ۥ- `_   247)``t|Running Head: Driving Equity and Diversity in Higher Education. AIR 37th Annual Forum, Orlando, Florida May 17-22, 1997 What Should Drive Educational Equity and Student Diversity in Australian Higher Education? Social Responsibility Versus Reporting Obligation John R. Clarke Executive Officer (Planning) University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350 AUSTRALIA Phone: 61 76 31 2884 Fax: 61 76 31 2782 E-mail: clarke@usq.edu.au Abstract The paper highlights flaws in the approaches taken to promote educational equity as a major concern for universities in Australia. It is argued that, to date, the basis for promoting educational equity in Australian universities has been overly reliant on compulsion, as expressed through pressure from government or legislation; and on arguments of social justice which generate more debate than commitment. It is suggested that university planners should constitute a third front in the promotion of a consideration of educational equity as a key and strategic issue for higher education in Australia, based on the importance of educational equity to the future social and economic development of Australia and on the responsibility of universities to contribute to these developments. Such considerations extend the why of planning beyond the use of such decision-supporting elements as performance indicators or user-surveys into an examination of an organisations mission and purpose within the society which it serves. University planners generally appreciate that their role in organisations is multi-faceted. They guide the mechanisms of planning, aid in improving the processes of decision-making and directly advise decision-makers. What, who, where and when are staples of the trade and a considerable amount of literature exists which discuss processes which can influence decisions in these areas. I have concerns, however, about the why of modern planning. With the increased corporatisation of the Australian university sector, the why of planning is now typically based on such corporate devises as performance indicators, user surveys and environmental analyses. Each of these provide invaluable inputs but they rarely extend beyond providing reasons for making decisions. The why of university planning should extend well beyond providing sound reasons on which to base decisions - it should extend, as a routine practice, to a consideration of the underlying philosophies influencing the basis for decision-making. Planners do engage in processes which extend to this level in assisting in developing institutional missions and long-term institutional goals. However, these processes are typically infrequent, perhaps being undertaken every 5-10 years, and the outcomes of these processes are typically statements which more resemble cliche than a genuine expression of commitment or a meaningful statement of purpose. Universities are notoriously conservative organisations; extremely resistant to change. Hence it is particularly important that discussions of change at any level are associated with a consideration of the institutions role and position in society. This will hopefully lead to appropriate change with an underlying rationale which inspires genuine commitment. An excellent example of an issue in Australian higher education which has suffered as a result of a failure by its advocates to appropriately articulate and communicate its underlying philosophies and rationales is educational equity. This paper discusses the place of educational equity in Australian higher education, identifies some of the problems being faced by educational equity in the university sector and explores possible rationales for suggesting that it is a strategic area which warrants institutional commitment. For the purpose of this paper I will use the following interpretation of educational equity which is in line with generally accepted views in higher education: Educational equity involves universities engaging in system and institutional action which results in a student profile that fairly reflects the diversity of Australian society. It is noted that the varying interpretations of the term fairly are still likely to create different interpretations by individuals of how educational equity should be enacted. However, this definition will serve as a useful basis for discussion. The Development of Educational Equity in Australian Higher Education Australia is a constitutional federation of six states and two territories with a parliamentary democracy form of government. Australias university sector is predominantly publicly funded. However, although the legislative responsibilities for all levels of education in Australia fall to the states, since 1974 the universities have received a majority of their income directly from the federal government. This has provided the federal government with a considerable degree of influence over the university sector in Australia - so much so that it represents the primary policy actor in higher education and the major instigator of change (Meek, 1994, p. 13). This has been amply demonstrated by the degree of government-mediated change which has occurred in Australian higher education over the past decade. (For a discussion and analysis of recent higher education reforms in Australian higher education I recommend Gamage, 1992; Glenny, 1993; Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET), 1993; and Smyth, 1995.) As elsewhere in the world, Australia has moved from an elite to a mass higher education system over the past half century. This has been associated with massive expansion and diversification of the sector. In 1946, Australia had just six universities serving 25,500 students. The system then was elite and homogeneous in the extreme with universities contributing to the definition and the perpetuation of privilege within society (Meek, 1994). In 1996, Australia boasted 36 universities in its Unified National System with enrolments exceeding 630,000 students (Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA), 1996); representing a nearly 25-fold increase in student numbers in 50 years. (Post-secondary 2-year vocational colleges in Australia are considered to lie outside of the higher education sector - Glenny, 1993.) This level of growth provided almost unlimited potential for increasing the diversification of the student body. For some members of previously under-represented groups, particularly women, significant advances were made in accessing higher education over this period. However, despite the considerable change which had occurred in Australian society since World War II, and the considerable innovations and reform which had occurred in higher education during this time, it was clear by the mid 1980s that university enrolment patterns for some groups, particularly those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, had changed little and that universities remained socially elite institutions (Anderson & Vervoorn, 1983). Although the ... government had made higher education more accessible financially, other conditions of access remained closely linked to traditional meritocratic arrangements which failed to account for the unequal educational treatment of individuals in Australian society (Gale & McNamee, 1994, p. 8). Although a range of Labor government initiatives in the mid 1980s was associated with