust its policies. Recommendations made by Ramsay et al in 1998 that DETYA co-ordinate the dissemination of good practice have not been progressed. Despite criticisms of the use of postcodes as the indicator of socio-economic status and the recommendations of the report Differential Access to Higher Education: The Measurement of Socioeconomic Status, Rurality and Isolation DETYA has yet to make any changes.

Another area for attention is the policy implementation by universities. A series of studies by G D Postle et al provides a snapshot of the status of educational equity in Australian higher education in late 1995. HEEP funding appeared to have been a major factor in progressing equity educational activities in a large number of universities (Postle et al 1995: 105). The grants had been used to provide equity staff and resources, to initiate new programs and as internal grants to promote equity on a wide front, often involving academic staff. Most of the university staff they interviewed recognised the significant role that the national framework had played in advancing educational equity within the sector.

The requirement that all universities submit an annual report with a rolling triennial equity plan, meant they had all put in place either an equity committee, or a working party, to co-ordinate the development of the plan or act as its approval process. Nevertheless Postle et al noted that these often only 'rubber stamped' equity plans rather than subjecting them to close scrutiny and only in 32% of institutions did staff report that the national framework had a significant impact on both equity and institutional planning. Similarly they noted the diversity between universities in management structures and concluded that 'no particular structures are consistently associated with successful outcomes in equity' (Postle et al 1995: 96). They also suggested that university equity structures were influenced by legislative and reporting requirements, creating a tendency for equity structures to be centralised, often marginalised and typically associated with non-academic organisational units.

They identified the need for universities to shift from conceptualising and locating 'the problem' from the supposed deficits of students to focusing on universities' own culture and practices and how these may differentially impact on different students. They concluded that,

as at 1995 there was much room for improvement and further development in equity planning in the university sector. In particular, there was a need for universities to move away from being reactive in this area towards being more proactive in their approaches to educational disadvantage (Postle et al 1995: 106).

Taken together these suggest that there are major difficulties with the policy framework itself and its implementation.

2 Explanations that focus on other, related policies

Part of the reason why low SES participation has not increased might lie in changes to other Government policies. Both the Labor and Coalition Governments have assumed that higher education policies, which increase competitiveness between universities, encourage universities to offer more fee-paying places, and promote a 'user-pay' approach, are compatible with equity. This section considers the evidence of the impact on participation of policies of allowing universities to charge fees, changes to HECS and changes in the arrangements for student income support. These policies potentially reinforce what has been described as 'the nexus of socio-economic background and future life opportunities' (Chapman et al 1997:68). Evidence to support the importance of this nexus comes from the recent longitudinal study by Michael Long et al which shows that whilst the percentage of young people in all socio-economic groups completing Year 12 increased between 1989 and 1994, the gulf in participation rates in higher education widened. They concluded that

Family wealth (and lack of it ) has re-emerged during the early 1990s as a factor that influences entry to higher education from year 12, independently of other family characteristics (Long et al cited in Birrell et al 2000:54).

Looking first at policies of allowing universities to charge full fees, it is noteworthy that from 1989 universities were allowed to charge for a limited range of specialist post graduate courses. Subsequently, restrictions were progressively relaxed allowing institutions greater freedom in charging fees. Universities responded with such alacrity that a report, published by the Council of Postgraduate Associations, found a 49.6% increase in the number of fee-paying postgraduate courses in the twelve months to 1994 (NBEET 1997:1). Concerns raised about the impact on equity of fees led to a review of the existing fee arrangements which made the surprising conclusion that fees had not restricted students' access to courses, despite the statistical evidence that only 8.5% of low SES students gained access to fee courses and 64% of fee-paying courses did not have a HECS-option in 1994 (Postle et al 1995:56).

