ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ASEM National
Equity Policies
in Higher Education
2021Imprint
Publisher
Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF)
31 Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Singapore 11959
www.asef.org
Editor
Professor Graeme ATHERTON, Head Centre for Levelling Up, University of West
London and Director, National Education Opportunities Network (NEON)
Contributors
Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) – Education Department:
Ms Leonie NAGARAJAN, Director
Ms Reka TOZSA, Senior Project Manager
Mr Miguel PANGALANGAN, Project Officer
Mr James TAN, Inclusion Advisor
Publication design:
Heiko Seibel, Visual concepts and photography
ISBN 978-981-18-2253-7
Copyright
Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) © 2021 – All rights reserved.
Open Access
This report is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Non-commercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are
credited.
Note
This report was produced in collaboration between the Asia-Europe Foundation
(ASEF) and the National Equity Opportunity Network (NEON) to contribute to the 6th
ASEF Regional Conference on Higher Education (ARC8) on “Inclusive and Diverse
Higher Education in Asia and Europe” on 10 September 2021. Any views and
opinions expressed in this report are the sole responsibility by the editor and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) or the Asia-
Europe Foundation (ASEF).
2 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021Contents
Page
0 Executive Summary 4
1 Introduction 9
2 Equitable access and success in Higher Education 10
3 Methodology 12
4 Are policies in place and who are they targeted at? 13
5 How are policy objectives achieved? 23
6 How does policy formation work? 31
7 How is progress measured? 33
8 What has the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic been on 35
policies related to equitable access and success?
9 Key Findings 38
10 Summary 39
Appendices 41
3 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20210 Executive Summary
0.1 Background
This report examines the various context of a particular country.
approaches by governments across These groups are usually (although
Asia and Europe to support students not exclusively) drawn from one or
from all social backgrounds and more of the following categories: a
circumstances to enter higher low income/socio-economic group,
education. The geographical focus is students belonging to ethnic and
on countries within the Asia-Europe religious minority backgrounds, female
Meeting (ASEM) constituency.1 students, students with disabilities,
students belonging to sexual or gender
It draws upon a survey of national minorities, older students or those
policies in 47 ASEM countries focused from rural backgrounds.
on equitable access and success
across the two continents assessing This report is a collaboration between
what strategies are in place, where the Education Department of the
targets exist and how they are being Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) and
measured and whether COVID-19 has the National Education Opportunities
impacted on this work. Network (NEON). ASEF liaised with
national ministries responsibility
Access to higher education refers for higher education and experts in
to participation by students from all equitable access/success in higher
backgrounds. Equitable access refers education on the survey and data
to participation by students who are input over the period of September
either in the minority in a particular 2020 to July 2021. The data was
country or come from a ‘disadvantaged analysed and the report written by
majority’ who on average earn less/ Professor Graeme Atherton, Director of
experience greater social/economic the National Education Opportunities
challenges than a minority population. Network (NEON) in the United Kingdom
The nature of the specific minorities and World Access to Higher Education
or disadvantaged majority is defined Day (WAHED).
by the social, economic and political
1 The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) is an intergovernmental process established in 1996 to foster dialogue
and cooperation between Asia and Europe. ASEM addresses political, economic, financial, social, cultural, and
educational issues of common interest in a spirit of mutual resepect and equal partnership. ASEM brings together
30 European countries, the European Union, 21 Asian countries and the ASEAN Secretariat.
https://www.aseminfoboard.org
4 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20210 Executive Summary
0.2 Key Findings
In all countries higher education equity There is some form of additional
features in government produced financial support available for students
higher education policy documents. from equity target groups identified
by 47 of the 51 respondents who
Less than a third of countries – 30%, participated in the study.2 The most
have a specific higher education equity common form of support offered
strategy with 6 from Europe and 7 though is some form of scholarship
from Asia. which is only available to certain
cohorts or any equity target group and
There are 8 countries with equitable usually the most able.
access and success plans/
performance agreements. Almost all – over 90%, of countries
consult with higher education
The most common equity target associations in the formation of
groups are lower income/socio- equitable access/success policy but
economic background students and less than half consult with civic society
students with disabilities. organisations.
There are 28 countries where at least Inter-governmental/international
6 different equity target groups are organisations should focus on policy
identified. setting and facilitating peer learning/
exchange of experience if they want to
Only 34% of countries have specific maximise the support they can offer
targets related to the access and in formulating effective policy in this
success in higher education of equity area.
target groups.
In 84% of countries COVID-19 has had
Despite students with disabilities a significant impact on policies related
being a priority group in every country to equitable access and success.
in the survey, only 3 countries have
targets for such students.
Over two-thirds – 68% of countries are
supporting non-monetary equitable
access/success instruments of which
the most common are preferential
admission arrangements followed by
national outreach programmes.
