At the 2015 UniSTARS conference held at the Crown Convention Centre in Melbourne, Victoria, NCSEHE Director Professor Sue Trinidad presented on the history of social inclusion in higher education in Australia, widening participation partnerships and HEPP(P) initiatives and strategies currently used by Australia universities.
1. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
in Australia
Professor Sue Trinidad, NCSEHE Director 02/07/2015
Social Inclusion in Higher Education
2. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
What I will cover
The history of social inclusion in higher education in
Australia
Widening participation partnerships
HEPP(P) initiatives and strategies used by universities
3. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
ncsehe.edu.au
4. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Social Inclusion in higher ed in Australia
5. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Social Inclusion in higher ed in Australia
6. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Growth
(07-13)
Growth
(07-13) %
National 528,844 532,527 553,374 580,372 600,412 634,434 668,665 139,821 26.4%
Group of Eight 147,609 148,484 152,718 157,289 159,749 163,643 168,682 21,073 14.3%
ATN Group 94,486 95,520 97,467 99,423 102,097 109,302 115,712 21,226 22.5%
IRU Group 88,632 89,480 93,518 98,191 100,849 106,050 110,622 21,990 24.8%
Regional
Universities
Network 47,650 47,782 49,716 51,627 54,072 57,295 60,188 12,538 26.3%
Unaligned Group 150,467 151,261 159,955 173,842 183,645 198,144 213,461 62,994 41.9%
Regionally
Headquartered 89,761 88,873 92,109 97,115 99,752 105,739 110,879 21,118 23.5%
Metro Institutions
with Regional
Campuses 306,688 309,942 320,711 333,902 345,675 363,823 381,355 74,667 24.3%
No Regional
Campuses 132,395 133,712 140,554 149,355 154,985 164,872 176,431 44,036 33.3%
Growth by Institutional Grouping
Source: Australian Government Department of Education and Training (2014).
7. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Domestic Undergraduate Enrolments, Higher
Education, Table A Providers, 2007-2013
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Growth
(07-13)
Growth
%
National 528,844 532,527 553,374 580,372 600,412 634,434 668,665 139,821 26.4%
Low SES 85,873 86,581 90,447 96,706 102,163 109,788 118,003 32,130 37.4%
Students
with
Disabilities
23,148 23,447 24,948 28,057 30,094 33,220 36,486 13,338 57.6%
Indigenous 6,828 6,820 7,296 7,943 8,445 9,005 9,939 3,111 45.6%
Regional 100,826 101,339 104,266 110,646 115,250 121,476 127,070 26,244 26.0%
Remote 5,428 5,240 5,368 5,532 5,572 5,804 6,069 641 11.8%
CALD/NESB 16,702 17,222 17,649 18,227 19,226 21,289 22,863 6,161 36.9%
Source: Australian Government Department of Education and Training (2014).
8. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
The Social Ecological Model
9. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Summary of progression initiatives and
programs leading into higher education
10. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Access and Participation in Higher Education:
Outreach | Access | Support
11. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Partnerships in Higher Education
12. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Partnerships in Higher Education
13. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Partnerships in Higher Education
Five sets of principles of partnerships are:
1. Shared purpose and goals
2. Relations with partners
3. Capacities for partnerships work
4. Partnership governance and leadership
5. Trust and trustworthiness
Typology of effective partnerships
• Trust between partners
• Shared and clearly-defined aims and goals
• Clear organisational structure and
role definition
• High levels of enthusiasm and commitment distribution of funds
• Effective communication
• Effective leadership
• Valuing each member
• Transparent
14. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Bridges to Higher Education Consortium:
New South Wales
15. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Bridges to Higher Education Consortium
16. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Learn, Experience, Access Professions
(LEAP) Consortium: Victoria
17. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
LEAP Consortium
18. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Queensland Widening Participation
Consortium
19. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
The Student Progression Model
20. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Now over to YOU…
Introduce yourself to the person next to you
Comment on the social inclusion in higher education
partnership you have in front of you
21. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Whole-of-Community Engagement Initiative
22. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
UNI4YOU
23. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Children’s University Australia
24. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
The Stellar Program
25. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
MAP4U
26. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Deakin Engagement and Access Program
27. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Higher Education: a good long-term investment
Source: http://oecdeducationtoday.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/higher-education-good-long-term.html
28. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Thank you and Questions
How to reach me:
Email:
s.trinidad@curtin.edu.au
Twitter: @NCSEHE
Website:
ncsehe.edu.au/contact/
Hinweis der Redaktion
Thank you for this opportunity to talk about social inclusion in HE in Australia. I would like to cover the history of social inclusion policy in Australia, then look more at the widening participation – to, through and beyond higher education and the importance of Higher Education Participation and Partnership Program HEPP(P) initiatives and strategies to widen participation of under represented groups in Australian universities.
