University classes started yesterday after last week’s Orientation Week, during which first-year students worked out where they are and where they are going.
However, it is more like Orientation Yearfor everyone on campus. In Chinese terms, universities are living in interesting times. For universities, it would be easy to lapse into a swag of cliches about “”crossroads”, “”the most important election since the war”, “”revolutionary change” and so on. The trouble is, most of these cliches are at least partly true.
Changes of government usually bring big changes, but not always so. There were no big changes immediately after the 1975 or 1983 elections. However, if a radical Opposition takes power (like this one or that of Gough Whitlam in 1972), then big changes follow.
In this instance, moreover, big change is due whichever side wins in 12 days’ time. The Liberal change is promised; the Labor change has been legislated.
The seeds of both were planted two decades ago when the last big changes to university funding took place after the election of the Whitlam Government in December, 1972. It was too late to do anything much for the 1973 academic year. But by the beginning of 1974 Whitlam had transformed university funding.
Before then, the Commonwealth gave money on a $1-for-$1 basis with the states, and for day-to-day expenses it gave $1 for every $1.85 provided by the states and student fees. And the states and the universities controlled courses, student numbers and admissions standards. Students got money for fees from their parents, savings, Commonwealth scholarships or private scholarships. The last two paid a means-tested living allowance.
From January 1, 1974, the Commonwealth took over all university and college of advanced education funding. Money was given in the form of tied grants to the states under Section 96 of the Constitution. Fees were scrapped as was the Commonwealth scholarship scheme. Under Whitlam every student who got a place got a means-tested living allowance.
Students were happy and because Whitlam poured in much more money, staff and the states were happy. Whitlam increased education spending from 4 per cent to 4.5 per cent of Commonwealth outlays. Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education (which have themselves since been transmogrified into universities) were awash with money.
Essentially, in the early 1970s the states and the universities were bribed into surrendering their control to the Commonwealth. Now, the bribe money has dried up, but the legal and financial control remains, and is being exercised more stringently than ever before, even though the Commonwealth has no constitutional foundation for direct legislation in education. And thus both sides of Federal politics can dictate a model for universities without too much concern for the states, the students or the institutions themselves.
Malcolm Fraser did not meddle much with the Whitlam model, though he introduced some centres of excellence in an attempt to increase research. At first the Hawke Government left the university funding model in place, but education funding as a percentage of outlays began to fall. As funding became more difficult in the late 1980s, the then Minister, John Dawkins, introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. Essentially, it was back to fees, but there were no scholarships. However, payment of the fees was deferred and picked up as extra tax when students began earning. It was done in the name of equity. Why shouldn’t students, who would ultimately be high income earners, pay for their education? The scheme would also bring in some more money to create more places.
But due to recession-induced increasing demand at least 50,000 students still missed out on places last year, and many more than that missed out this year. Academics are worried about funding, the standard of courses and research and the number of places available. They are also worried about centrally instigated amalgamations of institutions and other centrally instigated meddling in the direction of research and teaching towards industry or “”national” needs.
What is to be done? How are the universities to be funded? How are students to be funded?
The Opposition spokesman on education, Dr David Kemp, says his policy is fully set out in Fightback and there would be no further initiatives during the rest of the campaign. But after the campaign there would be consultations on the detail of implementation. Labor brought down its education policy yesterday, with only minor changes to its present higher-education policy.
Both models are causing concern in the universities.
Labor’s model was completed with the passing of amendments to the Higher Education Funding Act late last year. Under it, Parliament sets the global annual amount for universities for each year in the triennium. The universities have to submit an education profile (courses, student profile and entry criteria and so on) to the Minister. According to that profile, the Minister then divides up the global amount to each of the 35 universities.
That determination had not been gazetted by last week, but the department has made it available and has also made available a booklet which sets out funding for the next three years.
For the first time universities will be getting block grants, including capital. The Minister for Higher Education, Peter Baldwin, says this will give the universities more autonomy and that the profiles are merely ways of ensuring the universities are accountable.
