Higher education access for adults from low socio-economic backgrounds While concern for inequality of access to the benefits of higher education is a matter of public policy in many parts of the world, in Australia certain groups in our community have been identified as particularly disadvantaged in this respect.15 It has been federal government policy since 1990 that institutions in the Unified National System (UNS) plan and take action to remedy this situation towards one which is more equitable, and to report on the outcomes of their efforts against nationally defined quantitative performance indicators.16 However despite considerable attention and some resources being dedicated to this goal, progress towards greater equality of access, participation and outcomes has been less than hoped for, particularly for some of the identified groups. Based on an extensive review of progress since the introduction of the national higher education equity framework, conducted in 1995-6, it was established that those from low socio-economic and isolated backgrounds remain the most under-represented in the higher education student population.17
Further the higher education participation share of students from low socio-economic backgrounds has remained remarkably resistant to improvement over the last decade, remaining at 14.4–14.7%, well below their population share of 25%,18 despite the higher education equity framework targeting this group for priority action and funding, the expansion of higher education places, and increasing community and public policy recognition of the significance of post-secondary education and training in the same period. The 1995-96 national review of higher education equity found that within the two disadvantaged groups of low socio-economic and isolated communities, it is the older students from low socio-economic backgrounds who remain the most under-represented of all.19 Statistics presented in the 2002 Ministerial Discussion Paper Higher Education at the Crossroads indicates that the share of higher education places occupied by low socio-economic students not only has not increased but reduced very slightly in the decade 1991 to 2001.20 More recently the DEST commissioned research by James et al21 found no change to the access rates for students from low socio-economic backgrounds remaining well below their 25 per cent population share in the period 1991-2001.
Various strategies have been put into place within institutions and nationally to facilitate the access of prospective higher education students from the under-represented groups identified by the national higher education equity framework. At the national systems level, the major strategies aimed at increasing access and participation by adults from low SES backgrounds have been mature age entry provisions22 and the Commonwealth’s Enabling Program, which funds both university bridging and supplementary courses. The HECS exempt bridging courses funded in this way are most relevant to this research since they are aimed at increasing students’ confidence, motivation and in particular at preparing them for successful study at undergraduate level. Unfortunately the efficacy of such programs has been considerably less than hoped or expected, with high attrition rates and low progression rates into university level study being recorded almost universally. As a result of this, better mechanisms for improving access for disadvantaged adults became the focus for national education policy attention in 2001. The federal education department which provides funding for such courses, the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), prepared a consultation document23 for response by24 and discussion with the universities which offer them. No changes were made as a result however, either to the funding and operation of such bridging programs or in the form of new funding initiatives, so it can be expected that the unsatisfactory outcomes noted in the DEST paper have not changed in the intervening period. And many thousands of disadvantaged adults continue to seek entry to university study by this means, their numbers increasing by 180 per cent between 1989 and 1999.25
Pathways between sectors
In this age of life-long learning and the knowledge economy, smoothing pathways between the various levels and sectors of post-compulsory education and training is being given significant policy attention.26 The achievement of multiple pathways into and between education and training, rather than a lock-step linear progression between them, depends upon effective collaboration between sectoral authorities and education and training institutions. Efforts to achieve this are often hampered by practical barriers such as funding, accountability, industrial and structural differences as well as more intangible cultural differences, for example around concepts of curriculum content and delivery.27 The pilot which is the subject of this research arose from and was conducted in collaboration with the public schooling sector, and relied heavily upon cooperation and effective working relations between university and school staff. Insights into the effectiveness of this aspect of the pilot have significance for future efforts to achieve inter-sectoral collaboration, nationally and internationally.
The outcomes of this research will be relevant therefore to both national policy and programs in the higher education sector and as a guide to action for institutions in their efforts to increase access for disadvantaged adults. More locally, these research outcomes are important for the South Australian community in terms of social justice, community cohesion, and capacity building, especially since states like South Australia with higher proportions of people from low SES backgrounds also have the lowest rates of their access to higher education.28 Further the research was conducted at a time when these issues have come to the forefront of the State’s Social Inclusion policy agenda, with the Government having identified an improvement in SA’s below national average school retention rates as one of the three key policy priorities for the Premier’s Social Inclusion Board and Unit’s initial work. Finally the outcomes of the research have the potential to improve the quality of the lives and future educational and career opportunities for adult Australians from low socio-economic backgrounds.