a move to more equitable patterns of university participation (Carpenter & Hayden, 1993), the policies which would have the greatest impact on educational equity in the sector came with the government White Paper Higher Education: A Policy Statement (Dawkins, 1988). The White Paper reforms heralded a period of significant structural change and dramatic growth. Total higher education enrolments rose by over 40% in the five years between 1987 and 1992. Dawkins saw this level of growth as necessary to achieving more equitable access to the higher education system. However, it was appreciated that growth alone would not be sufficient. There was a need to develop a coordinated approach to achieving equity objectives in the new system, and equity objectives needed to become an integral consideration in universities planning and review processes. It should be appreciated that equity was not the only, or even the major reason stated for this expansion of the sector which also aimed to increase the Australian participation in higher education to resemble those achieved in the leading OECD countries, in the overall push towards higher levels of socio-economic development (National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET), 1994, p. 2). Government rhetoric at the time managed to bring together notions of a fair and just society with the economic imperative of creating a clever country. In the wake of the White Paper reforms, the level of federal government influence on higher education has been at a peak. Universities have been obliged to report to the federal government, through DEET(YA), and have been held accountable for supporting a range of government priorities. Educational equity has been included amongst these priorities. The Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training released a report Priorities for Reform in Higher Education in June 1990. In this report it was stated that: the attack on unequal participation rates [is identified] as a priority goal for higher education in the coming years. .... this is important not just in terms of social justice considerations but also to ensure that the background and life experiences of graduates are increasingly in tune with those of the whole Australian community (Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, 1990, p. 123). In 1990 DEET developed the policy statement A Fair Chance For All: Higher Education Thats Within Everyones Reach (DEET, 1990). This document identified six groups as disadvantaged on the basis of under-representation in the sector - people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, women (particularly in non-traditional areas of study), people from non-English speaking backgrounds, people with disabilities and people from rural and geographically isolated areas. It stated the overall objective for equity in higher education to ensure that Australians from all groups in society have the opportunity to participate successfully in higher education (DEET, 1990, p. 2). Targets were set for the sector to address the needs of each of these groups and a range of strategies were described which could be employed to pursue social justice objectives. Universities have been required to develop annual equity plans and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educational strategies in which performance in the area of social justice has been reported. Equity has remained a set agenda item for the annual Educational Profiles discussions held between DEET representatives and university management. Universities have been awarded Higher Education Equity Program (HEEP) grants from a $4-5 million per annum pool with funds disbursed on the basis of the relative assessment of all institutional equity plans; while a separate, somewhat larger pool has existed to fund Indigenous higher education. Through this equity framework the government has sought to force universities to respond to considerations of educational equity; an aspect of what Smart (1991) has referred to as coercive federalism via a mix of regulatory sticks and deregulatory carrots (Henry, 1992, p. 401). A Fair Chance For All (DEET, 1990) placed the goals of equity in measurable terms by stating that [equity] will be achieved by changing the balance of the student population to reflect more closely the composition of society as a whole (DEET, 1990, p. 2). Many of the goals developed initially for the six identified disadvantaged groups centred on increasing access by these groups. However, the Commonwealth later moved to broaden the emphasis to include retention and success by people in identified groups through the move to utilise the range of performance indicators described in the report Equity and General Performance Indicators in Higher Education (Martin, 1994). Legislation has also played a role in the pursuit of equity in higher education. A suite of state and federal anti-discrimination acts - such as the Racial Discrimination Act (Commonwealth of Australia, 1975) and the Sex Discrimination Act (Commonwealth of Australia, 1984) - have played a role in setting the scene for social justice considerations in university enrolments. However, perhaps most significant in its impact has been the Disability Discrimination Act (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992) which has been used to significant effect in coercing universities to provide more opportunities and support for people with disabilities. In conclusion, educational equity in the Australian university sector has, to a great degree, been driven by government exerting pressure on universities to respond to what the government has seen as a national priority. Little effort has been made to express this need for action in terms which the powers that be at universities can relate to. Before exploring the impact of this, the following outlines the range of arguments which could be used by government or other advocates of equity to support the involvement of the sector in this area. Rationales for the Importance of Educational Equity in Higher Education For those who may wish to try and convince the university sector to embrace educational equity as a central theme, there are a number of approaches which could be used to frame potentially convincing arguments. A consideration of equity in education can be justified from a number of perspectives: a) economic rationalists note the need for society to fully utilise the individual potential available to it in order to remain internationally competitive; b) social scientists point to the social problems which may result from an uneven distribution of educational opportunity; c) proponents of social justice describe equitable access to educational opportunities as an inalienable right of each individual within a democratic society; d) arguments arise from the need for universities, as publicly funded institutions created under State Acts, to be shared equally amongst all individuals in society and to contribute to Australia as a just and socially responsible society; and e) in modern society there is a strong linkage between quality and equity of education. Each of these arguments will be discussed briefly. Human Capital Theory The international trend over the past half-century of a movement from elite to mass higher education, and continuing towards universal higher education, is well documented (Trow, 1973; Thomas, 