3
Understanding the national equity in higher education policy agenda in Australia shows that we have been leaders
Policy concerns about addressing equity in higher education in Australia have been debated and refined for nearly four decades (Rizvi & Lingard 2011; Pitman 2015). A White Paper on higher education was released by the Minister for Education in 1988, which first raised the need to promote greater equity in higher education (Dawkins 1988). A subsequent discussion paper was released in 1990 entitled A Fair Chance for All (James et al 2004). This document was instrumental in setting the agenda for the development of a national equity policy framework and respective equity indicators (James et al 2004). In 1994, four national equity indicators often referred to as the ‘Martin Indicators’ were developed in relation to access, participation, success and retention in higher education (Martin 1994).
This was closely followed by a report on Equality, Diversity and Excellence: Advancing the National Higher Education Equity Framework with a series of equity focused recommendations released in 1996 (NBEET 1996). A discussion paper entitled Higher Education at the Cross Roads was released in 2002 and reiterated that students from disadvantaged backgrounds remained under-represented in Australian universities (Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training 2002).
In 2003, a package of policy reforms developed in the form of Our Universities: Backing Australia’s Future was released (Nelson 2003). This included equity-related funding streams and programs, such as the Indigenous Support Fund, equity scholarships, and the establishment of the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council. These policy investments ultimately led to Australia being perceived as a strong global leader in addressing equity in higher education (James et al 2004; Coates and McMillan 2005).
What does current data tell us?
Enrolment, as measured by the number of students, in Table A providers increased from 528,844 in 2007 to 668,665 in 2013. This represents an increase of 139,821 undergraduate students, or around 26.4% growth in this six year period. Growth was concentrated in the ‘Unaligned Group’ of universities, with the Group of Eight seeing a slightly reduced share (Koshy and Seymour 2014, 3).
The Federal Government’s Review of the Demand Driven System report (released 13 April 2014), has strongly endorsed the current demand-driven funding system that enables students from diverse and low socio-economic backgrounds to access higher education, a result welcomed by the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE).
Around 82.5% of growth in enrolment took place after 2009, in the lead up to and eventual introduction of the demand driven system (DDS) in higher education and the removal of caps on undergraduate student places. Growth was unevenly distributed across the sector, with the ‘Unaligned Group’ of generally newer universities witnessing a 41.9% expansion in places, raising their share of undergraduates from 28.5% in 2007 to 31.9% in 2013, with the Group of Eight seeing a reduced share from 27.9% to 25.2%. Regionally based universities grew less quickly than those based in metropolitan areas. New South Wales and Queensland recorded growth just under the national average. Victoria saw growth in line with the nation, while Western Australia (31.4%) and the Northern Territory (37.3%) saw faster growth to 2013.
The current funding system is delivering high quality education to more students from diverse backgrounds.
It is important of ensuring that access to higher education is not artificially limited and that there is a place for every person with the desire and ability to participate. That for some students, pathway programs provide the best preparation for university study and extending access to these places will help increase their chances of success, rather than enrolling directly into a bachelor degree.
The report’s recommendation to remove caps on postgraduate courses that offer community benefit.
The important work still to be done from a student equity perspective, and the need for all universities to be held accountable to their social contracts.
