25 July 2016
Higher Education Reform Feedback
Higher Education Group
GPO Box 9880 CANBERRA ACT 2601
Email:
Dear Higher Education Reform Group,
The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the options paper on Higher Education Reform.
UTS believes that any reform of the Australian higher education system needs to be based on three fundamental principles:
· Opportunity of access for all who merit a place for higher education.
· Sustainability of the high standard of quality of Australia’s universities.
· Affordability for students.
UTS and others across the higher education sector are of course aware of the budgetary realities that we are all operating in alongside the government’s commitment to achieve budget savings, but believe that reform must have at its core the value for the student, enhancing the student experience and maintaining accessibility. Delivering on these principles will ensure that the significant benefits of higher education and associated innovation will flow on to the Australian people and economy.
Higher education is undergoing rapid, global change; this is driven by many factors including technological changes, operational model opportunities, plus student and workplace demands and requirements. Australia is well positioned for our higher education sector to emerge from this period of change stronger than before. However, to achieve this will require focus and sufficient resourcing. Our success through this period of change will not only impact our ability to provide the core skills to drive current and future national prosperity but also the viability of one of Australia’s largest export sectors.
UTS welcomes the issues being raised and discussed within Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education. This provides a valuable and concrete process for ensuring a sustainable higher education sector, and thanks the Government for the initiative. Although UTS notes that the paper is very specific and would warn against each element being considered in isolation by the government. A long-term holistic approach to higher education reform is essential and to ensuring that we avoid any unintended behaviours or consequences.
In summary, UTS would like to make the following recommendations to the Advisory Panel:
· CGS funding should not be extended to registered non-university higher education providers (NUHEPS).
· UTS strongly supports extending the demand-driven system to incorporate enabling, preparation and bridging programs to better prepare students for completion of undergraduate education and consideration to how this can be used to build a different and much needed skill sets across the economy and further support strategic differentiation of universities.
· Rethinking the allocation and funding of Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS) places for postgraduate coursework is the biggest opportunity for the government for positive higher education sector reform. Making the funding process more transparent and equitable, with more flexibility for universities is critical. This can be achieved in a number of ways, but UTS believes that the most radical but equitable and sustainable system is not to allocate commonwealth supported postgraduate places directly to universities, but to use universal, consistent criteria to allocate postgraduate places directly to students for use at the institution of their choice. It could do this in all or in certain select disciplines of national need. This would support providers’ varying undergraduate/postgraduate degree structures, maximise student flexibility and provide equitable outcomes. By targeting certain fields to support with government funding budget savings can be made at the same time as only driving areas of national need or demand.
· UTS strongly encourages the government to restore the recent funding cuts to the HEPP program and that part of any savings from the reform packages should be reinvested into HEPP.
· UTS strongly opposes any further cuts to Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding and any discussion around fee flexibility should not be seen simply as a means to offset budget cuts.
· UTS has considered and analysed the introduction and concept of Flagship courses in detail over the recent months and has a number of significant concerns. The key concerns include; risks of creating a two-tier university system, reducing student access and equity, increasing administrative burden, complex and potential bureaucratic operational model and most importantly unclear value proposition for student learning outcomes.
· UTS supports further consideration of repayment options, however, this must be consistent with principles of fairness and accessibility, so that it does not undermine the integrity of the scheme and preserves the policy objective of the scheme to enable affordable access for all.
Yours sincerely
Professor Attila Brungs
UTS Vice-Chancellor and President
Opportunity and choice
Matters for finalisation regarding the expansion of the demand-driven system beyond bachelor courses at public universities:
· whether to provide subsidies for all undergraduate courses at all registered higher education providers, noting that growth in enrolments has continued to increase at non-university providers despite the absence of Commonwealth funding
· how to expand access to sub-bachelor courses at public universities, whether this should be entirely demand driven or whether it should be limited in enrolment numbers or scope.
UTS response:
UTS is strongly opposed to the expansion of Commonwealth funding to registered non-university providers at this time due to:
· Significant budgetary concerns.
· The high risk of a poor return on the investment of public funds.
· The risks surrounding the resulting increased student debt.
· Concerns on the impact this would have on Australia’s 3rd largest export industry and international reputation for quality education.
Sub-bachelor places expansion:
UTS supports the expansion of the demand driven system to sub-bachelor places, noting this is an important pathway to achieving access and equity goals and also helps better prepare students for higher education. We believe that demand driven funding should primarily be limited to certain disciplines, foundation and other pathway courses which should be broad enough to enable students to explore a full range of further study. However, extending it to Sub-bachelor programs which result in graduates with highly valuable and in demand skills as an end point should also be cautiously explored.
Noting the current fiscal challenges facing the government and as with any extension to government subsidies, we believe there is a need for a regulated introduction to ensure there are no unintended impacts to students, providers or on government outlays.
Postgraduate places to support innovation
Reforms to the allocation of and support for subsidised postgraduate places have not been considered as part of legislative changes to date but could be considered in revised proposals, subject to the financial sustainability savings outlined in the budget. Measures that could be considered include:
· reallocate all subsidised postgraduate places on a more transparent and consistent basis, to be determined by an independent process, driven by identified principles around economic, societal and academic need, and reassessed at regular intervals
· better target Commonwealth support to those postgraduate courses identified as delivering significant community benefit where private benefits may be more limited – for example, teaching and nursing courses, where graduate salaries may be comparatively lower while demand for skills is high
· allocate additional places for skills-deepening qualifications consistent with the National Innovation and Science Agenda, for example in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields
· introduce a time-limited learning entitlement for Commonwealth subsidies (for example, seven years) that students can access at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level
· introduce demand driven funding for some or all postgraduate coursework courses. This would make Commonwealth funding more consistent across different levels of course, but would risk a significant budgetary impact unless managed carefully, such as including a lower level of Commonwealth subsidy to increase affordability
UTS response:
UTS strongly welcomes and supports any efforts to address the opaque, inconsistent and inequitable allocation of CGS places at the postgraduate level. The reform of postgraduate funding is the biggest current opportunity for the government for positive higher education sector reform. It is particularly timely given the changing nature of postgraduate education to meet evolving workforce requirements.