The Coalition Government made it clear in the 1996 Budget Statement that to increase their revenues universities would be expected to make any necessary adjustments at the postgraduate coursework level where they had the capacity to charge fees. A subsequent study, of the impact of fees on the enrolment of students from the six equity groups on postgraduate courses, suggested that fees were deterrents for people from low SES backgrounds. It noted that there "would appear to be a substantial 'loss' of low SES students in the transition to postgraduate study" (NBEET 1997:1). For those who did enrol, fees appeared to have the effect of directing people from low SES backgrounds towards HECS-liable courses which, in effect, directed them to certain fields of study and away from others (NBEET 1997:1). As was noted earlier, DETYA's statistics show that people from low SES backgrounds are particularly under-represented in postgraduate study.

Not surprisingly, concerns were expressed about the impact of the Government's 1996 decision to allow universities to offer full-fee undergraduate places without access to a HECS-type repayment scheme on participation by people from low SES background. Fay Gale suggests that this policy, combined with the reduction in operating grants, will lead to a significant reduction loss of opportunity that 'is most serious for single mothers or students from low socio-economic backgrounds who cannot afford to pay to attend university' (Gale 1997:114). This accords with the view of Bruce Chapman and Tony Salvage who argue that because applicants, who cannot afford to pay the fees, can only borrow from an ineffective capital market 'a plausible outcome would be for the composition of the higher education student body to become less egalitarian' (Chapman et al 1997:67). Subsequent data on participation would seem to validate their conclusion.

If lack of access to a HECS-type scheme disadvantages poor students, what might be the effect of the 1996 changes to the HECS system? Les Andrews, who has recently analysed the impact of both the introduction of a higher and differentiated HECS and the lowering of the income repayment threshold, concluded that 'there is no compelling evidence that the effects of the cost increases flowing from the introduction of differential HECS to support the proposition that HECS affected the socio-economic composition of students' (Andrews 1999:19). A survey by James et al of higher education applicants suggests that the choice of field of study by low SES respondents was slightly more influenced by changes to HECS (Wells 1999:47).

The third policy change was the replacement of AUSTUDY by the Youth Allowance in July 1998. The Youth Allowance restricts access to Government financial assistance to those students whose family annual income is less than $35,000. Minister Newman said in a recent press release that the Youth Allowance had achieved its aim of encouraging participation in education or training, and that more students qualify for payment than under the previous AUSTUDY system (Newman 2000). In September 1999 one third of full-time undergraduate students received the Youth Allowance (Centrelink). However, the effects on participation are contested.

In a recent article Bob Birrell et al argue that if only one third of students receive financial support from the government, the others must rely on family support or earnings. They suggest that the over-representation of students from high socio-economic backgrounds is linked to their parents' capacity to pay. One conclusion they draw is that the restrictiveness of the Youth Allowance 'is a factor in limiting opportunity for some students, particularly those from middle to low income white-collar backgrounds' (Birrell et al 2000:60). To the extent that the family wealth and financial considerations affect patterns of participation in higher education, it is reasonable to conclude that policies which increase students' reliance on family wealth will necessarily have greater impact on people from low socio-economic backgrounds

3 'Cultural' explanations of the persistence of under representation

As discussed earlier there is a view that the over-representation of students from high socio-economic backgrounds might be explained, not just by reference to differences in wealth, but by other differences. In this 'cultural' explanation patterns of participation are explained, in part, by reference to the differences between socio-economic groups in parental experience of higher education. This is said to shape parents' expectations and aspirations for their children who come to share their parents' positive attitudes to higher education. The 'intellectual capital' of higher SES families is also said to advantage those children in reaching year 12 and in their university entrance performance. Such 'cultural' explanations are said to be popular with DETYA (Birrell et al 2000:60). Three recent reports that analyse the evidence for the cultural explanation are explored below.

