SUBMISSION TO THE WEST COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
ON BEHALF OF THE ANGLICAN SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITIES COMMITTEE OF
THE DIOCESE OF MELBOURNE
prepared by the Rev’d David Kerr
on behalf of the Anglican Social Responsibilities Committee
Diocese of Melbourne
The Anglican Church of Australia addresses the West committee as a body concerned to foster a concept of social cohesion and community based on our equality before God. It is the belief of the Anglican Social Responsibilities Committee that harmony in the social order is being placed at risk by an increasing tendency for governments to withdraw from areas of social responsibility and action in favour of private and market-driven provision of services, with a consequent danger that privilege in society will become more narrowly based, and that an increasing number of Australians will be severely disadvantaged.
The foreshadowed changes in education seem to form part of the general move towards a market-driven economy in many areas of activity, and suggests a move away from what was previously widely accepted as the central role of government, that is, to maintain the integrity of structures and activities providing essential services in such a way as to secure the reasonable interests of the whole society.
A. The Role of Education in Australia’s Society and Economy
(i) The changing nature of university education
Over the past twenty-five years there has been rapid change in the kinds of higher education that has been delivered to Australian students. Vocational education has become more widely disseminated through university faculties, with the newer universities developing courses in Business Studies, Computing, Hospitality and Tourism, Education and Nursing (to mention only a few areas).
Indeed, the concept of a university has been radically revised during the past twenty-five years, largely in response to the need of the community to develop a more highly educated workforce. There are two central features to the idea of a ‘university’: first, that it be a place for the pursuit of excellence in all fields of knowledge, and second, that it extend the boundaries of human knowledge and provide a critical framework for the evaluation of its own discoveries. These notions have been modified by the rapid development of technologies in the twentieth century. Technology has in recent times produced a shift in the balance of knowledge. However, with technology consisting of both ‘how to’ questions, and developmental problems and issues, the distinction between an institution devoted to the advancement of knowledge and an institution devoted to the transmission of knowledge and skills may become problematic. While the pursuit of knowledge to the highest level remains a central goal of university study, there is now a significant proportion of studies devoted to subjects where the distinction between management of ‘the known’ and technical innovation and discovery is often difficult to make. All of these factors: the expansion of enrolments, the opening up of new fields of study, the need to provide advanced training, as well as to produce researchers in all fields of study, has placed pressure on the idea of the university. It has become a body distinguished by its system of awards which denote a certain level of performance in academic work, awards which frequently double as a prerequisite for professional employment.
The move from three main kinds of degree and diploma granting institutions (universities, CAEs and Institutes of Technology) to there being universities only, (many of them multi-campus), with a variety of mixes of academic disciplines, places on these institutions the responsibility of accepting the whole function of a university, which includes ensuring that all students are exposed to studies designed to prepare them for fundamental inquiry into their discipline. Indeed, if universities wish to be funded for both research and teaching, as they should be, it is important that all areas of study engage in fundamental research. This further requires that universities shall be resourced for the task, both in the provision of infrastructure and teaching and support staff.
(ii) Technological change and the university
The development of new technologies affects the kinds of social and policy studies universities are now being asked to undertake. Technological innovation produces possibilities for change in what may be done and by whom, with social consequences that may prove either to be beneficial or harmful to society. Rapid advances in such areas as bio-technology and artificial intelligence, in computer developments and data storage and transmission, have the potential, in different ways, of challenging and possibly undermining human values that contribute to our individual and social well-being. It is therefore important that the impact of technologies on society at large should be kept under constant critical review, and universities should maintain and develop courses that advance both the scope of technological change, and the understanding and monitoring of its impact.
Within the university itself technological change has been beneficial in bringing a wide range of expertise into the grasp of the student through access to material of all kinds through CD ROM and on-line data bases. As use of on-line material increases it is difficult to set a limit on the scope for delivery of knowledge and information in on-line formats. However, while these developments will be of special benefit to students in remote areas or with special problems of access, this committee believes such material should generally be viewed as an enrichment of the teaching within the university by lecturing staff, and not a substitute for it. Opportunities may be made for students to have more small-group teaching (something which is currently under threat) by distributing lecture material in new ways. However, clarification of concepts, and supervision of a student’s progress, requires that staff-student ratios be at least maintained at present levels. New technologies may, however, make it possible for much teaching time to be more effectively spent than it is using the existing lecture method.
(iii) Workforce development
A significant problem for our society is the development of a mix of skills and abilities in our workforce, to ensure the soundest possible basis for social development and to foster employment growth throughout the community. The most important requirement for personal success in the modern workforce is adaptability. Education should therefore be designed in levels of increasing specialisation, such that changes in direction within a course, or within a life, may be achieved with the greatest possible efficiency, without sacrificing quality of performance. One possible development, already adopted in some few universities, is the institution of a common First Year across related sections of the university. In summary, universities should be charged with developing graduates with particular skills of performance, who are in addition exposed to forms of learning designed to develop powers of discrimination and judgement. For what society requires is people with both the capacity to perform defined tasks efficiently and well, and the ability to discern which activities and objectives are worth pursuing at all.
B. Funding and its implications for access and equity.
(i) General observations
Society is already being asked to accept a mix of public and private funding for the provision of higher education on the grounds, it is said, of such education providing a mix of private and public good. Historically, higher education was open to full fee paying students and scholarship holders, the scholarships being granted by governments and private institutions, generally on the basis of merit, combined with financial need. When higher education was provided free of tuition fees there was a rapid growth in enrolments, to the point that quotas were placed on courses, and all admissions were decided on either score at H.S.C (now V.C.E.) or some combination of work experience, educational background and interview for mature age students.
