Sydney Widening Participation in Higher Education Forum

• Forum committee members
• Information for parents
• February Forum
• Background Discussion Paper
• Bradley Report
• Purpose

Background Discussion Paper

Widening participation in higher education

Bob Birrell

Download PDF version
Download Word version

The future looks a lot brighter for prospective university students than it was a few years ago.  As a result of the Review of Higher Education in Australia (the Bradley Review) released in December 2008, the Australian Government has made a commitment to sharply increase the proportion of 25–34 year-old Australian residents who possess a university qualification. The target is to increase this share from 29 per cent in 2006 to 40 per cent in 2025. The government has also announced that it wishes to increase the proportion of students who come from low socio-economic status households. Low socio-economic background households are defined as those living in the bottom quartile (or bottom 25 per cent) of Australian suburbs, as measured by the educational and occupational level of employed persons in these suburbs. It wants this share to grow from the current 15 per cent to 20 per cent by the year 2020.¹

The present policy stance contrasts with that of the Coalition Government, which was in office between 1996 and 2007. During this time the Australian Government put a low priority on expanding opportunities in the higher education sector. There was only a marginal expansion in the number of Commonwealth subsidised places over this period. The government’s priority was vocational, especially trade training. Nevertheless, it hoped that there would be some expansion in higher education student enrolments as a result of freeing up the rules on the number of full-fee places accessible to domestic students. Very few Australian residents took up the offer, except among those wanting to study law. As a result, domestic undergraduate commencements were flat. They increased from 175,666 in 2002 to 189,516 in 2008, or just eight per cent. Comparable data for the period before 2002 is not available, but very little expansion occurred between 1996 and 2002.

Yet, over the past decade, Australia has experienced an economic boom, at least until the onset of the global financial crisis in late 2008. During this time the net number of persons employed in Australia increased by some 150,000 a year. More than half of these jobs were in professional, managerial and technical occupations where new entrants usually needed, as a minimum, a degree qualification. The rate of growth in employment in the professional and managerial occupations has been double that of those employed in the trades and three to four times higher than for those employed in clerical and semi-skilled occupations. The one bright spot in employment growth in the trade fields has been for those working in the booming construction industry.

Future job creation in Australia is likely to follow the recent pattern. Most of Australia’s job growth will continue to be within the service industries. In the public sector, these include the provision of health, education, community and administrative services. In the private sector the main growth has been in business services sector (as in management, finance, legal, IT, scientific and technical services). All of these industries require knowledge-based skills. This helps explain the move towards requiring degree level qualifications for these occupations. There may be element of credentialism here. However, from the employer’s point of view, these occupations require good cognitive and analytic skills, which a university education is expected to deliver. Indeed, all Australian universities emphasise that the development of such skills (along with technical knowledge) is fundamental to their educational objectives.

The health sector illustrates the point. As our society grows more wealthy, the capacity of residents to afford more attention to their health increases. So too does the proliferation of health services, not just in the mainstream medical and nursing fields, but in the range of allied health fields, as with psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech pathologists and the various diagnostic specialties.

For the reasons just stated, Australia’s higher educational training system has not delivered enough domestic graduates. Our young people are not being equipped to compete for the good jobs of the future. As of 2006, just 28.9 per cent of Australians aged 18 to 20 years were enrolled in university courses. This share was only marginally higher than in 2001 when 28.4 per cent were so enrolled. A further 14.8 per cent in 2006 were enrolled in TAFE institutions (whether full or part time) and another 8.76 per cent were still in school or in other educational institutions. This means that almost half (47.7 per cent) of 18 to 20-year-olds in 2006 were not enrolled in any form of post school education. In Sydney the share enrolled in higher education was higher, at 32.4 per cent (see Table 1 below). Nevertheless, some 43.9 per cent of all 18 to 20-year-olds living in Sydney in 2006 were not enrolled in any form of post school education.²

It may be wondered how the Australian economy was able to function during a period of rapid demand for skilled persons when domestic training in these skills was static. The answer is that it did not cope well, since shortages were widespread, especially in the health sphere, but also among accountants, engineers and other mainstream professional fields. The primary government response over the years 1996 to 2007 was to open up the immigration pathway. The number of skilled migrants increased sharply. Most of those selected for their skills, either as a result of employer sponsorship or through the points-tested visa categories (for migrants not sponsored by employers) were professionals, particularly those with accounting, IT and health qualifications.

A new era
The Bradley Review largely accepted the above diagnosis and, as noted, the new Labor Government has embraced a target of 40 per cent for the share of Australians aged 25 to 34 years who hold degree-level credentials by 2025.