Andrews, who as already discussed concluded that there was no evidence that HECS influenced patterns of participation, turned his attention to 'cultural' explanations. One cluster of explanations focus on the influence of parents and family. Thus he suggests that the lower educational achievements of low SES parents may inhibit their capacity and ability to encourage their children on to higher education, and to provide the practical support needed once there (Andrews 1999:21). Another type of explanation might be that many people from low SES backgrounds are also members of other disadvantaged groups such as indigenous Australians or migrants from particular non-English speaking backgrounds. A third possibility is that young people living in low SES regions may be influenced by those around them and insufficiently exposed to middle class attitudes towards higher education.

Having noted that statistical data indicates that low SES areas have low rates of higher education participation, Andrews compared the higher education participation rates and socio-economic status of 2400 postal areas. He found that higher education participation among 17-24 year olds did not increase substantially until the SES background was at least in the upper 60 per cent of socio-economic groups. This also fits with Long et al's finding of a positive association between the educational attainment of parents and higher education participation. Such evidence lead Andrews to conclude that 'the primary reason underlying the low participation by low SES groups in higher education relates to values and attitudes towards higher education and not financial considerations' (Andrews 1999:25).

Birrell et al were critical of Andrews' methodology described above. They analysed instead 1996 census data of dependent 18-19 living at home who were university students by total family income and occupation of the reference person to see if there was evidence to support the 'cultural' factors hypothesis. They suggested that if family income is important a positive association between income levels and participation in higher education might be expected; a positive correlation between participation and parental occupation might be evidence of the influence of cultural factors.

They found that for young people, from professional and administrative backgrounds, the higher the family income the greater the higher education participation rate. They found no such income effect for young people from blue collar backgrounds. This finding is 'consistent with the cultural proponents' position that even where family income is high it does not lead to increased participation in higher education because there is no family encouragement for such participation'(Birrell et al 1999:56). They also found that participation patterns in the income category with the highest number of higher education students, that is families with weekly incomes of $1000-1499, participation was positively correlated with high occupational status. This cultural effect appeared to be stronger for males than females. They concluded that this evidence supports aspects of the cultural argument.

They urge the Government to initiate programs which will encourage young people from low SES backgrounds to participate in higher education, and that these should be particularly aimed at young men whose participation rate is lower than young women's from the same background (Birrell et al 2000:60). This recommendation is curious because it makes no mention of the universities' access programs which encourage the participation of people from low SES backgrounds. Concerns about the lack of understanding of and, exposure to, higher education has underpinned outreach and access programs run by universities for students attending schools which historically have had low rates of Year 12 completion and progression into higher education.

Ramsay, who evaluated a number of such programs, recognises the impact of cultural barriers and argues these can only be addressed by longer term outreach actions that begin in Year 8 and continue through to Year12 (Ramsay et al 1998:4-5). Ramsay's work is important because, whilst it recognises that cultural differences between socio-economic groups may explain some of the differences in participation, it suggests ways in which these can be counter balanced through policy initiatives.



Concluding observations

At first read A Fair Chance For All is a purposive and, indeed, inspiring policy document. There is a vision of how participation in higher education might be changed, a clear set of goals and a national strategy involving all universities for achieving that change. So why has it not succeeded in changing the under-representation of people from low SES backgrounds? This section draws together the themes from the previous discussion of explanations to consider that question.

Some of the explanations focus on the policy's inadequate theoretical framework and meritocratic assumptions. This leads to a line of analysis that runs like this: patterns of under -representation have proven to be both persistent and resistant to earlier policy initiatives; if the policy had paid more attention to the social mechanisms which reproduce advantage and disadvantage then it could have developed better strategies. Hence the recommendations from Dobson and others for more detailed analysis of data and the focus on identifying more accurately the SES background of students. The discourse has a familiar ring. The problem is still defined by statistical evidence of differential patterns of participation. However the positivism that underpins this type of argument, that there is a problem 'out there' which will prove tractable with more research, needs to be carefully assessed in the light of Australian experience. It also buries the potential for the debate on what does equity in higher education mean and is it simply a matter of achieving proportional representation from all social groups.

