outreach & social inclusion ann stewart national co-convenor eophea director, the equity office....

Outreach & Social Inclusion

Ann StewartNational co-convenor EOPHEA Director, The Equity Office. The University of Queensland

Overview

• Outreach in Australian universities

• Low SES & social exclusion

• Current challenges

• Emerging model

• Concluding statements

Development of outreach in Australian universities – a brief background

1950s – post war. Menzies govt. Extensive scholarships & means-tested financial support. Encourage returned servicemen to uni & boost national educational level – related to national productivity.

• 1970s - Whitlam govt. Social justice agenda. Uni fees abolished & means tested education allowances.

• 1980-90s – Hawke govt. A Fair Chance for All (Dawkins).– Designated equity (disadvantaged) groups– Under-representation related to proportion of

population.– HEEP funding introduced - universities

implemented schemes to increase participation. Reporting requirements.

– HECS introduced– Equity Scholarships provided

1996 -2007 Under Howard govt.

– HECS substantially increased

– HEESP (increased funding)

– Re-introduction of Commonwealth scholarships

– HECS - HELP, FEE-HELP

2008 +Under Rudd govt.

Increased number Commonwealth scholarships

‘Sorry’ speech

Focus on social inclusion

National Centre for Student Equity, and???

Equity priorities remain essentially the same - emphasis on access for

Indigenous Australians and Low SES

Why do outreach?• International competitiveness• National productivity• Skilled workforce• Social justice (values)• Social cohesion• Educated populace – citizenship• Harness intellectual capital• Reduction costs: welfare, criminal activity,

health

Outreach & Low SES

1990 onwards

Traditional model: focus on schools in designated disadvantaged areas.– Equity scholarships, bursaries, grants– Mentoring & ambassador programs– Alternative entry pathways – Role models– Information events– School visits – Campus visits– Linked transition support programs– And so on…..

What did all this do?

• Some improvement in numbers of women in non-traditional areas and postgraduate studies (much of this improvement for high SES women), and

• NESB groups (but significant analysis still required to ascertain differences between ethnic groupings, and intersection with gender). But…

• Virtually NO change in other groupings

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

year

pe

r ce

nt

high medium low

Access share by socio-economic group 1991-2002 (per cent)

James et al 2004

15.28 15.32 15.48 15.4 15.69

15.52 15.25 15.11

15.5515.23

15.5415.36 15.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Acc

ess

(%)

DEST Access data

Revised DEST/DEEWR Access data

Figure 1: Low SES Access 1997 – 2006 Australian National data [1]

Challenges

• Students turned off by Year 10 • Subject choices not OP• Misconceptions about:

– university study– value of university education

• Parents disaffected with education(Parents most influence on post school choices)

• Current Context– Attraction of TAFE or employment– cost

University is nothing to do with people like us!

Something new is needed!

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result

New Message

University is a realistic option for people like ‘us’ –some time in our lives!

BUT

HOW DO WE EFFECT THIS LONG TERM, CULTURE SHIFT?

A revisioned outreach

• National visionary leadership• Locally contextualised• Long term commitment• Sustainable reciprocal relationships with

community groups• Collaboration between stakeholder groups • Many challenges to overcome• Exciting possibilities for innovation & reduction of

duplication