SUBMISSION TO THE
REVIEW
OF HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCING &
POLICY
HEIDI ALLEN,
MURDOCH UNIVERSITY
INTRODUCTION
As a student of Murdoch University, Western Australia, I submit my views on the state of higher education, specifically universities, in Australia at the current time.
There has been a worrying lack of direction evident in higher education for some time, with the Commonwealth seemingly regarding it as an unimportant area. Indeed the Government appears to be attempting to shift responsibility for the sector to anyone who does or does not want it!
So it is to be hoped that this Review will provide some positive long term guidance. This however does not seem to be possible. With the drastic, unjustified cuts in the higher education budget, announced in the 1996 Federal Government, a possible finding that the sector may need more money seems to be now out of the question. The Committee's composition does not even represent all stakeholders in the higher education sector, with not all States and Territories represented, and no students.
THEME ONE : THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA'S SOCIETY & ECONOMY
Higher education fulfils many roles in Australia's society and economy, some of these I have listed below :
1) It educates people, increasing their knowledge for their own and others benefit. Also learning for the sake of learning is important.
2) In the current competitive job market people need to be highly independent, have good problem solving skills, be able to work in varied situations, etc. Universities or TAFEs teach the skills and knowledge required for this.
3) Higher education produces the multi-skilled, talented people so necessary to industry and government.
The government (federal) of Australia should play a prominent role in the higher education sector. To ensure access for all, to provide a diverse range of courses (not just narrow industry relevant ones) and to ensure the overall quality of the education being provided to students.
Therefore the prospect is particularly alarming that in its bid to move the balance of funding away from the Commonwealth, the Federal Government might devolve financial responsibility for the tertiary sector more and more to the States. This would create 7 different bureaucracies (W.A., N.T., S.A., QLD, N.S.W., Victoria, Tasmania and the A.C.T.), which would greatly increase the difficulties in maintaining uniform standards of courses and be costly, to set up and run.
The impact of new technology on the tertiary sector can not be over estimated. I believe it offers a great opportunity to expand the reach of universities and to provide easier access to students. Things such as the Internet, tele-conferencing and e-mail, can be very powerful tools but at the same time provision must be made for those students who do not have ready access to such technologies, ie. computers.
In the,
"background information to be considered," for Theme One, the need for institutions to respond effectively to,
"student and employer demand for industry and labour market relevant curricula.", is stated. I whole heartedly agree that this should be the case, but would add the caution that guide-lines need to be established to prevent the unacceptable narrowing of the tertiary sector. To the point where only industry relevant curricula would be taught. I would see this as a huge backward step and to be avoided at all costs.
THEME TWO : FACTORS AFFECTING THE DEMAND FOR AND PROVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATIONOVER THE NEXT 10 TO 20 YEARS
Over the next 10 to 20 years there is likely to be an increasing demand for higher education, both at University level and at TAFE level. This will be as a result of employers demanding a more flexible, skilled workforce. Internationally this is also true. As the nations of the world draw closer together, both government and business will require employees, trained to deal with the global marketplace.
To ensure that Australia as a nation can move confidently through this changing environment, the government needs to provide strong leadership in maintaining a quality higher education system, that is well resourced. One that provides access to all, free and on merit. Only such a system will provide Australia with the people it needs.
Obviously the status of teaching needs to be raised in the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors. This is so teaching will attract some of the brightest students and not continue to be seen as a dead end, and under appreciated career, It is a tragedy that during my time at high school no teacher ever recommended teaching as a career. Indeed whenever students indicated a desire to teach they were warned against it by any teachers present. If this situation is allowed to continue it will inevitably influence teaching standards in a negative manner and thus the learning environment of the student.
THEME THREE : REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
Obviously a quality public and private tertiary system needs the highest possible reporting requirements and scrupulous standards of accountability.
The need to also, "respond to the policy goals underlying public investment," (as mentioned in the, 'major themes and issues,' section in the guide-lines for preparing a submission), is valid only insofar as the system is independent of governments. For public funding of courses in higher education to be dependent on the changing policy whims of various governments would be a tragedy.
Linked to the issue of competing for funding in the public and private arenas, is the tendering of universities for commercial contracts. I regard the term competitive neutrality as an oxymoron. The government on one hand is encouraging universities to compete for the private dollar and on the other seeking to create the mythical level playing field. They do this by seeking to destroy the advantages the university possesses from being a big institution. The government can not have it both ways, either fund universities so they do not need commercial dollars (the preferred option) or let them use every advantage they have!
THEME FOUR : FINANCING HIGHER EDUCATIONTEACHING AND RESEARCH TRAINING
Who will provide the money? The most important aspect of the current Liberal-National Party Government's attitude to higher education. Their answer is NOT US!, as witnessed by the huge cuts in spending on education. This attitude is totally wrong and is negligent of the government's responsibility to be a service provider. The entire point of democratic government is to serve the people. This does not include selling off profitable government enterprises (Telstra, QANTAS, etc) and bleeding areas such as Health, and Education dry!
The government in its role as a service provider should fund the majority of the higher education system. In this funding some services should not be rated above others, eg. prestige courses (Law, Med., Vet., etc), above the Humanities.
The increasing HECS debts students are becoming liable for are putting off some people from gaining a higher education. The thought of having so much debt to pay off at the end of their degree frightens many students.
HECS is an inequitable system. To ask students to be the only people to pay it when so many more benefit is unfair. Companies who benefit from skilled graduates should have to help support the higher education sector. To those who would argue that this would place an unnecessary burden on business a simple answer can be given, the current system is even more of burden to students!
Any scholarships (apart from those offered in equity programs), should be awarded on merit.
Students should be provided with an adequate amount of money to live on while studying, ie. AUSTUDY if received should be equal to the dole and it should be available to all.
Full fees should never be an option for Australian students. If they became compulsory many, many students would not have the opportunity to have a higher education. This would spark a return to the days when universities were the domain only of the rich.
Student income support is not (disapointingly) addressed specifically in the review, despite it being a major equity issue. It is becoming harder and harder to obtain any form of student financial support, mainly because of the AUSTUDY parental means test. This denies students the right to attend university. Also the means test ignores the fact that, although parents may have their offspring living at home, they do not necessarily have the money to fund said offspring through university. As well it ignores the fact that parents may and indeed (as the student is now an adult) have the right to refuse to fund the university studies of their offspring. So the means test tramples on the rights of both students and parents. Those families that do support their offspring through university risk going into considerable debt.
The question must be asked, how much public funding should private higher education providers have access to. The answer is NONE! These are private, profit making institutions and should be treated as such.
If the government does not provide the majority of funds going into the higher education sector, it risks the independence of the sector. To give up control of higher education would have significant effects on access and equity within the system.
CONCLUSION
So having addressed all (except Theme Five) the major themes of the Review, I restate my position that a vibrant, diverse higher education sector is essential for the advancement of Australia. We need this method of education to become the Clever Country and to stay as the Lucky Country. This can only be achieved by having a higher education system that is free and open to all. With students adquately supported through their degrees and courses.