By 2020, 20% of university students low SESBy 2025, 40% 25-34 yr olds with a Bachelor °Can the targets be achieved? What will be the impact on HE?

Trevor Gale, National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education

www.equity101.info

Now live!

Preface

• No one knows the future. These are best guesses based on the evidence we currently have

• Presumes that the compacts will require every institution to be involved in the 20/40 targets

• Pursuit of these targets will thrust the system (or at least parts of it) into new territory, with supply exceeding demand: unsettling the prominence of ‘student achievement’ and raising ‘student aspiration’ as a key driver for the system

• There are implications for how we ‘do’ higher education

HE connected to economic productivity

... the tertiary education revolution will change and enlarge Australia’s economic potential. The investments and reforms being made will drive improvements in productivity and create a smarter, cleaner and more competitive economic future for Australia. (Commonwealth of Australia 2009: 5)

We need more knowledge workers

... Australia will have insufficient qualified people to meet itsmedium- and long-term needs. The Australian labour market hasexperienced persistent skill shortages in a number of importantoccupations. This threatens the long-term well-being of thecommunity and the country’s capacity to maintain and enhanceglobal competitiveness and prosperity. (Bradley et al. 2008: 9)

Demand for people with qualifications is expected to be strongerthan overall employment growth over the next decade ... from 2010,total demand for people with higher education qualifications willexceed supply and that this will continue for most of the forecastperiod. (Bradley et al. 2008: 15-16)

The social defined by the economic

Our nation will never be at its best if we ignore the skills and capacities of those who are not born into privileged positions. (Gillard, Australian Financial Review - Higher Education Conference - 9 March 2009)

Without greater equity in our higher education system, Australia simply cannot obtain the high-level knowledge and skills we need to compete with the most successful economies of the world. (Gillard, Australian Financial Review - Higher Education Conference - 9 March 2009)

Social inclusion to meet economic needs

Given the projected shortfall in the number of suitably qualified people tomeet Australia’s workforce needs over the medium to long term, the failureto capitalise on the abilities of all Australians is a significant economicissue for the nation. It is also a matter of serious concern that individualsare discouraged from participating in, or denied access to, the economicand social opportunities which a higher education provides. (Bradley et al.2008: 10)

Australia needs to harness the potential of all capable students tocontribute to society and the economy. Actively encouraging andfacilitating entry into higher education for people from groups who arecurrently under-represented is vital. (Bradley et al. 2008: 10)

The targets

• By 2020, students from low-SES backgrounds constitute 20% of university undergraduates (currently around 15%; undergraduate and postgraduate)

• By 2025, 40% of Australians aged 25-34 years attain a bachelor degree (current attainment rate is 32%, rising to 34% by 2025 under current policy settings)

Low SES but what about other groups?

• Indigenous people

• Rural and remote

• People with disabilities

• Gender issues

• Others?

Achieving equity also depends onhow we measure SES

• The current postcode method of calculating SES is problematic

• Proposed PEA measure is also problematic

• Indicators Development Group is currently revising how SES is measured

Low SES we can trust

• Socioeconomic status is a concept that is defined by its context; weneed to avoid measures that ‘context-strip’ individuals, effectivelydiscounting their social and cultural contexts, which contribute to whothey are;

• Because of the range of circumstances that constitute socioeconomicstatus, better statistical measures need to involve a combination ratherthan rely on one single measure;

• The combination of social, cultural and economic circumstances thatdefine socioeconomic status means that any statistical representationneeds to be treated as indicative rather than prescriptive; statisticalmeasures of social and cultural issues are always approximations.

The record so far

Source: Bradley et al. 2008: 28

Source: Bradley et al. 2008: 29

Who are they?

• Mature-age student applicants have been low in number in recent years.

• They will probably increase due to the GFC and because the group is being redefined (to a starting age of 21).

• They might contribute to the 20% target, particularly in rural areas, but they won’t contribute to the 40% target.

• School leavers and 15-19 yr old VET articulators will most likely be the primary focus of the targets.