The benefits of adopting the report’s recommendations –
providing alternative pathways for students with the required skills but who are under-prepared, due to circumstances beyond their control.
maintaining the already high quality of our higher education system, by further improving the student attrition and success rates.
There are still certain groups of students still experience barriers to participation despite efforts taken by universities to remove these barriers.
As you saw from the previous slide for Domestic UG Enrolments in Higher Education in Australia there has been a 26.4% growth in headcount since 2007. With most growth post 2009 in the lead up to and eventual introduction of the demand driven system (DDS).
This level of growth is unprecedented in Australian HE.
Overall, faster rates of growth in enrolments for all key equity groups can be seen in this period. Koshy and Seymour (2014, 4) report numbers of students from 2007 – 2013 in each of the key equity areas.
For more information go to Briefing Paper on our website https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/student-equity-performance-australian-higher-education-2007-2013/
We know from research that student progression is via a multiple pathways and concerns many factors.
It is understood that many causes of disadvantage in accessing higher education occur much earlier in life.
The Social Ecological Model of Higher Education Collaborations
This social ecological model of HE collaboration conceptualises the scale of HEPPP collaborations and interventions having influence at multiple points along the social ecological continuum among a diverse range of disadvantaged populations. Edwards et al. (2013) made the distinction that: “Groups of people identified as educationally disadvantaged include Indigenous Australians, residents of rural, regional or remote areas, and those living in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.
Particular characteristics associated with educational disadvantage include low level of literacy and numeracy, living with a disability or mental illness, early school leaving, living on low income, lacking adequate transport, being the first member of their family to undertake post-compulsory education, unsatisfactory experiences of education in the past, and lacking a supportive home. It is important to recognise that disadvantaged individuals often fit into more than one of these categories” (Cupitt & Costello, 2014, p. 10).
The broader the scale of HEPP(P) activities means that there is enhanced capacity for impacts to be effective on raising aspiration and building capacity for HE participation for students from a diverse range of disadvantaged backgrounds.
Engagement and retention programs are designed to encourage student interest in education, and are often bundled in with aspirational programs, using practical activities as a framework through which to achieve both outcomes. Rather than pathologise student disengagement (Atweh et al. 2008), these outreach programs are seen as a way of re-enforcing positive relationships with teachers, fellow students, family, and the wider community through educationally relevant activities.
Social Ecological Model of HEPP(P) Collaboration on Widening Participation has been dapted from ABS, 2010, p. 22 and Cupitt & Costello, 2014, p. 10.
Australian universities have long demonstrated a strong commitment to student equity and to increasing the participation of people from disadvantaged backgrounds including regional and remote students. This commitment was a key recommendation from the Bradley Review (2008).
Over the years Equity initiatives in Australia have had bi-partisan support. The Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) was set up to fund a range of university participation and partnership initiatives. Through HEPPP funding, Australian universities have been able to provide opportunities to students from under-represented backgrounds who have the ability to study at university, to actually do so. Australian universities’ commitment to improving the access, participation and success in higher education of students from equity groups is evident in the current practice used by universities to reach prospective university students (outreach), help get them into university (access), and provide the support once the students commence, improving the retention and completion rates of those students. Such initiatives have been targeted at low SES and regional and remote students, in order to inform and expose school students and other prospective university students to the opportunities that higher education can offer.
The Kemp/Norton review discussed alternative entry pathways. A variety of entry pathways enables those equity students who desire to participate to have the capacity to apply for and successfully enter undergraduate study at university. A range of support services, such as mentoring and tutoring programs, ensure all students have the best chance of succeeding in their studies.
Since 2102 Bridges has had, through 96 projects, nearly 300,000 engagements with kids; more than 15,000 engagements with teachers and nearly 30,000 with parents in 314 schools.
91% of students reported improved study skills;
87% of the Aboriginal students were more motivated to complete school;
82% of students had improved academic outcomes;
97% of teachers reported that participation expanded their teaching practices and there were 962 more offers into higher education in the schools.