1990; Goedegebuure et al. 1994). A central feature of this trend has been an expansion of higher education. The increase in the size of the student body in many countries has been dramatic. Ramirez and Riddle (1991, p. 95) noted that in 1955 the national tertiary enrolment average for developed countries was 6% in contrast to 0.9% for developing countries [while] by 1985 these averages had risen to 25% and 9% respectively. Perkin (1991, p. 199) asserts that: The reasons for the unprecedented expansion of higher education are twofold: (1) the demand of a more complex and highly geared economy for applied science and technology and for the social and administrative sciences for managing large institutions and corporate structures; and (2) the demand in a post-industrial society providing more sophisticated services for highly educated personnel to operate and service them. Perkins thesis is based on the needs of a new kind of society which has emerged since the World War II as based more on services than on agriculture and manufacturing (p. 199). Perkin likens this change to the industrial revolution where efficiencies in agriculture meant that people could be released to work in secondary industries; with the shift now being from highly efficient manufacturing into service-based industries. This influence is apparent in post-War Australia. In previous generations universities were the epitome of elitism and privilege. Quality was assured through what Bertrand Russell referred to as rigorous exclusion (as cited in Gilbert, 1995) where only a small select part of society were selected for the privilege of a university education (Ashby, 1946). Selection was claimed to be based on what Cardinal Newman in the nineteenth century had described as ...that elusive quality of intellectual health (as cited in Ashby, 1946, p. 78). However, given the fact that universities acted as the training ground for those who would take leadership roles in society, educational outcomes tended to reinforce the status quo. Inevitably, this led to a domination of university participation by the dominant groups in society and to under-representation by certain other groups based on racial, ethnic, gender, social class or religious criteria. Universities therefore served to help in defining privilege and to perpetuate this privilege within society. The legacy of these attitudes and practices continues to influence the university culture to this day (Gardner, 1993). Pressures for change occurred after World War II with intense social and economic growth creating a need for an increasingly skilled workforce. In Australia, whereas the role of universities in professional education had previously been seen as a secondary role, the Murray Committee in 1958 stated clearly that ... the most urgent demand which is made of the universities of to-day is for the provision of sufficient graduates .... [to meet the increasing need for people] to give professional or technical services of some kind (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1958, p. 7). The seeds of the move from elite to mass higher education in Australia had been sown and with them the need to broaden access to higher education. This trend has gained momentum ever since, until it has come to represent an economic paradigm [which] has resulted in an emphasis on education as an instrument of economic policy - a means by which Australia can be made more productive, grow more rapidly and become more competitive in international trade (Karmel, 1995, p. 25). Society had moved from accepting universities as a place of higher learning for a privileged few, to an appreciation that A higher education system which in any way resembles an enclave for a select socio-economic group is unlikely to be a useful foundation for a society faced with the widespread consequences of social and technological change (Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, 1990, p. 123). Equity, in this light, comes to represent an investment in societys human capital. The economic imperative associated with equitable access to educational opportunities is well appreciated by industry. The Australian Manufacturing Council has stated that equal opportunities for skill acquisition need to be expanded to all groups in the workforce, particularly those that have traditionally had limited access to training (Australian Manufacturing Council, 1988). As well, The Karpin Report (Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills, 1995) argued that if the management performance of Australian enterprises is to improve, then there is a need to capitalise on the talents of diversity. Thus, the government promotion of expansion to higher education, which has parallels in all OECD countries, can in part be explained by an appreciation of the linkage between a diverse skilled workforce and international market competitiveness (Halsey, 1992). Marginson (1993, p. 31) notes that Human capital theory is the most influential economic theory of [Australian] education, setting the framework of government education policies since the early 1960s. Recent Australian governments have certainly been well aware of this link between equity and maximising human capital. The larger and more diverse is the pool from which we draw our skilled workforce, the greater our capacity to take advantage of opportunities as they emerge. The current barriers to participation [in higher education] of financially and other disadvantaged groups limit our capacity to develop the highest skilled workforce possible and are a source of economic insufficiency (Dawkins, 1988, p. 7). However, beyond the rhetoric expounded in the White Paper these are arguments which have not been effectively sold to the Australian university sector. Social Harmony A compelling argument for educational equity in some contexts comes from a consideration of demographic trends. In the USA, for example, it is anticipated that the proportion of Latin American people in Los Angeles will exceed the proportion of Anglo-Celtic people in that city by the turn of the century. Trends indicating that the proportion of school age children made up of so-called ethnic minorities in the USA would rise to one-third of the population by the turn of the century led to the realisation that Failure to provide educational opportunities for one-third of a nation ... [would] have herculean social and economic costs (Lindsay, 1990, p. 200). Similar demographic trends have led to similar conclusions being reached elsewhere in the world as well; for example, in Canada (F. Lamb, personal communication, 17 October, 1995). These represent contemporary examples supporting a liberal democratic view of equality of opportunity in education as a means to promote democracy, social harmony, social mobility and equality. Angus (1991) points in particular to the possibility for upward social mobility to limit the likelihood of class conflict in society. If disadvantage is perceived as a basis for conflict and social disharmony, then fair access to education provides a basis for diffusing this conflict through the provision of opportunity. From this perspective, the argument which might be put to the dominant culture in society to gain its support for equity in education is: if you dont like the effects, then do something about the cause. Social Justice Considerable progress has been made in