The current level of enrolment is far short of what is required to achieve the 40 per cent target. As a result, university enrolments will have to increase dramatically, partly to keep up with population growth and partly to achieve the 40 per cent participation target.
The Commonwealth Government is currently projecting that Australia’s population will increase from 20.7 million in 2006 to around 25.6 million in 2021, 26.9 million in 2026 and 33–35 million by 2050. If this projection is correct then, over the early years of this projection, from 2006 to 2021, the number of university students in Australia will have to increase by 14.5 per cent at the national level and by 12.2 per cent for Sydney.³ Any increase in the higher education participation rate would be on top of this.

The longer-term outlook is for a continued growth in the university-aged population in Sydney—again, just to keep up with the expansion in the university-aged population. The latest (2008) population projection from the NSW Department of Planning (which embodies migration and fertility assumptions similar to those in the Commonwealth projections) has Sydney growing from 4.3 million in 2006 to 6 million by 2036. The Department projects that over the thirty year period 2006 to 2036 there will be a 30 per cent increase in the number of persons aged 15 to 19 and of those aged 20 to 24 years living in Sydney.⁴

There is already evidence of a backlog in the provision of university places in Sydney. Figure 1 and Table 1 show the proportion of young people aged 18 to 20 years living in Sydney who were enrolled in a university course in 2006. There is a sharp difference by area, with participation rates for those living in inner and middle areas of Sydney being far higher than for those living in outer suburban areas, with the exception of the Central Northern Statistical Subdivision (SSD). Since most of the future growth in the university-aged cohort will occur in outer suburban areas (because that is where young families tend to settle), the need to match this population growth with opportunities for higher education participation is evident. It is notable that areas with low participation rates tend to be those with a relative absence of university campuses.

This suggests the hypothesis that limited physical access may be a factor in the low level of university participation in these outer suburban areas. However, it is not quite so simple.

Table 1: University participation rates of 18 to 20-year-olds in 2006 by Statistical Subdivision (SSD)

Usual residence place of residence by SSD	Total number of 18–20 year olds	University participation rate per cent	TAFE participation rate per cent
Inner Sydney	4632	35.1	16.5
Eastern Suburbs	4761	47.6	12.2
St George Sutherland	14,000	35.1	20.0
Canterbury Bankstown	10,020	32.1	19.2
Fairfield Liverpool	13,000	28.3	19.5
Outer South Western Sydney	10,080	18.4	18.6
Inner Western Sydney	4482	50.0	14.4
Central Western Sydney	9502	33.1	18.7
Outer Western Sydney	12,641	19.3	18.8
Blacktown	10,076	21.7	18.0
Lower Northern  Sydney	6645	51.5	12.2
Central Northern Sydney	16,233	49.2	13.6
Northern Beaches	6208	34.6	17.5
Gosford Wyong	10,139	17.9	17.6
Sydney Total	132,419	32.4	17.4
Rest of NSW	80,831	18.4	17.1
Other1	42,340	—	—
Total NSW	255, 590	26.3	15.9

Notes: the ‘Other’ category includes undefined or not available, students who were resident overseas in 2001 plus students who were elsewhere in Australia. The population data is based on the usual address of 13 to 15-year-olds in 2001. This has been done to ensure that the residential address of 18 to 20-year-olds reflects where they brought up rather than where they were living in 2006.

Determinants of access
The stabilisation of Commonwealth subsidised places since 1996, yet continued growth in the student aged population has generated increased competition for the available places. Parental concerns about winning the race for these places has prompted more to pay for private school education, as well as an increase in the competition for access to high performing government schools. The year 12 results for students from these two groups of schools usually ensure a university place. One result is an increased differentiation in the year 12 results for high schools specialising in an academic curriculum and the results for those that do not. Students from the provide schools and high performing government schools are taking a higher share of university places, particularly places in high demand fields. Most of the remaining government high schools have been expected to serve the needs of both vocational and academically oriented students and thus are less able to focus on preparing their students for the year 12 results needed for university entrance.

Most of the high schools located in outer suburbia are state sector comprehensives. Parents with university aspirations for their children are reluctant to settle in these areas, precisely because of this situation. Thus young people raised in outer suburbia have a double handicap. One is that they usually come from families where the family income is above average, otherwise they would not be able to afford to purchase in suburban Sydney. But most of these families have no tradition of higher education attendance and thus limited interest in encouraging their children to aspire to such an education. The other handicap is that these students normally attend high schools where preparation for university is not the main priority of the school.