Where are they now?

The 2025 25-34 yr old cohort

• In 2009, 9 to 18 year olds

• 829,014 currently live overseas and are not Australians (but will be)

The 2020 low SES undergrad cohort

• In 2009, the youngest is 7 yrs old

• 40% currently live in SA

• Rural & regional (but not all R&R are low SES)

• Indigenous (but not all indigenous are low SES and only 1/3 are R&R)

• Refugees

• First in family (but not all FIF)

• Generational unemployed

Immigration will increase the 2025 25-34 yr old cohort (829,014 in the next 16 yrs)

Some migrants in this cohort will come to Australia with degrees and will thus contribute to the 40% target (but will not contribute to the 20% target) while others will not seek university enrolment

Those who enrol will not be familiar with the Australian education system

Increased numbers of students from migrant backgrounds are likely to present increased socio-cultural, epistemological and ontological challenges to Australian university T&L programs

Derived from ABS data 3222.0 – Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101, series B Using Series B projected population growthhttp://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3222.02006%20to%202101?OpenDocument

Australian 15 to 19 year olds have higher than average rates of non-participation in education and employment

2006 Proportion of persons not in education and unemployed

Country 15-19 years % 20-24 years %

Australia 3.7 4.2

Canada 2.9 5.9

Denmark 1.9 2.4

Finland 1.7 6.9

Netherlands 1.1 2.1

New Zealand 3.7 3.8

Sweden 2.0 8.2

Switzerland 2.8 5.3

United Kingdom 5.3 6.8

United States 2.1 5.2

OECD average 3.0 7.3

EU 19 average 2.9 8.1

Source: Australian Social Inclusion Board 2009: 55

15 to 19 year old Australians’ participation in education and employment is just below the OECD average and most EU nations

20 to 24 year old Australians’ participation in education and employment is well above the OECD average and most EU nations

15 to 19 year old Australians participate more than 20 to 24 year old Australians, which is consistent with international trends

Federal and state governments are trying to re-engage 15-19 yr olds in schooling

• Most states have raised the compulsory school leaving age• The federal government has introduced a ‘learn or earn’ requirement for

recipients of Youth Allowance• COAG has introduced Quality Teaching and low SES communities

national partnerships in schooling

State Previous leaving age New leaving age Date of change

ACT 15 17 2009

NSW 15 17 1-Jan-2010

NT 15 15 n/a

Queensland 16 17 2006

South Australia 16 17 2009

Tasmania 16 16 1-Jan-2008

Victoria 15 16 1-Jul-2007

Western Australia 16 17 30-Jun-2005

Source: Derived from ABS Cat. 4221.0 – Schools, Australia, 2008, Table 43a

Source: Derived from ABS Cat. 4221.0 – Schools, Australia, 2008, Table 64a

Source: Derived from DEEWR 2008: 44

Source: Derived from DEEWR, Students, Selected Higher Education Statistics, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007

Source: NCVER 2009: 8

Age group 2004%

2005%

2006%

2007%

2008%

15-19 26.5 27.3 30.2 29.9 30.2

20-24 19.0 19.0 18.8 18.3 18.2

25-44 10.2 10.2 9.9 9.7 9.7

45-64 6.1 6.3 5.9 5.9 5.9

65 and older 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0

15-64 11.3 11.4 11.4 11.3 11.3

Source: NCVER 2009: 8

Only 10% of VET students (and 7% of low SES VET students) are enrolled in Diploma and above courses

Source: Foley 2007: 27

AQF levelLow socio-economic status Middle socio-economic status High socio-economic status Grand total

