The Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success acknowledges Indigenous peoples as the Traditional Owners of the lands on which our campuses are situated. With a history spanning 60,000 years as the original educators, Indigenous peoples hold a unique place in Australia. We recognise the importance of their knowledge and culture, and reflect the principles of participation, equity, and cultural respect in our work. We pay our respects to Elders past, present, and future, and consider it an honour to learn from our Indigenous colleagues, partners, and friends.

You are reading: Reinterpreting higher education quality in response to policies of mass education: the Australian experience

Written by Dr Tim Pitman, National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education

Democratic access to tertiary education is one of the most persistent policy issues in higher education of the last half-century (Martin, 2009). As UNESCO stated more than 40 years ago, ‘there cannot – or will not – be a democratic and egalitarian relationship between classes divided by excessive inequality in education’ (Faure et al., 1972, p. xxvi). During this time there have been global shifts from élite to mass and towards universal education (Trow, 2000). For some stakeholders the shift to mass education is central to higher education’s future structure, purpose social and economic role (Schuetze & Slowey, 2002). Yet for others, this shift constitutes ‘a serious threat to academic standards [by creating] institutions staffed by less well-educated and less-accomplished teachers, teaching less-able and less well-motivated students’ (Trow, 1974, p. 35). It appears that almost invariably, when policies to increase access to higher education are implemented, the relationship between mass education and educational quality is foregrounded (Lomas, 2002; Whiteford et al., 2013).

In Australia in 2009, following the recommendations of a review of its higher education system, the restriction on student places was removed, creating a demand-driven funding system (Bradley et al., 2008). As a result of this policy, targeted university enrolments rose by 20% between 2008 and 2012 (Department of Education, 2012). Concomitantly, higher education debate referenced the ‘problem’ of ‘bringing large numbers of students into higher education who are often manifestly unready for the level of instruction demanded [leading to the need] to water down curriculum and standards…’ (Hawkins & Neubauer, 2011, p. 11). Academic standards are the cornerstone of any provider and, both in Australia and internationally, the expansion and diversification of higher education has resulted in growing concerns about their quality (Thompson-Whiteside, 2013). This article analyses how, throughout 2008–2014, various higher education stakeholders reframed their descriptions of higher education quality, in response to new policies of mass education. The analysis of the overarching policy framework, associated political commentary and public submissions made by the sector, provides a greater understanding of how higher education quality is interpreted and reinterpreted by various stakeholders; both to defend their stake in the sector and to respond to changing policies of mass higher education.

Continue reading…

Tim Pitman (2014): Reinterpreting higher education quality in response to policies of mass education: the Australian experience, Quality in Higher Education, DOI:10.1080/13538322.2014.957944.
Featured publications
The Critical Interventions Framework Part 3 (CIF 3) focuses on evaluative studies which provide details of the impacts of specific interventions on equity groups in relation to access to and success in higher education.
A case study documenting the transition of one Indigenous student, Robbie, from an underprivileged school located in the Western suburbs of Sydney to an urban Australian university.