The booklet says some more money is available under the “”Higher Education Equity Program (HEEP)” plan for disadvantaged students. The money is based “”upon institutional performance in the equity area, as presented in equity plans which form part of the annual profile documentation provided to the Commonwealth.”
So if the universities do the right thing on “”equity” and work towards “”targets for each priority disadvantaged group” they will get more money.
Eventually the extra “”equity” money will not be decided separately. The booklet, in an exquisite example of education newspeak, says: “”The Commonwealth is committed to full mainstreaming of equity. An appropriate mechanism will be developed to incorporate the existing HEEP funds into the base operating grants of institutions, on the basis of their student profile. However, to ensure development in the equity area, mainstreaming will not occur until there is a strong indication that equity as an issue is firmly entrenched in institutional planning and effective monitoring mechanisms are in place.”
You had better go back and read that a couple of times. Translated into English I think it means: “”When the universities prove they are politically correct they will get their money.”
Or perhaps it means, “”When the department’s view of the world is firmly entrenched in the university, the university will get its money without having to beg for it.”
Admittedly, only $4 million out of $4 billion in university money is “”equity” money. None the less, the equity program, the educational “”profiles” and the ministerial determination on how the money is divided up, seem a little Orwellian, as is the Minister’s suggestion that the new funding method will make the universities more autonomous.
And what has happened in practice with the first triennium’s (1993-95) allocation. The two main ACT universities got creamed. They got an increase from 1993 to 1995 of 0.61 per cent. The Australian average was 5.48 per cent. The older universities also got creamed. The average for Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Western Australia, Tasmania, Queensland and ANU was 2.64 per cent against the average of 5.48 per cent.
Admittedly, these are raw figures. Perhaps newer universities need more money for capital items. Perhaps, the educational profiles of the older universities mean they don’t warrant as favourable treatment from the Minister as the newer ones. Perhaps, they should improve their “equity performance”.
It will be an interesting three years if Labor wins. And an even more interesting one if Dr Kemp becomes Minister.
Dr Kemp will maintain the present level of funding through a system of student vouchers. Instead, of giving the money direct to the universities, as Labor does, it will give it to students in the form of a government-funded place. Students can then use the voucher wherever they want. Universities can set their fees and courses as they please. They will be fully autonomous.
Fees, of course, will be much higher than the present HECS fees because they will represent a large proportion of the real cost to the university of providing the tuition, perhaps as much as 75 per cent, though this has yet to be worked out.
Some of this philosophy has at least tacit support from the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. The committee said this week that if limits on government funding failed to meet continuing demand, then universities should be allowed to levy fees from Australian students who qualify for entry but do not secure a government-funded place.
Dr Kemp goes further than that. He says the universities can charge what they like and set their own admission standards without government interference. The vouchers will spell life or death for universities. If they do not attract voucher-carrying students they will get precious little base government grant upon which to survive.
Its great merit is university autonomy. However, it is a very market-driven policy, which means a demand-driven policy. The big question is: are 18-year-old school-leavers in the best position to drive university policy. True, they will be advised by parents, and older students will also form demand and that the universities, as suppliers, will also influence demand through advertising and brand-name reputation and the like. None the less, the students will have the lion’s say.
The difficulty with the market-dominated approach is that some institutions will find themselves on a downward spiral. Fewer enrolments will result in less money, poorer teaching, less choice of subjects and therefore fewer students the following year. The trouble is, the public has a significant investment in the capital of all 35 universities and there is a public interest in ensuring a wide geographic availability of universities, especially for part-time students whose job does not permit them to move.
Some of these issues have yet to be worked through. Perhaps, Dr Kemp will bring down a Unisback II.
In the meantime, the universities can expect a lot more interesting orientation weeks, whoever wins on March 13.
Some academics would be excused for thinking the choice is between Eastern European central planning or neo-Thatcherite free-market economics. And it is 1993.