Per cent ofgrand total

Column per centPer cent ofgrand total

Column per centPer cent ofgrand total

Column per cent

Certificate I 2.6 8.9 4.0 7.9 1.1 5.5 7.7

Certificate II 6.7 22.9 10.4 20.5 3.3 16.4 20.3

Certificate III 5.7 19.5 10.7 21.1 3.8 18.9 20.1

Certificate IV 2.7 9.2 5.3 10.5 2.3 11.4 10.4

Diploma and higher

2.0 6.8 5.5 10.8 2.8 13.9 10.3

Sub-total 19.7 67.5 35.9 70.8 13.2 65.7 68.8

Secondary school

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2

Other 4.2 14.4 5.7 11.2 2.4 11.9 12.3

Non-award 5.3 18.2 9.0 17.8 4.4 21.9 18.7

Total 29.2 100.0 50.7 100.0 20.1 100.0 100.0

Low SES students are over-represented in VET: 30% compared to 25% in the general population, but only 7% are in Diploma courses and higher

Indigenous people are over-represented in VET: 4.7% compared with 2.4% in the general population, but only 6% of that 4.7% are in Diploma courses and higher

Regional and remote student participation in VET fell by 6% (2007-2008): now 19%

Socio-economic groups’ share of each vocational educational qualification level, 2001

The story so far

• There are fewer Y12 students and fewer students staying on to do Y12

• There is a growing 2025 25-34 yr old cohort, with the increase not necessarily seeking HE but making the 40% target more difficult

• More 15-19 year olds are doing VET but few in courses that lead to HE and few of these from low SES backgrounds

• Supply and demand for university places are about the same• If supply of university places is increased there is little evidence

of a ready demand for them. (The 40% target)• There are not large numbers of low SES students ready to take

up university places if more places become available (The 20% target)

The solution?• Marketing will only work at the margins. Student supply (40% and 20%) is

created at the expense of other institutions. The system as a whole is not expanded

• It is in the interests of universities to work with each other and schools and TAFEs to help more students achieve academic results that qualify them for university entry.

• Irrespective of student achievement, if students do not find university attractive, they won’t apply. The balance between Achievement and Aspiration has shifted

• It is in the interests of universities to take account of who their potential students are – what they potentially bring to university and what their desires for their futures are – and to change the way they do higher education accordingly

• It is in the interests of universities to work together to create demand for higher education before they work independently to create demand for their own brand of higher education

“Students need help in getting thereand then lots of support while they’re there”

• Outreach/Partnerships - $108m over 4 years: rising gradually each year

• Indexation of teaching and learning funds from 2011• Low SES loading - $325m over 4 years: 2% of T&L funds in 2010,

3% in 2011, 4% in 2012 ($100 extra per low SES student from mid 2009 to $1000 extra per low SES student in 2012)

• Income support for students:– parental income test threshold increased ($32,800 to $42,559 pa); – age of independence lowered (25 reduced gradually to 22); – personal income threshold increased ($236 to $400 per fortnight);– workforce participation criteria – minimum 30 hours a week for 18

months over a two year period

Outreach

The success of various initiatives undertaken by the publicuniversities has been varied, particularly in relation to lowsocio-economic status, rural and Indigenous students.There have been some very effective programs but the nextphase of activity requires a more sophisticated approach.(Bradley et al., 2008, p. 37)

Assembling resources Engaging learners Working together Building confidence

People-rich Recognition of difference CollaborationCommunication and information

Financial support and/or incentives

Enhanced academic curriculum

Cohort-basedFamiliarisation/site experiences

Early, long-term, sustained Research driven

Equity Orientation

Unsettling deficit viewsResearching ‘local knowledge’ and negotiating local interventions

Building capacity in communities, schools and universities

Implementation strategies, design characteristics and equity perspectives of effective programs

10 VS9 VS8 S VS7 S VS6 M S VS5 M S VS4 M S S3 W M M2 W W1 W

1 2 3 4Pr

ogram

Dept

h (Ch

aracte

ristic

s)

Program Breadth (Strategies)

W=Weak M=Moderate S=Strong VS=Very Strong

VS U-L L-QL QL-VL VLS U L QL QL-VLM U L L L-QLW U U U U-L

0 1 2 3Number of Equity Perspectives

Pro

gram

C

om

po

siti

on

Strength of Program Composition

Design and Evaluation Matrix for Outreach (DEMO)