We assisted with the extensive literature review that enabled the Bridges Engagement Framework (look in the tool kit section) aligning core curriculum outcomes with their widening participation programs has been built. There are links to lots of the tools, teaching materials, case studies and projects that we have worked on over the last few years. See http://www.bridges.nsw.edu.au/
Widening Participation of LSES Students to Higher Education
In an effort to attract and retain LSES students into Higher Education a number of strategies need to be considered. A variety of programs are currently being used by the different universities across Australia to widen participation into higher education.
These cases studies illustrate how universities reach prospective university students (outreach), help students progress into university (access) and providing support once students commence, improving the retention and completion rates of those students.
With the support of HEPP funding universities engage in significant outreach, access and support activities.
Our case study publication Access-and-Participation-in-Higher-Education-2013 was distributed to all universities, government and industry stakeholders, and brought together a sample of the current practice of the 37 public universities across Australia. The universities’ self-selected case studies spanned activities used to reach prospective university students (outreach), helping students progress into university (access) and providing support once students commence, improving the retention and completion rates of those students.
We are proudly showcasing these cases studies on the NCSEHE website (ncsehe.edu.au).
If you would like a hard copy of our publication, please feel free to contact us (https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/contact/). Alternatively, you can download a soft copy version here: http://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/NCSEHE-Access-and-Participation-in-Higher-Education-2013.pdf (28Mb)
https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/NCSEHE_Partnership-Publication-13Nov2014v13.pdf
Our publication ‘Partnerships in Higher education’ looks at important partnerships that universities have with community and other institutions to assist and support students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Partnerships in Higher Education which looks at the important partnerships that universities have with community and other institutions to assist and support students from disadvantaged backgrounds. These partnerships have been the result of HEPPP funding and enable universities to enhance equity students’ awareness, educational aspirations, access to and success in higher education across Australia.
Hard copies of this latest publication are available on request (https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/contact/). Alternatively, you can download a soft copy version here: https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/partnerships-in-higher-education/ (8.12Mb)
While universities are not well-placed structurally to drive transformational change of the HE system, they depend on partnerships with major influencers of family, community and school for impact and scale.
The case studies of university collaborations aimed at raising aspiration and widening participation of disadvantaged populations comprises activities in the pre-tertiary domain with both school-age and adult people to encourage (i) interest in tertiary study and offer practical assistance with access; (ii) activities with enrolled tertiary students and (iii) to encourage a sense of belonging and improve success and retention.
In this report, Trinidad and Kelly (2014) note that: “The case studies share current practice used by universities to reach prospective university students (outreach), help get them into university (access) and provide the support once the students commence, improving the retention and completion rates of those students (p. 3).
Six case studies have been selected from this publication for analysis, for their potential impact at the individual, family/school, community and institutional levels of influence. The HEPPP interventions outlined in the next slides demonstrate larger scale collaborations than previously attempted, and the interventions are more holistically designed to address a multiplicity of barriers across the ecological continuum, faced by educationally disadvantaged populations and communities.
See page 6-7 https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/NCSEHE_Partnership-Publication-13Nov2014v13.pdf
http://www.bridges.nsw.edu.au/
Bridges to Higher Education is a $21.2m initiative, funded by the Commonwealth Government's Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP), to improve the participation rates of students from communities under-represented in higher education. The Bridges to Higher Education project brings together the collective resources and experience of the widening participation, equity and social inclusion programs at the University of Western Sydney, the University of Sydney, the University of Technology, Sydney, Macquarie University, and the Australian Catholic University. The partnership extends to include NSW DEC, TAFE NSW, the Universities Admissions Centre (NSW & ACU) Pty Ltd, local government organisations, education offices, Indigenous organisations and other community, philanthropic and social enterprise organisations. This innovative project works with primary and secondary schools, TAFE and community partners in Greater Western Sydney to engage young people who previously might not have considered higher education as an option. More than 1.8 million people live in the region which has traditionally been under-represented in higher education participation rates.
