Socio-economic Backgrounds of Students

The higher education equity indicator for socio-economic status is based on students’ home address postcode.120 Universities have criticised this measure for its inaccuracy given the wide variation possible in socio-economic circumstances in any particular postcode area. In response to this dissatisfaction, in 1998 DETYA commissioned a review of the current methodology which found that correlations with socio-economic status determined by postcode are low across a range of individual level measures.121 This investigation recommended that measures for socio-economic status be developed based on the educational levels and occupations of students’ parents, arguing that this would be a more accurate indicator of socio-economic status both for school leavers and mature aged students. In the meantime the postcode-based definition has continued to be used for national reporting and monitoring, the consistency of definition since 1995 making it possible to track longitudinal trends. While the existing postcode derived methodology has been used in this study to enable comparisons to be made with existing data, additional information has also been included in an effort to give a more accurate picture of the socio-economic status of the various UniSA-PAL student cohorts.

Based on postcode, an overwhelming 86.6 per cent of the 2002 PAL students at Para West were from low socio-economic backgrounds.122 In 2003 nearly a quarter of the PAL students in the four adult re-entry schools were from low socio-economic backgrounds, with large differences on this measure across the four schools. In contrast to 2002, Para West had 47 per cent low socio-economic background students in 2003 based on the postcode derived definition. The extraordinary disparity between the 2002 (86.6 per cent) and 2003 (47 per cent) proportion of the Para West PAL students in the lowest socio-economic quartile underlines the inconsistencies which arise from the postcode derived methodology, particularly as the staff at the school perceived no difference between the two student cohorts with respect to this dimension. Nevertheless, in 2003 Para West has the highest proportion among the four schools of low socio-economic background PAL students, the smaller cohort at Thebarton being 9 percent low SES, and Hamilton and Marden having only one student each with a postcode in the lowest quartile. While Para West has no students from the highest socio-economic quartile, Hamilton, Thebarton and Marden have 28.5, 18 and 17 per cent respectively, although the Thebarton data should be read with caution given the small numbers involved. Based on their home postcodes, the 2003 students in each of these three schools were overwhelmingly from middle socio-economic backgrounds with Hamilton also having a higher proportion from high backgrounds.

In 2003 the University’s Diploma in University Studies had 34 per cent of its commencing students from low socio-economic backgrounds, with proportions varying over the years between 42.5 per cent in 1999 to 32.3 percent in 1996. This compares with an average for commencing students across the whole of the University of nearly 24 per cent, and with 39 per cent for enabling students nationally in 1999.

As explained above and explored in some detail in the literature,123 inconsistencies and inaccuracies arise from using the relatively blunt measure of home postcode to determine socio-economic status. In response, a range of other factors was investigated in order to provide a more accurate picture of the socio-economic status of the student cohorts which are the subject of this study. The income range of the UniSA-PAL students, based on information provided by them through the questionnaires, indicates that half of the 2002 PAL cohort at Para West were in the range $10,000 - $20,000. In 2003, over 80 per cent of the entire PAL cohort in the four schools had an income at or below $30,000 with the majority in the two ranges $5,000 to $20,000.124 Only Para West had any students in the lowest two income ranges (less than $2,000 and $2,000 - $5,000) but also only this school had several in the highest two brackets, apparently due to their partner’s income.

All of the 2002 PAL cohort at Para West had some form of government support, as did 94 per cent of the 2003 students at the same school. Across the four schools 85 per cent of the whole group of 2003 UniSA-PAL students were receiving government pensions or grants. And overall 65 per cent of the 2003 PAL students were School Card holders, a benefit for which eligibility is income determined, with a high 90 per cent at Thebarton down to 50 per cent at Para West.

They are almost all on an allowance. So they have almost all got a health card. And so they are in that socio-economic group…We’ve got a large percentage [of PAL students] here on School Card…85-90 per cent…Whereas in an ordinary class, maybe it’s 53 per cent. (Marden staff interview)

No data is available on either the Diploma in University Studies students or those in enabling programs with respect to either their income range or receipt of government support including numbers of School Card holders.

The DETYA funded investigation recommended that a new higher education measure for students’ socio-economic status be developed based on their parent’s educational levels and occupations.125 Attempts were made therefore to establish the educational levels of the parents of UniSA-PAL students as well as their own highest level of previous education. In both cases this was derived from information they provided in their completed questionnaires. Since the student questionnaires gave information only about their parent’s occupations not their level of education, the latter can only be inferred from their occupations. Jones’ study126 to establish the practicability of this approach, based on extensive data extracted by DETYA from questionnaires completed by higher education commencing students in 2001 at the time of their enrolment in 18 universities, found that the majority of the students with low socio-economic status as determined by their parents’ occupational background actually lived in areas with a medium SES postcode. This is relevant to the postcode data above which shows that while 86.6 per cent of the 2003 PAL students at Para West were from low socio-economic backgrounds, in the 2003 cohort this drops to 47 per cent with the remaining 53 per cent from the middle grouping according to their postcode. No data is available on either the Diploma students or those in enabling programs with respect to parents’ occupation or qualifications.

The highest previous educational levels of the 2002 PAL cohort at Para West ranged between year 8 and year 12, with the average being year 11. Overall less than a quarter of the entire 2003 PAL group had reached year 12 in their earlier experience of school education, and almost another 40 per cent had reached year 11, but whether these years were actually completed is not clear from the data. Another 21 per cent reached year 10 with the remaining 13 per cent recording years 8 and 9 as their highest level of previous school education. Although there is no data available on the highest level of school education for the University’s Diploma in University Studies students over the years, in 1995 a third of the students in the first intake into the Diploma had successfully completed year 12 at a secondary school. Nationally, 34 per cent of bridging students and 68 per cent of supplementary students had completed year 12, with 5 per cent of bridging and 46 per cent of supplementary students being admitted on the basis of their final year at school in 1998. Nearly two thirds of the entire national cohort in bridging courses in the same year had gained admission on the basis of mature aged or special entry provisions.

Equity Characteristics of all Student Cohorts

* Based on the postcode derived definition, but see discussion above for further data
** National equity indicator definition
*** Speaks a language other than English at home