Social justice in Australian higher education policy: an historical and conceptual account of student participation

Abstract

This article provides a synoptic account of historically changing conceptions and practices of social justice in Australian higher education policy. It maps the changes in this policy arena, beginning with the period following the Second World War and concluding with an analysis of the most recent policy proposals of the Bradley Review. Concurrently, it explores the different meanings ascribed to social justice, equity and social inclusion over this time span and what these have meant and will mean for students, particularly those from low socio-economic backgrounds. It concludes that a relational understanding of social justice – ‘recognitive justice’ – is yet to inform student equity policy in higher education, although this is now what is required in the context of the planned shift from mass to universal participation.

Keywords:

• education policy
• higher education
• social inclusion
• social justice
• student equity
• widening participation

Acknowledgements

This paper draws on work completed in the ‘Interventions early in school as a means to improve higher education outcomes for disadvantaged (particularly low-SES) students’ project (Gale et al., 2010). We acknowledge the contributions of our co-researchers on this project, which helped to inform our analysis in this paper. The paper also draws on work from Deborah Tranter's (2010) thesis ‘Why not university? School culture and higher education aspirations in disadvantaged schools’. The paper was produced as part of the work of the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education and with the financial support of the Australian Government through the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

Notes

1. It was not until the twentieth century that universities were established in Queensland and WA and later still in regional centres and the national capital, although, as their titles suggest, the universities in these states were established to serve their whole state, including via distance learning.

2. Anderson and Vervoorn (1983) note that at one stage these ‘very valuable’ studentships were held by some 50,000 students, ‘many of them from modest backgrounds’ (p. 16).

3. During the Howard government's time in office, government funding of universities declined in relation to the number of students enrolled by 4%, the only OECD nation to experience a decrease, compared to an OECD average increase of 49% (Marginson, 2007).

4. Bradley et al. (2008) recommended a target of 40% participation of 25 to 34 year olds by 2020 and 20% low-SES participation for all students, not only undergraduates.

5. Although this publication is now ten years old and based on 1996 census data, analysis of the 2006 census data points to even greater differences in university participation rates.