W = weakM = moderateS = strongVS = very strong

U = unlikelyL = likelyQL = quite likelyVL = very likely

www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/Pages/Home.aspx

“Once they get in they’ll need support”

Once students from disadvantaged backgrounds haveentered university the likelihood of them completing theircourse of study is broadly similar to that of the generalhigher education population. Often, however, they requirehigher levels of support to succeed, including financialassistance and greater academic support, mentoring andcounselling services. (Transforming Australia’s HigherEducation System Commonwealth of Australia 2009: 14)

29

More ‘support’ for ‘a new student centred higher education system’. More of the same? More ‘add-ons’?

• Remedial classes (literacy, essay writing etc)

• Counselling services, health services

• Child minding services

• Employment and housing services

• Transport (e.g. between campuses)

• Library and other resources

Go8 March (2009) Newsletterhttp://www.go8.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=221&Itemid=180

Equity groups do better at Go8s … with what support?

31

• Access without support is not opportunity (Tinto)

• Opportunity confined to support is not equity

32

As well as outreach and support, we also need to rethink how and what we teach

Why focus on T&L?

• It is within our control, we can manipulate it

• It is the only thing that we know for sure that students have in common and where we know we have contact

• It is the core of higher education and therefore brings equity issues into the centre of its operations

Creating space for difference in the curriculum is:

• Not reducing the curriculum – dumbing it down to accommodate different levels of ability

• Not making difference the focus of the curriculum –not necessarily

• Not just to accommodate a new kind of student or more students of a different kind –but for all students

Transforming Australia’s Higher Education System

To achieve the government’s ambitious attainment targetsthere will also need to be an increased emphasis onimproving the student learning experience in order toboost retention, progress and ultimately, completion rates.(Commonwealth of Australia 2009: 15)

Good teaching, which creates spacesfor students in higher education:

is about

• Students having opportunities to express what they know

• Student understandings being respected and valued

• University knowledge complementing and challenging what students know

• Students’ knowledge complementing and challenging what others (including universities) know

involves

• Repositioning lecturers, peers, academic literature, fieldwork, etc as resources for students’ learning

• Repositioning disciplines, traditions, etc as resources to aid understanding of issues, problems, themes, etc.

Principles for teaching and learning in HE

Chickering & Gamson (1999) [USA]

Kift & Nelson (2005) [Australia]

David et al. (2009)[UK]

Student-Faculty contact Transition Consistent policy

Diverse talents/learning styles Diversity Learning for life

Reciprocity & cooperation Student-focused design Informal learning

Active learning Active & Engaging Active engagement

Prompt feedback Assessment Assessment

High expectations Evidence-based & evaluation Social process

Time on task Systematically developed

Prior experience

Discipline knowledge

Research for teaching

Common principles

• Curriculum design: There is a diversity of learners and ways of learning, which need to be taken into account when designing learning and learning activities;

• Pedagogy: Learners learn best when learning activities require them to be actively engaged;

• Assessment: Assessment should have a pedagogical intent, making a contribution to students’ learning and not just serving an institutional purpose of allocating grades.

Who they are // What they do

When we control for factors such as students’socioeconomic backgrounds, parents’ educationand students’ measured level of academicachievement prior to university, it turns out thathow much students learn is not a function ofwho they are, it’s a function of what they do.(Kuh in Campus Review 7 July 2009: 3)

Principles for teaching and learning in HE

Chickering & Gamson (1999) [USA]

Kift & Nelson (2005) [Australia]

David et al. (2009)[UK]

Student-Faculty contact Transition Consistent policy

Diverse talents/learning styles Diversity Learning for life

Reciprocity & cooperation Student-focused design Informal learning

Active learning Active & Engaging Active engagement

Prompt feedback Assessment Assessment

High expectations Evidence-based & evaluation Social process

Time on task Systematically developed

Prior experience

Discipline knowledge

Research for teaching

Drawing out equity principles

• Student-faculty contact: students are significant in their own terms; it is worth spending time with them;

• Informal learning: students learn things of value outside education systems; they have something to contribute to higher education;

• Research for teaching: to inform teachers about what different groups of students know and how they know, andhow we can engage with different knowledges and ways of knowing.