Other types of explanation suggest variously that: the policy framework was heading in the right direction but was unable to achieve its objectives because of lack of funds; because of how equity initiatives were implemented within institutions; or because of the changing priority given to equity within governments' overall policy framework for higher education. Such explanations suggest that were changes to be made, for example to institutions' marketing strategies; admissions criteria and procedures; student support services; teaching and assessment procedures; quality criteria and assurance procedures or institutional 'culture', then patterns of participation would change. Some writers have suggested that universities were poised to make this shift in focus in 1995-6 but the moment was lost with the change of government and the new rhetoric for equity. However such accounts often fail to explore whether, and why, the promotion of equity might be a problematic goal for institutions, especially for those whose mission is defined solely, or mainly, to be 'world-class' institutions in the generation and dissemination of knowledge.

Nor do they assess whether, and to what extent, institutions have the capacity to address well-established differences in patterns of pre-university educational achievement. A number of commentators have paid particular attention to evidence of 'cultural' differences between families across SES groups. Such explanations imply that it was a mistake to make universities the prime source of change and suggest that the focus needed to be on how young people form attitudes to and aspirations for higher education. This type of explanation leads to recommendations that focus on changing these attitudes and values such as interventions through secondary schools and communities. It is important to note that authors' assumptions and use the term 'culture' needs to be scrutinised to avoid a return to policy-making based on a 'deficit-model' of the disadvantaged group.

Similar types of explanation have been used to explain patterns of disadvantage experienced by say Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and people from non- English speaking backgrounds. Such assumptions have subsequently been challenged by members of those designated groups who do not see their disadvantaged status as caused by their culture and language, which are regarded rather as sources of identity and pride. There does not seem to be a parallel challenge by people from low SES backgrounds, although a recent report noted that 'often those who appear to be "trapped" are actually content with their situation in life, and with their chosen place of living and its associated way of life' (NBEET 1999: iii). Such observations remind of the need to ask how is the policy problem being framed, by whom and are there other ways of defining the situation.

There has been much discussion about the impact of policies that encourage universities to offer full-fee places. The evidence suggests that requiring students to pay fees up-front without access to a HECS-type repayment scheme inhibits participation in higher education. There is a continuing concern expressed in the literature that HECS might, despite its careful design, be a deterrent to those who are both poor and debt-averse. The effects of access to family wealth on participation are contested and should not be discounted even though they are given less weight in the current political climate.

A particular feature of both policy-making and academic discussion in respect of people from low SES backgrounds is that rarely are they actively involved in defining the policy problem, the discussion about policy developments or evaluations of initiatives. If the time is right to revisit equity policy in higher education, policy makers might wish to ponder the benefits of involving people from low SES backgrounds more. For now, unfortunately, increasing their participation rates in higher education appears to have defeated policy solutions.

References

Anderson, D.S. (1990) ‘Access to University Education in Australia1852-1990 1990: Changes in the undergraduate social mix’, Australian Universities’ Review, vol.1&2,pp37-51.

Andrews, L., (1999) ‘Does HECS Deter? Factors affecting university participation by low SES groups’, 99F Occasional Paper Series Higher Education Division, DETYA.

Birrell B., Calderon A., Dobson I. R. and Smith T. F. (2000) ‘Equity in Access to Higher Education Revisited’, People and Place, vol. 8, no 1, pp50-60.

Chapman, B.J., (1996) ‘The Rationale for the Higher Education Contribution Scheme’, Australian Universities’ Review, vol.1 pp43-50.

Chapman, B.J. and Salvage, T., (1997) ‘Changes in the Costs for Australian Higher Education Students from the 1996/7 Budget’ in Australia’s Future Universities, in Sharman, J., and Harman G., (eds) Australia’s Future Universities. University of New England Press pp 49-74.

Dawkins, J. S., (1988) ‘Higher Education; A Policy Statement’, AGPS, Canberra.

Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) (1990), A Fair Chance For All-Higher Education That’s Within Everyone’s Reach’.

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA), (1998) Allocation of Higher Education Equity Programme (HEEP) Funding for 1999.