Australia since World War II in the area of social justice. This has been accompanied by a better understanding of the causes of disadvantage within society and how this disadvantage has tended to be reinforced and perpetuated by education systems (Anderson & Vervoorn, 1983; Smith, 1985). Trow (1973) referred to the democratisation of higher education which has occurred worldwide where a university education ceases to be seen as a privilege, but rather is viewed as a right. The importance of education in transforming and empowering individuals lies at the heart of this line of argument. It has been argued that a fundamental right of people in a democratic society is the right to seek to improve the quality of their lives. A ... [university] degree provides increased employment opportunities as well as enhanced social standing. Anything less than full access for all citizens to this important credential is clearly unjust (Green, 1989, p. 29). The prevailing view is that under-representation of particular groups in higher education has not occurred because of individual abilities and choices, but is the result of systemic factors - a complex interaction between society at large and education as one of its powerful institutions. It has been stated in official terms in Australia thus: What is not tolerated ... is the argument that sub-population groups - social classes, ethnic groups, for example - may differ, on the average, in terms of their abilities and / or motivations; sub-population groups are not more or less capable or motivated on the whole, though individuals may be (Williams, 1987, p. 11). This has led to the equating of under-representation in higher education with disadvantage and to the calls for this disadvantage to be addressed. As major institutions within society, universities are seen to have responsibilities in this area. The view is summed up well by Mukherjee (1996, p. 1): A just and fair society is one in which all people are able to participate fully in social, political and economic life and where everyone is able to determine the direction of their own lives. In a democracy, all institutions have a responsibility to work towards a more just and equal society and the role of education is both central and fundamental. Various models can be constructed around these basic themes - with bases ranging from considerations of welfare to considerations of individual empowerment. As Macintyre (1985, p. vii) noted: historically, social justice is not a unitary concept but one that arose under specific circumstances and changed as the society changed. So, for example, the formalism of the 1950s and 1960s which equated equality of opportunity with equality of access, gave way in the 1970s to the compensatory actualism which contends that equality of access is not sufficient to ensure equity; but that some level of compensatory action is also needed to counter the effects of disadvantage (Angus, 1991). Moves to introduce social justice as a consideration in higher education are now occurring worldwide: The Convention of Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations in 1989 ... emphasised that higher education should be made, by every appropriate means, accessible to all, on the basis of capacity (United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organisation, 1995, p. 38). It has been suggested that: ... because the causes of inequity can vary from one setting to another, a central issue educators face in providing appropriate learning opportunities is that of ascertaining the nature of the barriers to equity in specific countries and regions. Once these barriers have been identified, the next challenge is to determine how they can be dismantled and bridges to fair opportunities constructed (Lindsay, 1990, p. 197). As such, proponents of social justice describe equitable access to educational opportunities as an inalienable right of each individual within a democratic society. It is the responsibility of all of societys institutions to ensure that justice and the rights of individual citizens are appropriately upheld. Responsibility to Share A Publicly Funded Resource Another argument supporting the need for equity in higher education comes from a consideration of how higher education is funded in Australia. Important to this argument is an appreciation that higher education in Australia is predominantly publicly funded (Meek, 1994). Fundamental to public service reform in Australia has been a commitment by the government to ... ensuring that all Australians, irrespective of their race, culture, religion or first language [etc], are able to benefit equitably from the resources it manages on behalf of the community (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 1994, p. i). As funding for the Australian higher education system amounts to $4.8 billion per annum from public moneys, the federal government has been forthright in stating that higher education should therefore be shared by all sections of Australian society and not restricted to a privileged few. This argument is all the stronger when considering that a central justification for the considerable growth in funded places which occurred in Australia as part of the White Paper reforms - which saw student enrolments rising from 395,000 in 1987 to over 630,000 in 1996 - was for the purpose of educational equity. Part of the strategy for achieving equity in higher education is to provide growth in the higher education system (Dawkins, 1988, p. 53). Many academics feel uncomfortable with the view that government funding raises a responsibility on the part of their University to support national objectives. This idea is generally seen as running counter to the historic view of universities as comprising guilds of autonomous professionals rather than as servants to society. In truth the situation is little different from the concept of professional patronage which has been a feature of Art and Science in Western cultures for centuries, and universities in the European tradition have clearly played a major role in the pursuit of national / political objectives since their inception (Scott, 1995). It is clear, though, that the importance of the university sectors role in achieving national social and economic objectives has been appreciated by governments all over the world and in Australia universities have been expected to respond to such demands by society since the time of The Murray Report (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1958) mentioned earlier. Equity and Quality It is common in universities for equity to be considered as being opposed to quality. However, the modern view of quality relates, in broad terms, to doing your job well. The job of higher education in Australia has dramatically changed in the last fifty years and so the quality of Australian higher education must now be perceived in terms which are relevant to the role which universities now play in society. In this context, many are challenging the notion that equity and quality are opposed. A detailed discussion of this issue lies beyond the scope of this paper. However, briefly, the positive link between equity and quality can be pursued from a number of different perspectives. One group of arguments challenge the traditional basis for perceiving quality in higher education - the traditional notion of quality of outcomes