The Potential Influence of University Fee Deregulation on the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships programme: Exploring Informed Stakeholders Perceptions

In: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/15832

Abstract

The university aspirations of disadvantaged high school students are significant for their university participation rates because such aspirations influence their academic achievements and as a corollary their eligibility for university entry. To positively influence the university aspirations of these students and thereby increase their university participation rates, the Australian Government in 2010 implemented the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Programme (hereafter, HEPPP) wherein the Government provides funding to universities to, inter alia, operate outreach programmes with high schools identified as disadvantaged, namely drawing from lower socio-economic status demographics. However, in 2014 the Government announced the intention to deregulate university tuition fees which may negatively influence the university aspirations of disadvantaged high school students and thereby undermine the efficacy of HEPPP. Considering the relationship between fee deregulation and HEPPP, two factors may ameliorate the negative influence that fee deregulation is predicted to have on the efficacy of HEPPP: The existing higher education income-contingent loan system, HECS-HELP, and the Government's proposal to introduce a Commonwealth Scholarship scheme for disadvantaged students. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to determine whether, according to participants, the predicted negative influence of fee deregulation would be greater than the combined positive influence of both HECS-HELP and the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme, and therefore whether fee deregulation would undermine the efficacy of HEPPP. This study utilised a mixed methodology approach encompassing both quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative method was a questionnaire administered to careers advisers (n=14) situated in New South Wales high schools associated with HEPPP funded university outreach programmes. The qualitative method was semi-structured interviews with directors of student equity (n=4) at Australian universities. In total 18 individuals participated in the data collection processes. It could not be definitively determined whether, according to participants, the predicted negative influence of fee deregulation would be greater than the combined positive influence of both HECS-HELP and the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme, and therefore whether fee deregulation would undermine the efficacy of HEPPP. Hence, the aim of this study was partially achieved. Nonetheless four policy recommendations emerged from the findings and these recommendations highlight the significance of this study. The first, second and third recommendations were that the positive influence the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme is predicted to have on students' aspirations would foreseeably be enhanced by ensuring: (1) scholarships are made available to a majority of eligible disadvantaged students; (2) the application processes for scholarships are uncomplicated and not overly time consuming to complete; and (3) scholarships are allocated for relocation and living costs. The fourth recommendation was that HECS-HELP debts should remain indexed according to the Consumer Price Index, as opposed to the bond rate, to ensure that fee deregulation does not undermine the efficacy of HEPPP.