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA), a (1999) Equity in Higher Education, Occasional Paper Series 99-A, Higher Education Division.

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA), b (1999) Higher Education Equity Plans for the 1999 to 2001 Triennium.

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA), a (2000) Higher Education Report for the 2000 to 2002 Triennium.

Dobson I. R., Sharma R. and Ramsay. E., (1998) Designated Equity Groups in Australian Universities: Performance of Commencing Students 1996- Undergraduate Award Courses, AVCC.

Gale, F., (1997) Where does Australian higher education need to go from here?, in Sharman, J., and Harman G., (eds) Australia’s Future Universities. University of New England Press pp 105-119.

Kemp, D., (1999) ‘Equity in higher education’ Media Release K2703 23 March 1999.

Le Grand, J., (1982) The Strategy of Equality-Redistribution and the Social Services. London;Unwin Hyman.

Martin, L. M., (1994) ‘Equity and General Performance Indicators in Higher Education’, Evaluations and Investigations Program, DEETYA.

Meek V L., and Wood F.Q., (1998), Managing Higher Education Diversity in a Climate of Public Sector Reform, Evaluations and Investigations Programme, 98/5, DEETYA.

National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET), (1996) Equality, Diversity and Excellence: Advancing the National Higher Education Equity Framework, AGPS, Canberra

National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET), (1997) The Effects of the Introduction of Fee-paying Postgraduate Courses on Access for Designated Groups, AGPS, Canberra.

National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) 1999, Rural and Isolated School Students and their Higher Education Choices, AGPS, Canberra.

Newman, J., (2000), ‘ABS figures demonstrate Youth Allowances success’ Media Release 24 APRIL 2000.

Postle, G.D., Clarke, J.R., Skuja, E., Bull, D. D., Batorowicz, K. and McMann H. A., (1995) Towards Excellence in Diversity Educational Equity in the Australian Higher Education Sector in 1995. Queensland: USQ Press.

Ramsay E., Trantor D., Charlton S. and Sumner R., 1998, Higher Education Access and Equity for Low SES School Leavers Evaluations and Investigations Programme, 98/18, DETYA.

Reid, J., Barker, J. and Murphy, K. (1995) ‘Quality and Equity in Australian Universities: Contradictions and Challenges’, Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 14, no 2 pp 233-243.

Sydney Morning Herald (1999) ‘Doctor Debt’ 10 October 1999 pp 47.

The Weekend Australian (2000) ‘Beyond the death of learning’ 10-11 June 2000 pp 21.

Vanstone, A., (1996) a ‘The equity issues Labor forgot’ , Media Release V 43/96 15 July 1996.

b ‘A comprehensive policy and funding package for higher education’, Media Release V58/96 9 August 1996.

c ‘Extra opportunities for Australian undergraduates’, Media Release V60/96 9 August 1996.

d ‘Changes to student assistance based on genuine need’, Media Release V67/96 9 August 1996.

e ‘Labor needs to face the facts on HECS and equity’, Media Release V78/96 22 August 1996.

f ‘Proposed Youth Allowance means better support for young Australians’, Media Release V68/96 22 August 1996.

g ‘$16.2 Billion for higher education, 13,000 new undergraduate places’, Media Release V235/96 17 December 1996.

h ‘Rethink university entry-end the tyranny of TER’, Media Release V140/97 5 August 1997.

i ‘Austudy Actual Means Test- changes for the better’, Media Release V187/97 2 October 1997

Wells, J., (1999) ‘Access and participation in Australian higher education: myth, statistics and mantra politics’, Dissent,

Summer 1999-2000 pp 45-48.

West, R., (1998) ‘Learning for Life -Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy’, DETYA.

Western J., McMillan J. and Durrington D., 1998 Differential Access to Higher Education: The Measurement of Socioeconomic Status, Rurality and Isolation Evaluations and Investigations Programme, Higher Education Division, 98/14 DEETYA.