Category: Australian Tertiary Education Commission

The last university over-enrolment crackdown – some possible lessons

Andrew Norton1 Comment

As announced last year, the government plans to crack down on so-called ‘over-enrolments’ – enrolling additional students on a student-contribution only basis once all a university’s Commonwealth Grant Scheme allocation has been used.

When a proposed new funding system is in place, from 2027, student contribution-only places will only be possible in a buffer zone above a university’s Australian Tertiary Education Commission allocation. 2% and 5% buffers have both been suggested. Currently over-enrolled universities will receive some additional funding to bring over-enrolments within their official allocation of places. However, this will not in all cases reduce over-enrolments to the permitted range. Significantly over-enrolled universities need to moderate student intakes in 2026 to bring their medium-term enrolments down.

Not many current Department of Education staff were there the last time a minister thought reducing over-enrolments might be a good idea. The story is worth telling.

Brendan Nelson and over-enrolment

From November 2001 to January 2006 the education minister was Brendan Nelson, a Liberal. Nelson was worried about the quality implications of significant over-enrolments. The first reference I can find to Nelson’s concern is in a media release from December 2001, a month into his term.

Read More »

Accord implementation proposals, part #5: Needs-based funding that is not aimed directly at needs

Andrew Norton1 Comment

The Accord implementation consultation paper on need-based funding for equity group members was released late last week, although students with disability will be discussed in a later consultation document. That leaves low SES, Indigenous and students at regional campuses for this paper.

When the Accord interim report came out I rated the principle of needs-based funding as one of its better ideas. But turning it into policy faces significant conceptual, practical and ethical issues. The consultation paper does not resolve these issues.

Funding based on needs versus equity group membership

The basic conceptual problem, in the Accord reports and this consultation paper, is that it remains unclear why needs-based funding should apply only for students designated as equity group members. With the exception of people with disabilities that require adjustments for them to participate in higher education, none of the equity group categories identify personal disadvantage. As the Accord report itself notes, groups other than the equity four are ‘under-represented’ in higher education.

The higher education system should help all its students achieve success, not just those that for historical reasons are included in the equity group list.

Many of the outcome differences we observe are the by-product of mass higher education, which brings a wide range of people into the system. There are more people who were not especially ‘academic’ at school, more people who have trouble financing their education, more people who have major responsibilities other than their studies. In a mass higher education system these students are core business.

Read More »

Accord implementation proposals, part #4: Managed demand driven funding for equity students

Andrew Norton3 Comments

When the Accord final report was published one recommendation that confused me was a policy to increase equity student enrolments that was “effectively ‘demand driven for equity’ but with planned allocation of places to universities”.

A demand driven system, under which universities can enrol unlimited numbers of students meeting set criteria, can sit alongside a system of allocated student places or funding. Current Indigenous bachelor degree demand driven funding, which would be retained in the Accord model, sits alongside a soft capped block grant for most other students. But for the same courses, or student categories, demand driven and allocated student place systems are mutually exclusive.

Any hope of clarity has been dashed by the Accord implementation paper on managed growth. It proposes “managed demand driven funding for equity students”.

Read More »

Accord implementation proposals, part #3: Distributing student places between qualifications & disciplines & the funding floor

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Part 1 of this series on the government’s Accord implementation plans looked at the proposed Australian Tertiary Education Commission. Part 2 examined how student places would be allocated between universities. This post considers Accord implementation plans for distributing students places within universities between qualification levels and disciplines. In this post, at least, I find that some of the government’s proposals have merit.

Some background: The government has often allocated higher education resources differently depending on qualification level, course, field of education and sometimes students. This practice can target and/or limit spending on a policy goal. The trade-off is less flexibility in moving resources where they are needed. As a result, prospective students miss out or pay much more than the student contribution rate in the full-fee market.

In the 2010s sub-bachelor, bachelor and postgraduate CSPs were funded separately. Since 2021 they have been funded together, with exceptions for Indigenous bachelor degree students and medical courses.

The distribution of student places between qualification levels – postgraduate

While the Accord final report supported more Commonwealth supported places at the postgraduate level, it wanted to focus them on areas of “national priorities and skills needs”.

Read More »

Accord implementation proposals, part #2: The distribution of student places to universities and the folly of hard caps

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

An earlier post looked at the government’s plans for the Australian Tertiary Education Commission. This post examines the government’s proposals for setting the number of student places and distributing them between universities. This includes a hard institution-level cap on student places, so that universities would get zero funding for enrolments above their allocated level. This post explains why a hard cap is unnecessary and counter-productive.

Overall number of CSPs

The government will determine the total number of CSPs. For ‘fully funded’ places – places for which universities are paid both a Commonwealth and student contribution – this is similar to the current system of the government deciding on total CGS funding, other than the small demand driven system for Indigenous bachelor-degree students (which will be retained). However,

  • because universities will have flexibility in moving EFTSL between disciplines (discussed in a later post) the maximum dollar amount the government pays will be less predictable than now.
  • because of the first point and hard caps on student places at each university (discussed below) the maximum number of CSPs the system provides will be more predictable than now.

It is not clear whether ATEC will advise the government on the number of CSPs, as opposed to contextual factors such as demographics, demand, and skills needs.

And if ATEC does provide advice on system-level numbers, it is not clear whether this will be published or not. The consultation paper mentions the state of the sector report recommended by the Universities Accord final report, but this is framed as a ‘report on higher education outcomes’, not future higher education needs.

Former higher education commissions provided detailed public advice on likely student demand and the sector’s capacity to meet it. For an education minister there is a trade-off. Public and quality advice gives leverage in Cabinet when arguing for money and a semi-independent justification for the government’s overall policy direction. But if the minister does not get the money the sector, and opposition MPs, will use ATEC reports against the government.

Read More »

Accord implementation proposals, part #1: Setting up ATEC

Andrew Norton3 Comments

The government has released ‘implementation consultation’ papers on the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) and how its system of managed growth in Commonwealth supported places would work. This post looks at some features of the ATEC paper. A subsequent post looks at how ATEC would distribute student places between universities.

ATEC legislation

ATEC would have its own legislation. A new funding act would replace the current Higher Education Support Act 2003. Its suggested name is the Higher Education Funding Act, the same name the funding legislation had between 1989 and 2004 (HESA 2003 started in 2005).

A performance metric for the government: keep the HEFA 2 legislation below the 592 pages of the latest HESA 2003. The original HESA 2003 was only 220 pages.

Read More »