as achieved through self-learning students is being replaced by an appreciation that in a mass higher education system the quality of the process of teaching is an important factor. Another argument relates to the fact that equity serves as a basis for universities to achieve their commitment to providing a graduate pool which reflects the broad make-up of society - hence meeting a key societal objective and hence representing a quality outcome. A further argument states that equity initiatives bring students with potential (or good quality students) into the sector who would otherwise be less likely to access it. From each of these perspectives it can be argued that a university community which considers itself to be involved in matters of excellence in all of its activities, should embrace the need to support equity and to do it well as a key concept. The Means By Which Equity Has Been Driven in Australian higher education Postle et al. (1997) identified the two dominant drivers of educational equity in the university sector as advocates working within the sector, and the government through the actions of its department DEET, now DEETYA. The basic approaches taken by these two major drivers of equity are examined below with suggestions made as to the consequences of these approaches. It has been indicated already that, to a considerable degree, the Australian university sector has been compelled to become involved in considerations of educational equity through government pressure (sweetened with some incentive funding), and specific legislation. This is not to say that universities did not initiate programs to encourage and recruit students from disadvantaged backgrounds prior to the commencement of the government and legislative initiatives of the 1980s and 1990s. However, the growth in activity in educational equity which has occurred since the introduction of the national equity framework (DEET, 1990), and the sudden emphasis given by universities to people with disabilities following the enactment of The Disability Discrimination Act (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992) indicate that some degree of compulsion has been necessary to promote any degree of significant activity in this area in many institutions (Postle et al., 1997). However, the reliance placed on the department to force universities to respond to this agenda and the failure by the department to attempt to place the reasons for this in terms which the sector can respond to, represents a major failing. The other major driver of equity comes from advocates working within the sector. This group has relied on the pressure being put on universities by the Australian government for reform but has otherwise tended to rely heavily on arguments relating to social justice as a basis for supporting educational equity in higher education. It is argued that this also represents a major failing. I am not suggesting that social justice is not, and should not be, a major and important consideration in education. However, the flaw in a stance which relies heavily on social justice as a principle argument is that social justice is subject to vastly different interpretations by individuals. It thus does not serve as a solid sole grounding for determining an institutions overall goals and directions. For example, Fisk (1989) asserts that views of social justice are dependent on social context and rejects any notion that there are universal principles of justice. Rizvi and Lingard (1993) note that social justice is not well defined and that it is value laden: It is now relatively uncontroversial, even in philosophical circles, to suggest that the idea of social justice does not have a single essential meaning - it represents discourses that are historically constituted and it is a site of conflicting and divergent political endeavours (Rizvi & Lingard, p. 5). Speaking specifically on social justice in an educational context, Sturman (1997) notes that: The importance that individuals attach to social justice is an intricate mixture of their moral and political views, their views about the capacity of education to tackle the disadvantages that students bring to school, their views of the support that parents of different backgrounds are able and willing to provide to their children and of the motivation of the students. Although the economic (human capital) arguments supporting equity are quite compelling and clearly serve as central themes of government policies in this area, they are used surprisingly little by advocates of educational equity in Australian higher education. There is a tendency for them to be down-played, or even ignored, by these advocates in favour of the more laudable, but far less tangible, rationale based on social justice. It would seem that in their eyes, educational equity and social justice are linked and that this provides rationale enough. It is perhaps noteworthy that when the Secretary to DEET was asked to address the First National Conference on Equity and Access in Australian Higher Education in 1993, to an audience largely made up of equity advocates, he felt obliged to state that The governments higher education equity policy is a part of its broader social justice strategy (Volker, 1993, p. 14) as the sole thrust of the governments commitment to this area. A perception of the inherent right of educational equity may seem so apparent to many of its advocates that the need for an underlying rationale or justification is seldom raised. The fact that a common and agreed perception of social justice is impossible to obtain provides fertile ground for constructive debate, but it forms a poor basis on which to base an institutional commitment on which all can appreciate and follow. Another flaw in this heavy reliance on social justice in promoting educational equity to the university sector is the degree to which social justice has been pursued through the use of legislation. Although effective in promoting activity (as the response by universities to the enactment of The Disabilities Discrimination Act (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992) in increasing activities for people with disabilities (Postle et al. 1997) indicates), it provides a poor basis for changing the underlying culture. Again, the university sectors natural reaction to compulsion is frequently to adopt an adversarial stance and I know personally of many universities who have responded to the challenge of the Disabilities Discrimination Act by seeking legal advice to attempt to find ways to limit their legal obligations under the Act, rather than responding more positively to the responsibilities which it raises. The situation is not helped by the Australian governments refusal to accept any responsibility for assisting universities or with even considering their genuine concerns about their ability to resource their commitments in this area. The situation is different elsewhere in the world. For example, in Ontario targeted funding is provided to assist universities in providing accommodation and support services for students with disabilities (F. Lamb, personal communication, 17 October, 1995). The Impact of Current Approaches To Driving Educational Equity Although some real progress has been made in increasing activity in educational equity in universities, the reliance on compulsion by government has tended to