The task of interpreting the Universities Accord interim report is like that of a biblical scholar trying to extract meaning from fragmentary and sometimes contradictory texts. But building on my post on a universal learning entitlement, in this post I try to understand what kind of student places allocative system the report proposes.

Existing and possible Accord allocative systems

All funding systems need methods for determining total resources and then allocating them between institutions, courses and students. The chart below has the three allocative models currently in use – what I call technocratic, block grant, and demand driven – and the Accord model, which on my reading has elements of the technocratic and demand driven models. However these models are in tension with each other – technocracy puts experts in charge while demand driven funding is based on decentralised decision making.

Decision	Technocratic (current system for medical students)	Block grant (current system for most students)	Demand driven (current system for bachelor degree regional Indigenous students with likely extension to all Indigenous students)	Accord model?
Total number of places/dollars for each year (system level)	Government decision	Government decision	University and student decision.	Aggregate outcome of student decisions (especially if universities have less control over who they admit). Or aggregate of Tertiary Education Commission university allocations.
Total number of places /dollars for each university	Government decision	Government decision	University and student decision.	Aggregate of student decisions with full learning entitlement model, possible voucher system. Or as negotiated/allocated by the Tertiary Education Commission.
Total number of places/dollars for each course or discipline	Government decision	University and student decision.	University and student decision.	Target allocations for courses determined by Tertiary Education Commission. Possible caps via aggregate voucher allocations/university-level enrolment caps on low priority courses.
Student-level allocative criteria, such as academic results or equity group status.	Can be a government decision, but for medical students a university and student decision.	University and student decision.	University and student decision.	Possibly a government decision through Tertiary Education Commission/national admission centre. Or keep current system but use targets to push unis to enrol more students, in general and from priority groups.

Read More »