(ii) Fee paying as a selection criterion - some consequences
All methods of selection and entry produce distortions, which have as their source the total educational and social history of the student, thereby conferring advantage on some and disadvantage on others. However, in the case of competitive entry there has until now been only one ground of judgement, the TER score. Now with the moves of Melbourne and Sydney Universities to take advantage of recent government policy changes and admit a limited number of full fee-paying Australian residents into tertiary courses, a further level of potential distortion has been created: one based on the ability to pay. The opportunity to purchase entry into a university course will impact in a variety of ways, the specifics depending on government policies yet to be articulated. There will be a strong demand from fee-paying students to access certain courses in certain universities perceived to offer financial and social advantage to the student. The full impact of such a development will depend on certain imponderables:
Bruce Chapman and Tony Salvage, in a paper from the Centre for Economic Policy Research at the ANU summarise the position as follows:
Without a HECS-type loan mechanism, the charging of up-front fees for 25 percent of students is very likely over time to move the Australian higher education system to one that further advantages students from wealthy families willing to pay. That is,, under fairly realistic assumptions concerning future government outlays relative to the demand for places, a plausible outcome would be for the composition of the higher education student body to become less egalitarian. There are very sound social and economic reasons for not allowing this to happen.
These reasons are that when higher education financing policy is one in which access is increasingly determined by ability to pay, and decreasingly determined by the capacity and motivation to learn, many able but poor prospective students are likely to be excluded. This wastes talent and is thus poor economics.
It is almost certain that a free market in education will in time weaken faculties and/or departments and/or universities which are already relatively impoverished. Such disadvantages will be most acutely felt in universities which, as latecomers to the field of tertiary education, are struggling, without hope of short-term success, to match facilities with the better endowed universities. Problems in overcoming shortfalls are exacerbated by universities being rewarded for being strong already, and penalised for shortcomings in infrastructure.
If the suggestion made recently by the Vice Chancellor of Sydney on a media interview that universities would spread income from fee rich departments within universities to bolster poorer departments seems at least questionable, the further possibility of those universities that attract large numbers of full-fee Australian students contributing either directly or indirectly to greater financial support being made available for the marginal universities is even more unlikely.
(ii) Social consequences of introducing full fees for Australian residents.
Students from wealthier families will be in a stronger position to gain admission for their children for the course of their choice, and universities will feel strong pressure to admit people on the basis of ability to pay rather than academic achievement and potential.
Even though concern to maintain an institution’s academic reputation may limit the possible effect of this tendency, it is not likely to eliminate it.
Universities with a social ‘cachet’ will be in a stronger position across all faculties and departments to fill their quota of full-fee paying students, while so-called second-rank universities will have difficulty placing full-fee paying students except in courses with a reputation for preparing for well-paid employment. Once again, students who are able to pay will have an advantage over their better-credentialled competitors, as additional places will be available to them. Consequently, the rich will have the opportunity to build on their strength, and the poor will be at a comparative disadvantage.
While it is claimed that full-fee paying students must be additional to the present HECS quota, it is undeniable that offering places to those willing to pay alters the present notionally equitable access provisions into university courses. As for future developments, there is no assurance that government funding for universities will be maintained in real terms at present levels. Even if it were, a special advantage is conferred on those willing and able to pay. And if it is not, the position of students able to gains places under HECS will be progressively eroded. Statements that scholarships will be made available by universities to secure places for disadvantaged students is hardly reassuring (The Age 23/4/97), as students of exceptional ability will find a suitable place under the HECS system, and those whose disadvantage in their school life masks the level of their real ability will not be able to be selected by competitive scholarship. Further, universities are unlikely to return to the community by way of scholarships all the financial power that fees may bring them. Therefore, while we are promised that full-fee students will be additional to HECS quota at present, therefore limiting the onerous effects in the short-term, the distorting effects within society remain in principle the same. And over time additional demand for places, together with potential cuts in real government expenditure, will ensure that some students eligible for a place in a particular course in present circumstances, will be displaced by full-fee paying students.
Concluding remarks:
The intrusion of a modified free-market into the field of education presents several social risks:
The movement of the government from the present system of funding to a mix of full-fees and HECS students and university and/or state sponsored scholarships is not motivated, in the opinion of the Anglican Social responsibilities Committee (Melbourne Diocese), by any concept of tertiary education conferring a mixture of public and private benefit. First, public and private benefit is gained at all levels of education. Second, the present HECS system requires a level of contribution from all scholars on a basis that is equitable across society. Third, it is in the national interest to develop a skilled workforce. If, therefore, the government admits that the public benefit of an educated society is of paramount importance, and that encouraging an egalitarian society which maximises opportunity is an overriding goal of public policy, it should choose to fund tertiary education through a combination of HECS funding and taxation revenue. If the present combination proves to be insufficient it should increase the level of HECS and/or revenue support through increased taxation. The only conceivable motive for introducing full-fees for some Australian residents is to limit the role of government in tertiary education, thus enabling a greater provision of tertiary education for the few without the government having to find ways for the whole community to meet the expense. The move involves an abrogation of responsibility of government for the provision of essential community services, and represents a deliberate shift away from a commitment to the maintenance of an egalitarian society.