This website provides information about the Bridges to Higher Education partnership, it's partners and projects. In partnership with the Universities Admission Centre (NSW & ACT) Pty Ltd, Bridges to Higher Education has developed a website for prospective students, parents, schools and community-based staff, providing information about future education options and pathways - makeyourmark.edu.au
See page 32-33 https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/NCSEHE_Partnership-Publication-13Nov2014v13.pdf
https://www.leap.vic.edu.au/
LEAP Program
The LEAP Program aims to demystify the links between school, university and professions.
LEAP seeks to encourage secondary students from low SES communities to consider higher education as a future option, through a focus on the professions. By offering access to a range of university campus, workplace and school-based activities along with online resources, LEAP aims to help students learn more about their career options in selected professions, and the role of university study in attaining their career goals. Business, Design, Engineering, Health, Law and Science are the six professional fields covered.
LEAP Program origins
In 2010 the eight Victorian Universities, the Victorian campuses of Australian Catholic University, and the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (now DET), the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria and Independent Schools Victoria formed a group and established a multilateral partnership agreement to support participation of students from low SES backgrounds in higher education.
The idea for the LEAP program was developed by this group and became a successful grant winner through the Commonwealth Government's Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP), receiving funds to establish the program in Victoria. This grant period is from 2012 - July 2015.
LEAP Program partnership
LEAP is a collaborative Victorian initiative focused on priority schools Victoria-wide. The Program partners are committed to the development and delivery of the Program with long term sustainability.
Learn, Experience, Access Professions (LEAP): Host ‘Monash University’
Scale of Partnership: Hosted by Monash University, this HEPPP collaboration comprises of eight HE institutions and six educational organizations, as well as schools and professional groups.
Activities and Population Target: To raise HE aspirations among LSES students, a suite of activities were developed. The two major programs are: (i) ‘Understanding the Professions’ (Years 7-10) which demystifies the professions and clarifies school to career pathways; and (ii) ‘Making it Happen’ (Years 10-12) builds learner confidence, knowledge and provides tools for pathways to HE.
Outcomes: Feedback indicates that students are more informed; show greater interest in attending HE and understand the value of study.
Partnerships ‘working’: The partnership success is attributed to clear protocols and guidelines which ensured stakeholder expectations were managed. Furthermore, strengths, expertise and uniqueness were valued, thus facilitating a culture of shared learning, greater engagement and connections with schools.
Ecological level influence: The effectiveness of this HEPPP programs is linked to a number of attributes: (a) the scale of the multi-sector partnership enables activities to be delivered at a broader scale of social ecological influence, beyond impacts at the individual level; (b) it promotes capacity building of schools and community; and (c) the programs are designed to target the specific barriers experienced by LSES students having limited interaction with professional role models.
See page 40-41 https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/NCSEHE_Partnership-Publication-13Nov2014v13.pdf
The Queensland Consortium has seven universities working together in a coordinated approach. This program’s outreach to schools involves each Queensland Consortium university working with a local cluster of low SES schools in order to stimulate demand for tertiary study. “The project targets middle school students; provides activities which are age-appropriate, curriculum-connected and locally-brokered; and focuses on stimulating interest in all forms of tertiary study rather than on a single provider. Activities include in-school and on-campus engagement visits, university demystification and preparation activities, academic enhancement and career development. Activities are tailored to local needs and specific cohorts including Indigenous, Pacific Islander,” and NESB students (QUT 2013,10).
The Queensland Consortium programs cover eight of the nine approaches identified by Gale et al. as likely to make a positive difference to increased engagement:
[I]nterventions which foster higher participation are characteristically: (i) collaborative; (ii) early, long‐term and sustained; (iii) people‐rich; (iv) cohort‐based; (v) communicative and informative; (vi) experiential (familiarising students with university sites and how they operate); (vii) cognisant of difference; (viii) academically challenging; and (ix) financially supportive.” (2010a, 5)
According to Gale et al. (2010b, 25) the most common types of programs in Australian university-led interventions are:
School visits by university staff
School visits by university students
Introduction to uni
Extended program of on-campus visits by school students
University students mentoring school students
University staff working with school teachers
Single on-campus visit by school students
Mentoring
University staff working with parents
University staff and students engaged in a school/community project
University students tutoring school students
Scholarship/grants
Holiday program
On-campus visits by teachers without students accompanying
Short course
And various undefined programs
I want to return to this model “Social Ecological Model of HEPP Collaborations in Social Inclusion” as we believe this is a model provides a framework for planning holistic level activities at the social ecological scale of influence to address the multiplicity of barriers underlying HE aspiration and participation among diverse educationally disadvantaged populations.