result in a response by the sector which has an air of superficiality and transience. The reasons for this are many-fold. As a first consideration, the university sector has a natural aversion to being compelled to do something and tends, as a matter of course, to react negatively to such attempts, almost regardless of the issue concerned. As Goedegebuure et al. (1994, p. 327) note however rational or equitable the goals of public policy, the policies themselves are often rejected or negated by an implementation process highly influenced by entrenched institutional tradition and vested interest. Hence, in order to achieve change, it is necessary for the university community itself to perceive the need for the change and to react accordingly. This is often not well understood by government. It is notable that A Fair Chance For All (DEET, 1990, p. 1) provided as the only rationale for a consideration of educational equity in higher education the statement: In Higher Education: A Policy Statement (the White Paper) issued in July 1988, the government made a commitment to the development of a long-term strategy that would make equity objectives a central concern of higher education management, planning and review. There has been little effort by government, through its department, to convince universities that educational equity is something with which it should be involved or to place the rationale for an involvement in educational equity in a form which is meaningful or relevant to the sector. The heavy reliance placed by advocates working within higher education on social justice as a sole basis for supporting the pursuit of equity has also failed to convince the powers that be in universities that it is an issue which should be pursued. Perhaps not surprisingly, there is evidence which suggests that these approaches have resulted in a lack of real commitment by much of the university sector to the area of educational equity. Certainly, major gaps have been identified in the performance of universities in achieving progress in educational equity, particularly with regards to improving opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged, and people from rural and geographically isolated areas (NBEET, 1996; Postle et al., 1997). As well, concerns exist about the sustainability of educational equity as a driving issue in higher education. Ramsay (1995, p. 7) notes that: ... the current framework for equity planning, reporting and particularly funding has resulted in staffing and structural arrangements which have several dysfunctional characteristics in terms of achieving long term change towards equity in higher education. In most universities, the programs themselves and the staff responsible for them are scattered amongst a range of units and structures, often at a fairly powerless level in institutional terms and working in relative isolation from each other. In addition, institutional responsibility for equity matters is generally located with a number of senior management, at a level so remote from the operational staff that overall equity leadership and coordination become even more unlikely or ineffective, a matter of chance or personality rather than structural intention. Equity is frequently perceived by equity practitioners working in the higher education sector to be marginalised. For example, during interviews with university staff, Postle et al. (1997) found a somewhat disturbing result. Staff were asked: What impact has the national framework [for educational equity] had on equity planning? and as a separate question elsewhere in the interview: What impact has the national framework had on institutional planning? Answers to both questions were obtained for staff from 22 universities. Of these, staff from 11 universities stated that the framework had had a very significant impact on equity planning but little impact on overall university planning. A further four stated that the framework had ensured that equity would be mentioned in the institutional plan but that little credence was given to the issue in practice. Staff from only seven of the 22 institutions (32%) indicated that the national framework had had a significant impact on both equity planning and institutional planning. From this result, equity planning would appear to have a fair way in go in many institutions before it could be considered as a mainstream consideration. As a further indication of the perception of marginalisation of educational equity in the university context, a recent study undertaken by three Queensland tertiary institutions showed that comparatively few academic staff are well versed in equity policy and even fewer are aware of the support needs of their increasingly diverse student population (Postle et al. 1996). A lack of true institutional commitment to educational equity may also be indicated anecdotally by the degree of concern which went through the community of equity practitioners at the possibility of the new Coalition federal government eliminating Higher Education Equity Program (HEEP) funding prior to the last Higher Education Funding announcement (Vanstone, 1996). The general belief that the elimination of HEEP funding (although representing annual grants of only $100,000-$160,000 per university) would result in a decimation of equity programs indicates that equity practitioners do not have a great deal of confidence in universitys commitment to this area. Certainly educational equity does not appear to be seen as a central institutional concern, as assessed by the equity practitioners themselves. Educational Equity As A Social Responsibility for Universities The above discussion has highlighted what I see as flaws in the approaches taken to promote educational equity as a major concern for universities in Australia. The federal government, through its department, has relied too heavily on forcing universities to respond to what it perceives as an important political agenda without attempting to frame that agenda in terms which the sector can relate to. Advocates of educational equity working within the sector tend to rely too heavily on arguments based on individual perceptions of right and social justice which may not be shared by others in the sector. In all the outcome has been a superficial commitment being made by many universities with educational equity programs resting precariously outside of the mainstream of university activities. Calls have been made for the need for cultural change in universities to embrace educational equity as a central theme. For example, NBEET (1996, p. x) states: The culture of the higher education system itself as identified through the values reflected in the major teaching, research and community service functions must now be addressed so that its impact on participation and success of these under-represented groups can be fully understood. Yet such calls for action are likely to meet deaf ears unless the sector itself is ready and willing to undertake such soul-searching analysis and is ready to accept the need for cultural change. I suggest that such cultural change can only occur through the mainstream university community itself and that such changes will only result if the underlying rationale for equity is expressed in terms which the mainstream university community can relate to. I suggest that university planners have a role in providing