In addition, all students, regardless of the school they attended, face a difficult financial situation should they pursue a university place. Only about a third of full-time undergraduate students receive the higher education Youth Allowance. Furthermore, the value of the allowance in real terms has also declined significantly in recent years.⁵ Most full-time undergraduates are not eligible for the Youth Allowance because even those with parents whose income is modest will not pass the parental income means test. As a result, most undergraduates have to rely on parental support, supplemented by part-time work. For those coming from families without a tradition of higher education, dependence on family support may be problematic. It will not surprise, given these circumstances, that attrition rates for domestic undergraduates in their first year of university are around 20 per cent. Unfortunately there is limited research on the extent to which this attrition rate is linked to family income or socio-economic status. 

This background helps explain one of the strongest findings in the university access literature— that the university participation rate for young people from second or earlier generation Australian families (that is whose parents were born in Australia) who are from lower-middle and working-class backgrounds, is lower than that for those whose parents come from Non-English-Speaking-Background (NESB) birthplaces. Parents in the latter category tend to put a much higher valuation on university credentials and, thus, are more prepared to encourage and support their children in a university education. The remarkable success of Indochinese children in gaining access to higher education in Australia, despite the relatively low income of their parents, attests to this finding. Paradoxically, this low income means that Indochinese students have a better chance of gaining the Youth Allowance.

This is not to argue that there is no need to promote access for NESB-origin children. Some groups are struggling, no matter how high the aspirations of parents, because they attend high schools that do not focus on an academic curriculum. In some of these schools, where recent arrivals are concentrated, there is the additional task of providing remedial English as well as coping with the diverse needs of young people from many cultures. Rather, the point is that improvement in access should be seen in a wider context than concerns about socio-economic disadvantage.

The Commonwealth Government’s focus is on increasing the participation rate of young people from low socio-economic status from around 15 per cent to 20 per cent by 2020. This is an admirable goal, but the task is much larger than this. If 40 per cent of Australians in the 25 to 34 years age group are to obtain university qualifications by 2025, it will require the penetration into social strata where there is no tradition of university attendance, including among lower-middle and working-class Anglo communities. This in turn will require much greater university penetration into the ranks of outer suburban families. Micro analysis shows that university participation is already well over 50 per cent of 18 to 20-year-olds living in high status residential areas. There is not much scope for increasing university participation among young people from these locations.

The role of schools and universities
There are limits to what schools and universities can do in the situation described. They cannot do much about increasing the number of Commonwealth-subsidised places if there is limited capacity for expansion. However there may be scope to provide courses on a more flexible basis, particularly for students who have to work on a part-time basis. Nor can universities do much about the provision of financial assistance for students. Improvement on these fronts is largely the prerogative of the Commonwealth government.

The government has offered financial inducements to universities for the enrolment of students from low socio-status locations and from 2012 will remove all constraints from universities on the number of domestic students it will provide subsidised places for. Some universities, however, will not seek to increase their domestic undergraduate numbers. This may be because of capacity limitations, or because their focus is on their research capacity and reputation. In addition, because the revenue per domestic student is far less than that for overseas students, they may wish to devote any spare capacity to catering for the latter. This observation highlights the need for additional campus building.

Where universities, and particularly schools, can make a mark in encouraging greater university participation is in better informing young people and their parents about the Australian job market. University attendance involves a severe short-term financial sacrifice, relative to taking on a full-time job. But the pay-off in the long term of completing degree-level qualifications is likely to be enormous. This is a message that is most needed in communities where there is a limited tradition of university attendance, notable among lower-middle and working-class families.

For their part, universities need to ensure they provide the course options that are likely to appeal to a new class of students. The latter’s priority will be vocational courses, which lead to jobs in the health professions, accounting, engineering and the like. These are occupations for which young people can readily see a return after a few years of financial sacrifice.

Some commentators argue that there are limits to the extent of mining for students, because it is likely to drain the talent pool. Research on this matter is thin. ATAR scores are a good guide to performance in university. However, students from high school backgrounds with the same ATAR scores as those of private schools tend to do a little better in university performance than their private school counterparts.

But modest ATAR scores for many students are more a reflection of low priority given to the academic curriculum of the schools they attend and lack of motivation on the part of students to do well because they do not see a university course as a realistic option.

---

Bob Birrell is Reader in Sociology and a member of the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University. He contributed a background paper to the Bradley Review, entitled Higher Education in Australia; Demand and Supply issues.