As Naylor, Baik and James (2013) emphasized intervention programs need to be community-focused and tailored accordingly to maximise influence on student’s educational readiness and choices. It also needs to extend beyond the individual domain as choices about HE are informed by capital accessible to students – their own human capital in the form of goals and resources; the cultural capital of their families and communities in the form of educational expectations and finances, and the social networks which can ease their way into HE (Engberg & Allen, 2011). Lacking these forms of capital are additional barriers, when the student’s community does not have a strong orientation towards formal education (Edwards et al., 2013, cited in Cupitt & Costello, 2014, p. 10).
I would like you to introduce yourself to the person next to you or behind or in front and look at the partnership you have and comment on this.
There is a space to write your comments. We have six case studies:
Whole of Community Engagement Initiatives: Charles Darwin University
UNI4YOU: University of New Castle (UoN)
Children’s University (CU): The University of Adelaide
The Stellar Program: Southern Cross University & University of New England
MAP4U program: Murdoch University & Curtin University
Deakin Engagement and Access Program (DEAP): Deakin University
HEPP(P) Case Studies - Scale of Effectiveness at ‘Social Ecological Levels’ Partnerships in HE
Whole of Community Engagement Initiatives: Charles Darwin University (Partnerships in HE see page 10-11)
Scale of Partnerships: The Charles Darwin University, 2 other HE institutions; 2 local stakeholder organizations and 6 remote Indigenous communities across the Northern Territory.
Activities and Population Target: To build aspiration, expectation and capacity to participate in HE, this large scale, multi-site participatory action research project involved community engagement leaders, mentor and enrichment officers and a community teacher’s liaison leader working closely with community-based Indigenous mentors, leaders and organisations to drive innovative bottom-up strategies and solutions built on and responsive to, Indigenous knowledge. Parents, caregivers, teachers and school leaders are also included in supporting students.
Outcomes: Students’ feedback indicate a marked interest in HE and broader career choices.“Many have not really seen university study in their daily and family lives, so the idea that uni is for anyone, anywhere, anytime is really positive for these students.” (Teacher)
Partnerships ‘working’: Establishing genuine and trusting partnerships; committed to the goals; valuing local Indigenous knowledge; facilitating community led and driven programs and building on community strengths.
Level of influence:
This whole of community collaborative approach to Indigenous HE aspiration and participation demonstrates high levels of institutional, school/community level partnerships and influence at all levels of the social ecological continuum.
This initiative also addressed institutional and cultural barriers specific to the needs of Indigenous communities by incorporating culturally appropriate pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning, as well as egalitarian governance structures.
3. UNI4YOU: University of Newcastle (UoN)
Scale of Partnership: This HEPPP collaboration incorporates partnerships between four faculties of the UoN (Family Action Centre, Faculty of Health and Medicine; AIM HIGH program; English Language and Foundation Studies (ELFS) along with 5 school and community stakeholder organisations.
Activities and Population Target: Program coordinators, with extensive experience in community and family work, engage with schools, early childhood centres, child and family services and similar organisations to promote and encourage potential adult participants to engage in online HE study. This is also complemented with activities such as home visits; information on HE pathways; academic and social support including resources such as childcare, text books, wifi and computers.
Outcomes: Evaluations confirmed that the majority of students continued to study because of the support provided by Uni4You. Partners also acknowledged the positive long term impact of Uni4You for individuals and for its capacity to influence the social and cultural identity of communities.
Partnerships ‘working’: Strong relationships built between partners, is attributed for the trusting and mutually respectful relationship that has been formed by the community partners to continue with their commitment to Uni4YOU.
