Every under-represented cohort is equal under the Government’s response to the Accord. Except for students with a disability, who have to get back in line with everybody else.
The Department of Education this week confirmed the hierarchy of support for under-represented cohorts, with the gold standard in place for Indigenous students – allocated higher funding per student and uncapped enrolments. This is widely recognised as a great initiative, for a sector that still has a long way to go to achieve parity in student enrolments, let alone staffing. Whether it leads to unplanned consequences in institutions poaching Indigenous enrolments from one another at the expense of student interests remains to be seen, but is something to watch.
Rather than follow this approach with all under-represented cohorts, the Government has instead adopted different tactics for different cohorts which will be locked in under the proposed Universities Accord legislation expected to pass the Senate with amendments later this month.
“Effectively uncapped” places for regional and Low SES enrolments
The Department told future campus that, “the Bill will also effectively uncap places for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and regional and remote communities, with the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) able to allocate additional places where they are needed to meet demand from these students.”
When the Department say effective uncapping, they mean allowances for growth will be distributed by ATEC. Low SES students will be tracked and boosted via compacts. But ‘uncapping’ seems to have a very different meaning for regionals.
Regional neglect attempted to be solved by campus, not student
As we know, instead of compensating regional campuses for the higher cost of education delivery outside of metro areas via a dedicated funding pool, the Government has chosen to give funding for regional and remote students to regional campuses and will hope to grow regional enrolments by allocating more places to regional campuses. This solves a regional campus problem (potentially, if they can lure students in to fill the places), but questions remain about the impact on equity for regional and remote students.
There is no question regional campuses deserve better funding. It is a different question altogether as to whether the regional disadvantage will be resolved by only giving extra cash to support those who choose to attend a local campus.
For example, regional study hubs, previously the media darling of the department, are not eligible for Needs-based funding, and regional students not in easy commuting distance of a campus who enrol with a non-regional provider and study online will also not be eligible. The attempt to funnel student demand without conducting market research to understand it has failed spectacularly before – for example with the Job Ready Graduates scheme. Whether this policy will eliminate under-representation of regional and remote students remains unclear.
Disability – caps, no special measures
Which leaves students with a disability. Students with a disability will not have access to uncapped places and will have to get in line with every other student seeking admission to a university. The Government increased the disability support fund from $13 to $53m annually last year to support students with a disability. Given that there were 98,061 domestic students with a disability in undergraduate programs alone in 2024, that amounts to annual support budget of $540 per undergraduate, without any money for PG students.
Given that 27% of Australian school students now have an adjustment for disability at school, there should be a significant jump in the proportion of students with a disability in HE in the coming years. However, given that only 34% of people with a disability over 20 have completed year 12 compared to 66% of those without disability, and the pressure on existing funding pools to provide support as numbers grow, there appears to be no obvious mechanism to intentionally grow this cohort under existing policy settings. Perhaps the assumption is that the influx of students with disabilities will be so significant that it will address underrepresentation over time, so no special measures are required?
A benevolent system built without surveying those it seeks to serve
All of which raises the question – how much does the Department know about the barriers to study, drivers of career choice, perceptions and misconceptions of people who have not yet been able to enrol?
Single mums in small communities who can’t afford childcare costs or to travel to a regional campus? People with disabilities who want to study, but their ATAR is compromised by their health issues? Students who can’t access the course they want at their regional uni? Low SES students who don’t fit into the compact allocation of their neighbourhood institution? And as CAPA leaders pointed out this week, does equity cease to matter beyond the undergraduate level?
The settings for growing Indigenous participation seem to be widely supported, in tandem with other measures in train. Whether change can be achieved for other cohorts without heeding the interests, perceptions, needs and wishes of the other three under-represented cohorts remains to be seen.