a third front for promoting a consideration of educational equity to the university sector based on a broad range of rationales, especially those related to the economic and cultural development of society, and linking educational equity very much with a universitys commitment to serving its society. The main thrust of this thesis is that there are sound arguments to suggest that educational equity is a strategic issue for, and a social responsibility of universities, and that it is logical and appropriate for universities, in view of their own missions, to respond to this responsibility. The document Equality, Diversity and Excellence (NBEET, 1996) is intended to update the equity framework described in A Fair Chance For All (DEET, 1990). In this document is presented a recommendation: That the overall objective for[educational] equity in higher education be to enhance the capacity of the higher education system to contribute to Australias social, cultural, political and economic vitality and strength through system and institutional action, which embraces the full diversity of the community and results in a student profile that fairly reflects that diversity (NBEET, 1996, p. xiii). This provides an excellent basis for discussing educational equity as a social responsibility for universities. The statement represents a more useable goal than that declared in A Fair Chance For All (DEET, 1990, p. 2) to ensure that Australians from all groups in society have the opportunity to participate successfully in higher education because it incorporates the basis for a rationale that universities can more readily relate to in terms of their own missions and directions - as a contribution to Australias social, cultural, political and economic vitality and strength. The mission statement for my own university, for example, includes as a principle institutional goal To contribute to the definition and achievement of the nations social and economic goals (The University of Southern Queensland, 1996, p. 11). Such a goal was not developed to encompass any notion of educational equity, but clearly it must include considerations of educational equity if it is successfully argued that such considerations contribute to ... the nations social and economic goals. I know that other universities have stated commitments to contributing to the development of society which, using similar arguments, can be seen to encompass considerations of educational equity. Having stated this argument, I appreciate the problems which the approach will meet. I am aware that the fragmented organisational structure of universities coupled with the diffuse nature of collegial decision-making processes serve to make cultural change in universities extremely slow and difficult (Goedegebuure et al., 1994). I am also aware that the reward systems which exist within the sector support the pursuit of research and academic freedom as axiomatic doctrines and do not favour the pursuit of institutional directions towards public service in the ways which I have described (Astin 1991). However, the sector is changing. The corporatisation of the sector has given greater emphasis to corporate planning and the pursuit of institutional goals to which all institutional planners are naturally a party. As such, planners have the potential to significantly influence movements in this area. There is also a need to consider the vexing question of institutional autonomy. The oft-quoted stance of the Australian Higher Education Council that institutional autonomy should be the freedom to choose students, to decide who will teach them and how, and to determine within broad parameters what themes and topics they will research (Higher Education Council, 1995, p. 11) will only pose a problem for educational equity as long as universities believe that students from disadvantaged backgrounds do not make desirable students. This is the topic for an entire paper on its own. However, it is worth noting that in the same paragraph that the above quote was taken, the Higher Education Council stated: Simultaneously, the Council supports the requirement that institutions be accountable. Accountability can be deemed to reside within four broad areas [the first of which is] accountability to the public at large, both in terms of universities operating as an institution of society and in terms of the use of public funds (Higher Education Council, 1995, p. 11). References Anderson, D. S., & Vervoorn, A. E. (1983). Access to Privilege: Patterns of Participation in Australian Post-Secondary Education. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press. Angus, L. (1991). Equality, democracy and educational reform. In D. Dawkins (Ed.), Power and Politics in Education. London: Falmer Press. Ashby, E. (1946). Universities in Australia. In E. Ashby, Challenge to Education (pp. 72-100). Sydney, Australia: Angus & Robertson. Astin, A. W. (1991). Achieving Educational Excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Australian Manufacturing Council. (1988, February). Skills in Manufacturing Industry: Future Directions. Sydney, Australia: Australian Manufacturing Council. Carpenter, P. G., & Hayden, M. (1993). Improvements in equity in the participation of young people in higher education in Australia during the 1980s. Higher Education, 26, 199-216. Commonwealth of Australia (1975). Racial Discrimination Act. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Government Printer. Commonwealth of Australia (1984). Sex Discrimination Act. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Commonwealth of Australia (1992). Disability Discrimination Act. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Dawkins, J. S. (1988). Higher Education: A Policy Statement. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Department of Employment, Education and Training. (1990). A Fair Chance For All: Higher Education Thats Within Everyones Reach. Canberra, Australia: Department of Employment, Education and Training. Department of Employment, Education and Training. (1993). National Report on Australias Higher Education Sector. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. (1996). Selected Higher Education Student Statistics 1996. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (1989). National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia: Sharing Our Future. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (1994). Diversity Counts. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Fisk, M. (1989). The State and Justice: An Essay in Political Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gale, T. C., & McNamee, P. (1994). Just out of reach: Access to equity in Australian higher education. Australian Universities Review, 39(2), 8-12. Gamage, D. T. (1992). Recent reforms in Australian higher education with particular reference to institutional amalgamations. Higher Education, 24, 77-91. Gardner, R. (1993). Some Thoughts on Tertiary Selection. (Tertiary Entrance Procedures Authority (TEPA) Research Series No. 2). Brisbane, Australia: Tertiary Entrance Procedures Authority. Gilbert, A. (1995, February 22). The modern university: Let 37 flowers bloom in pursuit of different qualities, The Australian, pp. 26, 27. Glenny, L. A. (1993). Higher education coordination: Australia and the United States. In A. Levine (Ed.), Higher Learning in America: 1988-2000 (pp. 131-148). