2007-2013: A new deal for higher education, more of the same, or Dawkins again?

Reviews of Higher Education and Innovation

Soon after the election in 2007 of the Rudd Labor Government on a platform that included an across the board 'Education Revolution' and a strong social inclusion agenda, the Ministers for Education (Julia Gillard) and Science, Research and Innovation (Kim Carr) established two key reviews designed to inform higher education and other policy development. These were the Review of Higher Education, led by Professor Denise Bradley, the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of South Australia, and the Review of the National Innovation System. Their respective final reports (the Bradley Report [2.56MB] Links to an external site. and Cutler Report [pdf, 2.86MB] Links to an external site. [Cutler, 2008] also called ‘Venturous Australia’) were released in 2008.

The major changes flowing from the Bradley and Cutler recommendations were:

• increases in funding of the indirect costs of research (infrastructure and facilities);
• increases in funding of research training (research degree places) and support for students undertaking research degrees;
• expanded participation and attainment goals, particularly for students from low socio-economic backgrounds (SES) and other educationally disadvantaged groups (goals of 20% of enrolments to be from low SES backgrounds, and 40% of 25-34 year olds with an undergraduate degree by 2020);
• the abolition of full-fee domestic undergraduate student places, replaced by funding of student places based on demand;
• funded student places (Commonwealth Supported Places) uncapped from 2012, with a phase in of funded over-enrolment from 2010;
• indexation of funding for student places, contingent on performance against certain quality, attainment and participation indicators;
• a range of funding schemes to provide regional loadings, equity loadings, support for school partnerships, funding for capital expenditure, and funding to enable structural adjustment in response to the new policies and funding framework;
• funding arrangements via ‘mission-based compacts’, negotiated between each university individually and the two Departments concerned (DEEWR and DIISR, later DIISRTE with the transfer of tertiary education from DEEWR to DIISRTE) – these compacts outline each institution’s mission, its alignment with Government priorities, and agreed goals in teaching and research; and
• the establishment of a national quality and accreditation agency – the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency – to take over both the quality audit function of AUQA (the Australian Universities Quality Agency, which was subsumed into TEQSA) and the accreditation role previously performed by the States. TEQSA was established and began operations in 2011.

The reviews continued with the:

• Lomax-Smith Base Funding Review (2011) Links to an external site.
• Review of Reporting Requirements for Universities (2013) Links to an external site.
• Review of Higher Education Regulation (2013) Links to an external site.
• Review of the Demand Driven Funding System (2014) Links to an external site.
• Review of the impact on the higher education sector of the TEQSA Act (2015) Links to an external site.

Follow the links to take a look at the reports of these reviews, and the Government’s responses to them. How are they similar to and/or different from the changes in the Dawkins era? Which of Vincent-Lancrin’s scenarios (described earlier in the module) seem to be dominating? What’s driving the changes in the sector?

 

Image source: https://pixabay.com/en/parliament-house-canberra-australia-168300/