Creating space for student knowledge

is about

• Students having opportunities to express what they know

• Student understandings being respected and valued

• University knowledge complementing and challenging what students know

• Students’ knowledge complementing and challenging what others (including universities) know

involves

• Reposition lecturers, peers, academic literature, fieldwork, etc as resources for students’ learning

• Repositioning disciplines, traditions, etc as resources to aid understanding of issues, problems, themes, etc.

Inclusive ‘connectivist’ pedagogies: TLRP (UK)

Connectivist-deep pedagogies:

• Emphasise understanding of the subject matter rather than ‘teaching to the test’

• Encourage students to draw on their own knowledge and experience (including personal)

• Engage students through deep learning and conceptual understanding

• Is about ‘use value’ as opposed to ‘exchange value’

• Can change a student’s disposition to study a subject

Transmissionist-surface pedagogies:

• Focus on the transmission of information, knowledge and method from teacher to student

• Are performance oriented (i.e. passing the exam)

• Is less concerned with student engagement and more with fluency of performance

• Emphasise ‘exchange value’ of education (i.e. the rewards of exam results)

Hockings, Cooke & Bowl 2010; Williams et al. 2010; David et al. 2008

Inclusive ‘connectivist’ pedagogies: TLRP (UK)

When students are academically engaged they adopt a ‘deep’approach to learning (questioning, conjecturing, evaluating,making connections between ideas), and draw on their ownand others’ knowledge and experiences, backgrounds andidentities in coming to know and understand. They oftenappear animated and animate others.

When students are disengaged they adopt a ‘surface’approach to learning (copying notes, memorising or focusingon fragmented facts and right answers, jumping toconclusions, accepting) and keep academic subject knowledgeand knowing separate from personal knowledge and knowing,background and experiences. (Hockings, Cooke & Bowl 2010:96)

Strategies for engaging with socially and culturally diverse students

• Creating individual and inclusive space: involves inclusive andcollaborative learning environments in which students are encouragedto share their beliefs, knowledge and experiences.

• Developing student-centred strategies: entails flexible and tailoredactivities that ‘enable students to ground their learning in somethingrelevant to them as individuals’.

• Connecting with students’ lives: subject matter is perceived as relevantto students’ immediate lives or their imagined roles and identities asprofessionals.

• Being culturally aware: includes using culturally relevant examples,anecdotes and stories to aid learning, as well as using a non-academicframe of reference for teaching (i.e. teaching beyond the academicculture).

Hockings, Cooke & Bowl 2010: 101-106.

Conclusion: taken seriously 20/40 will mean

A new regard for

• who students are

• what they bring to the teaching-learning exchange

• how they hope to experience from it

A new way of engaging with

• what attracts students to university

• how T&L and support is imagined and enacted

• other universities

• institutions in other education sectors

Student diversity

... diversity extends beyond the structural divisions of class,gender and ethnicity. It encompasses work, life andeducational experiences, different entry routes to universityand differences in living arrangements and familycommitments ... Diversity also encompasses psychologicaland epistemological differences, including differences instudents’ approaches to learning, ways of knowing, andsubject knowledge. (Hockings, Cooke & Bowl 2010: 98)

Engagement through student-centred strategies

Creating ... engagement among all students was not simply a matter ofdeveloping and facilitating ‘active’ learning. Rather it was a matter ofcreating activities that enable students to ground their learning insomething relevant and meaningful to them as individuals. By drawingupon existing knowledge and experiences, students not only sharedaspects of themselves with which teachers could connect thereafter,they were also enabled to reflect upon, question and challenge theirown ideas and those of their peers. (Hockings, Cooke & Bowl 2010:104)