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Goedegebuure, L., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek, L., van Vught, F., & de Weert, E. (Eds.) (1994). Higher Education Policy: An International Perspective. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Green, M. F. (Ed.) (1989). Minorities On Campus: A Handbook for Enhancing Diversity. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Halsey, A. H. (1992). An international comparison of access to higher education. In D. Phillips (Ed.) Lessons of Cross-National Comparisons in Education (pp. 11-36). Wallingford, UK: Triangle Books. Henry, M. (1992). Higher education for all? Tensions and contradictions in post-compulsory and higher education policy in Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 7(4), 399-413. Higher Education Council (Australia). (1995). Ninth Report to the National Board of Employment, Education and Training on the Operation of Section 14 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills. (1995). Enterprising Nation: Renewing Australias Managers to Meet the Challenge of the Asia-Pacific Century. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Karmel, P. (1995). Desirable outcomes - Australian education policy in the nineties. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 18(1), 23-33. Lindsay, B. (1990). Educational equity in cross-national settings: How do nations build educational bridges and dismantle educational barriers? In R. Murray Thomas (Ed.), International Comparative Education (pp. 197-224). New York: Pergamon Press. Macintyre, S. (1985). Winners and Losers: The Pursuit of Social Justice in Australian History. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Marginson, S. (1993). Education and Public Policy in Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Martin, L. M. (1994). Equity and General Performance Indicators in Higher Education. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Meek, L. (1994). Higher education policy in Australia. In L. Goedegebuure, F. Kaiser, P. Maassen, L. Meek, F. van Vught, & E. de Weert (Eds.), Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective (pp. 13-48). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Mukherjee, D. (1996). Regional Inequalities: Income, Occupation and Education. (Australian Centre for Equity Through Education (ACEE) Research Monograph No. 2). Sydney, Australia: ACEE. National Board of Employment, Education and Training. (1994). Resource Implications of the Introduction of Good Strategies in Higher Education for Disadvantaged Students. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. National Board of Employment, Education and Training. (1996). Equality, Diversity and Excellence: Advancing the National Higher Education Equity Framework. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. (1958). Report of the Committee on Australian Universities. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer. Perkin, H. (1991). History of Universities. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), International Higher Education: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1 (pp. 169-204). New York: Garland. Postle, G., Batorowicz, K., Bull, D., Clarke, J., McCann, H., & Skuja, E. (1997). Towards Excellence in Diversity: Educational Equity in the Australian Higher Education Sector in 1995: Status, Trends and Future Directions. Toowoomba, Australia: University of Southern Queensland Press. Postle, G., Taylor, J., Bull, D., Hallinan, P., Newby, L., Protheroe, W., & James, T. (1996). Successful Alternative Entry Students: Overcoming Barriers to Academic Success. Unpublished report. Tertiary Entrance Procedures Authority, Brisbane, Australia. Ramirez, F. O., & Riddle, P. (1991). The expansion of higher education. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), International Higher Education: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1 (pp. 91-105). New York: Garland. Ramsay, E. (1995, July). The National Framework for Institutional Equity in Australian Higher Education - Current Achievements and Future Possibilities. Paper presented at the Second National Conference on Equity and Access in Tertiary Education, Melbourne, Australia. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (1993). Discourses of social justice and the dilemma of policy in special education. In Department of Education, Queensland, Social Justice, Equity and Dilemmas of Disability in Education (pp. 5-10). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Education. Scott, P. (1995). University -State relations in Britain: Paradigm of autonomy. In J. E. Mauch & P. L. W. Sabloff (Eds.), Reform and Change in Higher Education: International Perspectives (pp. 1-21). New York: Garland. Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. (1990). Priorities for Reform in Higher Education. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Smart, D. (1991). Higher education policy in Australia: Corporate or coercive federalism? Journal of Education Policy, 6(1), 97-100. Smith, R. (1985). The Inequalities Debate: An Interpretive Essay. (Policy Development and Analysis ESA842). Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University. Smyth, J. (1995). Higher education policy reform in Australia: An expansive analysis. In J. E. Mauch & P. L. W. Sabloff (Eds.), Reform and Change in Higher Education: International Perspectives (pp. 51-81). New York: Garland. Sturman, A. (1997). Social Justice in Education. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Submitted for Publication. Thomas, R. M. (Ed.) (1990). International Comparative Education: Practices, Issues, and Prospects. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the Transition From Elite To Mass Higher Education. New York: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (1995). Policy Paper for Change and Development in Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO. University of Southern Queensland. (1996). University Strategic Plan 1997-2001. Toowoomba, Australia: University of Southern Queensland. Vanstone, A. (1996, August 9). Higher Education Budget Statement. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Volker, D. (1993, October). Statement of government policy. In Proceedings of Australias First National Conference on Equity and Access in Higher Education, University of Newcastle, Australia, pp 14-23. Williams, T. (1987). Participation in Education. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Research Monograph No. 30). Hawthorn, Australia: ACER. page 21 .A [] ( L M |&&)(*((((((///2O2P223<3ÿ{wqmic_                $<3R34644477W7Y788&9)999B:E:;;M>O>BBBBGGHHJJ:L;L0NAN~zvrnjfb\    D D D D @    #ANSSYYYY]]=jojlloosssswwz{Xyz-PQRː—×G}ysoiea                  #Gk;D+.+M8MN̺ͺؼټbdo Wxľ|vrlhb^                  $*/TwF/@n2U5,;ľ~xtnjd`Z                                  !x {#@.lZF(ÿ}ysoie_[                                !FqtesrG+AxTA}7Yľ~xtnjd`Z                                  !YXsB     Z{}0;=Ti[]m"$&|(/a2¼hhhhhhhh >hhh@a2477Y7[78&99B:7;;;;t>@AhFKLPSSVYY)_m`ace\gi=jqjossſyyphhhhbhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhh$svyzz{{u|0alϓѓjh/ZͪϪ}tlllc[[hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Ҹ)dqs1B7br=c]aIQ0*ƹwjjjj  hh  hh  h  h  h  hh  h 0hhhh)AUdcrvCɼ|  h  hh  h  h  h  h  hh  hhF :9r 9r st|2 Tms Rmn `Symbol HelvTimes New Roman r!";;) Doc007/JC John Clarke John Clarke