The Government’s Needs-based Funding plan aims to address rural disadvantage by removing education choice from rural students and giving funding to regional campuses – a starkly different route to that proposed for the other three under-represented groups that the Accord seeks to assist.
There is no stated reason for singling out rural students in this way, while at the same time providing a mechanism for additional funding that would flow to the institutions chosen by any individuals from the other under-represented cohorts (Indigenous students, students with disabilities and low SES students). However, the proposed policy does offer the advantage of addressing the long-ignored evidence that HE provision is more expensive to deliver per student in regional areas, and economies of scale harder to achieve.
It could be argued that the policy addresses a systemic inequity in CSP funding allocation through a back-door allocation of funds which would otherwise be allocated to additional support for an under-represented cohort. Funds for extra support essentially evaporate to address the higher price of service delivery and regional students are left without support allocated to the other under-represented cohorts.
While the sector ruminates on the future of regional HE provision (and occasionally, regional students), a new paper suggests that rather than exporting students to the corners of the Earth to gain worldly context and skills that are necessary for the workforce, regional campuses should work to bring the world to their campus. Researchers from Ireland and the UK have focused on using extended reality immersive technology to bring experiences and the world to rural HE classrooms, finding that technology can provide a valuable bridge, “and create opportunities for new patterns of rural education.” Upskilling rural-based HE academic staff in the use of cutting edge classroom tech had the potential to transform learning outcomes, the authors found.
Meanwhile, researchers in the US have looked beyond the campus boundaries to look at the impact of changing stipends to avoid stigma in medical education – in particular, looking at how to grow representation of rural students in Missouri medical schools.
In findings that will be of great interest to the Accord implementation team, the paper found that universal stipends – providing funding to every student, helped to avoid stigmatising stipend recipients and grow student numbers. While the universal stipend was less important to students with higher income, conversations with students indicated that, “Students from less affluent backgrounds face challenges in medical education beyond those of peers.” Students seeking to get into a medicine course were encouraged to strive for perfection, and the targeting of financial assistance to less wealthy / first in family students conveyed a stigma.
The article ultimately does not prove whether scholarships and subsidies that are not means tested are more effective or less affective than targeted scholarships – but does raise important questions around holistic factors that the Government and sector will need to consider when seeking to double the number of students enrolled in tertiary education by 2050.