Ecological level influence: This multi-sector partnership which delivers enabling programs to support the engagement of economically and geographically marginalised adults powerfully demonstrates both broad scale partnerships as well as extensive expertise with community engagement.
This program has been specifically designed to address the educational barriers of this population group. Most significantly, the scale of partnerships and activities demonstrate influence at all levels of the social ecological continuum to enable online HE study.
4.Children’s University (CU): The University of Adelaide
Scale of Partnership: This HEPPP collaboration involves the University of Adelaide and 23 partners comprising HE institutions, school/community and business organisations.
Activities and Population Target: CU activities are aimed at children aged 7-14 and volunteering 15-18 year olds to engage children in learning and provide the scaffolding to develop self-efficacy, confidence and aspiration, particularly for those facing disadvantage. Students access a wide range of learning experiences and environments and are motivated to earn rewards for hours accumulated through activities. Volunteers are similarly rewarded and develop leadership skills and graduate attributes.
Outcomes: Evidence shows that children had increased school attendance, punctuality and positive student behaviour. School Leadership comment: “CU has improved student behaviour through; student voice, ownership, a sense of belonging and improved engagement and relationships”.
Partnership ‘working’: The foundation is built on partners connecting in meaningful ways, and partners are committed to ensuring that children have a fun and multifaceted learning experience. Teachers have access to professional development opportunities and are recognised for their outstanding service.
Ecological level influence: This multi-sector partnership supports the activities of the ‘Children’s University’ (CU) to provide extra-curricular learning opportunities, as well as training in leadership. This collaboration illustrates both the large scale nature of its(a) multi-sector community level partnership as well as;(b) innovative activities that have influence at the social ecological (‘individual’; ‘family/school/ community’ and ‘HE institution’) levels to enhance academic achievement and raise student ambition as well as learning, teaching and training outcomes at the community level.
5.The Stellar Program: Southern Cross University& University of New England
Scale of Partnership: Lead by the Southern Cross University and University of New England, this HEPPP collaboration comprises 12 partners, incorporating government and non-government organisations including school/community and business organisations.
Activities and Population Target: Less than 1 percent of the population in this regional rural community attend University. This whole of community approach to outreach activities with schools, also builds the confidence of parents that HE participation is a possibility for their child. Multifaceted activities are directed at Years 6 to 12 to increase knowledge, understanding of HE and career pathways, including building confidence and motivation, and improving academic readiness for HE.
Outcomes: Evidence shows that children had increased school attendance, punctuality and positive student behaviour. School Leadership comment: “CU has improved student behaviour through; student voice, ownership, a sense of belonging and improved engagement and relationships”.
Partnership ‘working’: The program is locally developed and addresses locally identified needs. A genuine culture of innovation enables new and exciting activities to be trialled. There is a shared commitment to the importance of the work, and high levels of trust have been developed.
Ecological level influence: This multi-sector partnership facilitates a whole of community approach to encourage the interest, aspirations and attainment of HE participation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.
This collaboration is large in scale of partnerships, and the activities have been specifically targeted to raise aspiration and improve academic readiness for HE for students residing in this regional rural community.
The scale of the partnership and the multi-faceted activities demonstrate social ecological levels of influence (‘individual’; ‘family/school/ community’ and ‘HE institution’ level) for enabling student outcomes, capacity building for the schools and community, as well a culture of learning and innovation.
6.MAP4U program: Murdoch University & Curtin University
Scale of Partnership: This HEPPP collaboration incorporates Murdoch University and Curtin University, including 13 government and non-government: schools/community/business organisations, as well as youth stakeholder groups
Activities and Population Target: Within this region, people with a Bachelor Degree stands at 9 per cent, well below the greater Perth area at 16.1 per cent. Engaging with 22 schools, activities include: curriculum and pedagogy initiatives; university-school outreach; specific Indigenous mentoring; industry mentors; parental support programs; student-teacher pathway planning; academic and alternative learning including HE enabling pathways.
