Needs-based funding will follow low-SES students, Indigenous students and students with a disability, but not country students – instead funnelling the extra support money to regional and remote campuses, according to a new Government plan.
The Government’s plans for needs-based funding, with additional revenue to support students from under-represented groups have been released for consultation, with responses due by 9 Aug – adding to the flurry of hasty consultation already underway in relation to the structure of the new ATEC and the Managed Growth Funding System (with responses for those two discussion papers due on 26 July).
The plan is to replace other programs providing support to under-represented students at each institution with a new program attaching money to student enrolments – so that institutions with greater numbers of students from those backgrounds receive more support funds – with the exception of regional students, who will only be able to access extra support if they choose a regional campus.
The plan indicates that the government does not believe rural and regional students face the same level of disadvantage as other under-represented groups and is a significant boost for regional providers, ‘recognising the higher costs regional providers face to deliver courses in regional Australia.’
The plan also emphasises a new focus on measurement and better bang for buck in student support; requiring providers to ‘invest in evidence-based academic and student support activities that primarily support students from these groups to complete their degrees,” and reporting to “ensure transparency and accountability.” This emphasis will grate on student support staff who already believe they are delivering measurable support under existing programs.
A new Framework for delivering student support will be overseen by the ATEC, with support to students requiring an elephant stamp from the Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success. This represents a massive centralisation of student support systems, removing control from individual teams and deploying a new franchised approach, based on concerns that the current system is delivering inadequate results. “Embedding this wealth of evidence, expertise and analysis at the centre of Needs-based Funding would ensure funding is invested in targeted supports that are proven to make a difference,” the report says.
The paper notes that there are a range of issues that need to be explored during consultation including:
- Determining student eligibility for Needs-based Funding (which has echoes of challenges with NDIS funding reform)
- Potential scaling of funding contributions ‘to recognise the link between academic preparedness and success’
- Considering the role of Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations and other First-Nations-led organisations in delivery and support
- Developing an evidence-based framework of activities that work to improve completion rates for under-represented cohorts – raising questions about how that must evolve, particularly when AI-assisted supports are rapidly evolving
- ‘Potential reform’ of other programs such as the Indigenous Student Success Program which currently funds many Indigenous support programs
- Improving student data quality and collection to support the system
As if those variables weren’t enough, the Government raises the age-old ATAR chestnut asking “Would ATAR be an appropriate proxy for academic preparedness? How could academic preparedness best be measured where a new student does not have an ATAR?”
Questions will undoubtedly arise as to whether the Government intends to lock in new arrangements for Needs-based funding in relation to Indigenous students before responding to the Accord’s recommendation for a First Nations-led review of HE – a review which presumably would consider Needs-based funding amongst a range of other issues.
Fewer questions will be raised about support for regional students and the use of this mechanism to provide long-overdue recognition of the increased cost of delivery for regional campuses. The paper does not ask for feedback in relation to its decision to address regional student under-representation by throwing more money towards regional campuses, rather than supporting freedom of choice for regional students. While regional campuses have suffered from higher costs for decades, the policy makes no clear rationale for providing needs-based funding to only three of the Accord’s four priority groups.