In general UTS supports the first 3 propositions outlined above. There are a number of ways that these can be achieved. However, UTS suggests that perhaps the most radical, but most equitable and sustainable system, is not to allocate commonwealth supported postgraduate places directly to universities, but to use universal, consistent criteria to allocate postgraduate places directly to students for use at the institution of their choice. This approach would also support providers’ varying undergraduate / postgraduate degree structures, maximises student flexibility and provides equitable outcomes. This allocation could be for all postgraduate courses or for predetermined areas of national need. For example, in earlier reviews UTS has suggested that as part of Indigenous higher education initiatives to increase participation, any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander student should have access to CSP for any course they are admitted to.
UTS supports the concept of targeting Commonwealth support of courses to those identified as delivering significant community benefit to a particular national need. However, we caution that the implementation of such an identification process could be fraught. Most, if not all, courses should have community benefit and attempts to define which courses have more community benefit would be complex and time consuming.
In terms of allocating additional places for skills-deepening qualifications consistent with the National Innovation and Science Agenda, UTS believes that this should be carefully considered. An advantage of targeting postgraduate courses to areas of national need would be a significant savings in commonwealth funding. Efforts to reform subsidised postgraduate places should focus on making the allocation and support as transparent and clear as possible, attempting to use them to drive other agendas.
Introducing a time-limited learning entitlement has some advantages but could be problematic and perceived as a barrier to creating clear pathways form sub-bachelor courses to undergraduate and postgraduate levels or limiting reskilling opportunities. A seven year limit particularly would make it difficult to follow a four year undergraduate degree with a master programme. If time limited learning is to be considered the time period must be long enough and importantly flexible enough to enable students to return to learning and not discriminate against certain cohorts of students such as those who have family and/or carer responsibilities through this period. UTS would prefer a renewable HELP loan limit as it provides for lifelong learning but restricts the exposure to unrepaid loans.
UTS does not support the introduction of demand driven funding for some or all postgraduate courses, as noted above the budgetary implications of introducing demand driven funding for some or all postgraduate coursework courses would be significant. UTS believes the focus of the demand driven system should be on undergraduate courses and enabling people to access Higher Education in the first instance.
Fairness and equity
In order to ensure that we are achieving the best outcomes for disadvantaged students, the Government will, in the context of finalising legislative reforms, be evaluating the HEPP. The evaluation will seek to determine:
· the outcomes achieved by the programme;
· who has benefited from its activities, with particular reference to all disadvantaged groups, including people from regional and remote Australia;
· whether the programme provides good value for money; and
· what changes may be required or more effective alternatives (such as scholarship type models provided for in the original 2014-15 Budget reforms) to increase higher-education participation and success by people from disadvantaged backgrounds into the future
UTS response
UTS strongly supports efforts to broaden access for disadvantaged students and underrepresented groups and this should be the underpinning principle of any HEPP reform. The Demand Driven System and HEPP funding have played a key role in enabling thousands of students to access Higher Education when they simply would not have been able to do so previously.
Data from the Department of Education and Training shows that between 2007 and 2014 the national growth in student enrolment was 31.6%. However, the more telling statistic is that the growth in participation for students from key equity groups over this same period eclipsed this broader national growth rate.
For students from a low socio-economic background, national growth in participation in higher education over this same period was 44.9%. For Indigenous students we have seen growth rates of 58.9% nationally, and for students with a disability growth in access to university has been 73.2%.
Overall, the number of low SES students enrolled at university increased as a proportion of all domestic undergraduates by 1.7%, from 16.2% to 17.9%
This may not sound significant as a figure, but when you turn percentages into real numbers you realise that in just three years Australia has seen 35,000 more students from low socio-economic backgrounds attend university. 15,112 students who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are now at universities across Australia.
UTS strongly opposed the cuts to HEPP funding in the 2016-2017 budget, this funding is central to supporting disadvantaged students at UTS as well as inspiring students to undertake, and complete, higher education.
It should be noted that the challenges of being a low income or disadvantaged student exist across Australia and so decisions relating to support should be on an as needs basis, and not influenced by region or post-code.
As demonstrated below the HEPP program has been a demonstrated success at UTS, enabling many to access and complete higher education. However, it’s evident that many disadvantaged groups at the national level still require significant support to achieve participation and completion targets in the Demand Driven System. Therefore, UTS would argue strongly for more support for this cohort – not less – both in terms of recruiting and attracting students as well ensure they complete their studies.
Key statistics:
• At UTS participation of Low SES students has increased from 1,826 in 2010 to 2,564 in 2015, an average growth rate of 5.8%.
• Participation of students enrolling at UTS via UTS’s educational access scheme inpUTS has been steadily increasing, from 2,226 in 2010 to 3,470 in 2015 (an average growth rate of 7.7%).
• Participation of students with a disability enrolling at UTS has also been steadily increasing, from 661 in 2010 to 992 in 2015 (an average growth rate of 7.0%).