Outcomes: Feedback indicates a desire for HE participation by students, and also that program activities are having a positive impact on students’ engagement with school, supported by indicators such as attendance and student behaviour.
Partnership ‘working’: The challenges facing young people, including Indigenous youth, in the region are understood, and the need for intensive, long-term, labour-intensive interventions is accepted. Explicit guiding principles such as community engagement, social inclusion, and youth participatory action research based on understanding the unique characteristics of the local learning environment are key drivers.
Ecological level influence: The goal of this multi-sector partnership is designed to increase HE participation among under-represented students from the south-west corridor of Perth.
While the collaboration network is large in scale, the program is specifically targeted for the population of need and the activities are directed to target multiple levels of social ecological influence (‘individual’; ‘family/school/ community’ and ‘HE institution’ level) by building academic aspirations and achievement through innovative curriculum and pedagogy.
7. Deakin Engagement and Access Program (DEAP): Deakin University
Scale of Partnership: Driven by Deakin University, this HEPPP collaboration comprises partnerships with 30 schools and 2 other community organizations.
Activities and Population Target: The DEAP program is targeted to Year 7 to 12 students with activities to encourage aspiration for post-school education by improving academic capacity, exposure to innovative experiential learning, developing HE pathways, preparing for HE transition, parental engagement and special entry access scheme (SEAS) workshops. Parents, carers, families and community organisations are involved with the engagement process.
Outcomes: A positive impact on student aspiration is reported with HE enrolments increasing from partner schools from 2010 to 2013 by 15 per cent and Deakin by 42 per cent. Qualitative feedback also demonstrate a positive impact: “Our students gained confidence after participating in the … workshop. They felt that their strengths and abilities were acknowledged (school teacher) ... I learnt that there could be different ways to get into university (student)”.
Partnership ‘working’: The partnership works because it was born out of school needs – greater engagement with the university, with requests for academic engagement and a clear articulation of pathways to university for students. Partners work collaboratively to ensure that activities are tailored to the schools’ priorities and this has resulted in greater trust and acknowledgement of the value of DEAP.
Ecological level influence: The goal of this multi-sector partnership is designed to increase HE participation among populations experiencing multiple barriers, across a number of regional sites in Victoria. While this collaboration is wide in scale, the activities are designed to enable multiple social ecological levels of influence (‘individual’; ‘family/school/ community’ and ‘HE institution’ level) to deliver on-campus and in-school programs.
As the Australia parliament debates the public costs and benefits of gaining a higher education degree we know that it is important to provide opportunities to attract and retain under represented students. In Australian individual aspirations was identified as an important force for national investment in human capital and for social inclusion projects, such as widening participation in higher education among under-represented groups (James, Krause & Jennings, 2010; Gale & Parker, 2010).
The importance of HE participation is convincingly demonstrated by OECD data: “Tertiary education graduates across the OECD earn on average 70% more than the non-tertiary educated, meaning despite rising costs of higher education in Australia the investment is still worthwhile” (Hensen, 2014). Given the investment value of HE participation, it is important to examine the efficacy of HE collaborations that promote aspiration and participation among disadvantaged populations.
As I talked about the history of social inclusion policy in HE, from 1988 with the Higher Education: A Policy Statement White Paper, the focus of Australia’s national higher education equity policy has ensured that all Australians from all groups in society have the opportunity to participate successfully in higher education, “by changing the balance of the student population to reflect more closely the composition of society as a whole” (Dawkins 1990, 2-3).
Over the last five years a range of national partnerships, policy initiatives and programs have been used to facilitate improved achievement in schools as well as access, participation in and achievement in higher education. One of the key programs driven through Government funding has been the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPP [P]). Universities have used a variety of initiatives and strategies to enhance equity students’ awareness, educational aspirations, access to and success in higher education across Australia.
Thank you for your contributions and thoughts on these wonderful university programmes designed to improve student engagement with higher education that have been widely implemented by universities since 2009, and generally target reducing the identified barriers to participation. Please join us at NCSEHE website and we look forward to further conversations about this important area. Thank you.