2 For Belgium, two survey responses were submitted by both the French community (Ministry of Wallonia
Brussels Federation) and the Flemish Community (Ministry of Education and Training). For the United Kingdom,
the four nations England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were included as separate entities given that
each has its own different approach to equitable access/success in higher education.
5 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20210 Executive Summary
0.3 Summary
Equitable access/success in higher to identify what policy commitments
education is recognized as a universal really mean and where they are
issue across the 47 ASEM countries supported by real investment and
which participated in ths study. effort and where this is less so.
However, a detailed focus on the issue
via specific policy documents related International dialogue and
to the issue or targets that relate to collaboration can have a vital role
access or success in higher education here in taking this work forward.
for particular target groups is far from There are a network of organisations/
universal. groups who working with national
governments are able to assist in this
Fortunately, there are some excellent further work including the Asia-Europe
examples, drawn from both Asia and Foundation (ASEF), World Access to
Europe, of what more well developed Higher Education Day (WAHED) and the
policy approaches in this field look European Commission Working Group
like and a recognition of the value on the Social Dimension.
of international dialogue to form
relationships of mutual support which As we hopefully take the tentative
can enable countries to construct steps across two continents to emerge
approaches that work in their own from the shadow of the pandemic it
particular context. These examples are is vital this work is done. The risk is
drawn from countries of differing sizes that the post-pandemic period will
and income levels. There is a need see existing inequalities in access/
for further work to assist countries success in higher education only
from across the income/participation worsen. There is the opportunity to
spectrum in developing policies in this avoid this but to do so action must be
area but the foundations are there taken now.
6 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021Executive Summary
Recommendations for ASEM governments and ministries
1
The production of specific strategies
to address equitable access/success
in higher education should be explored
with clear progress targets learning
from established practices in other
Asian and European countries.
2
Schools and teaching unions should
be more closely involved in the
development of equitable access/
success policies.
3
Monitoring/evaluation and data
collection needs to be built into the
development of equitable access/
success polices and the production of
international standards and practices
in the field explored.
4
Non-monetary instruments and
outreach work should be extended
via pilot work led at the national/
institutional level.
5
A suitable ASEM platform and forum to
share practice and policy development
in equitable access/success amongst
policymakers should be established
in partnership with appropriate inter-
governmental/international bodies.
6
Progress in the development of
effective equitable access/success in
higher education policies should be
reported on bi-annually via a Higher
Education Policy Study report, to be
presented at ASEM Senior Officials
Meetings and ASEM Education
Ministerial Meetings.
7 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20218 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021
1 Introduction
As economies across Asia and Europe examines what approaches are being
seek to recover from the ongoing taken by governments in Asia and
impact of the pandemic, it will be Europe to meeting thus challenge. The
increasingly important to ensure that geographical focus is on countries
higher education participation is open within the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM)
to those from all social backgrounds. constituency. It draws upon a large
The pandemic has accelerated survey of national policies focused
shifts from low skill to higher skill on equitable access and success
employment and made the attributes across the two continents examining
that higher education graduates what strategies are in place, where
develop increasingly important to targets exist and how they are being
society. However, enabling those from measured and whether COVID-19 has
equity target groups to enter higher impacted on this work.
education is challenging.3 This report
3 McKinsey Global Institute (2021) The future of work after COVID-19 - https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-
insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-after-covid-19
9 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20212 Equitable access and success in Higher Education
The purpose of this study is to are doing in this area. However, it
examine the policies adopted by 47 is equitable access and success
ASEM countries regarding equitable which is the focus of this research
access to and success in higher project because the evidence shows
education as opposed to access clearly that participation by those with
overall. Access to higher education different characteristics/backgrounds
refers to participation by students from is unequal across every country in
all backgrounds. Equitable access Asia and Europe.4 The extent of this
refers to participation by students who inequality differs across the two
are either in the minority in a particular continents and overall participation in
country or come from a ‘disadvantaged higher education is generally lower in
majority’ who on average earn less/ Asia.5
experience greater social/economic
challenges than a minority population. This study will build on previous work
The nature of the specific minorities that has been undertaken as part of
or disadvantaged majority is defined the World Access to Higher Education
by the social, economic and political Day (WAHED) initiative examining the
context of a particular country. policy approaches taken by different
These groups are usually (although countries to addressing inequalities
not exclusively) drawn from one of in access and success in higher
more of the following categories: a education. The ‘All around the world:
low income/socio-economic group, Higher Education Equity Policies
students belonging to ethnic and across the globe’ study covered over
religious minority backgrounds, female 70 countries across the world looking
students, students with disablities, at whether policy commitments were in
students belonging to sexual or gender place, details regarding how any such
minorities, older students or those commitments would be delivered and
from rural backgrounds. information on how progress in terms
of promoting equitable access and
As will be evident in the results success was assessed.6 It resulted
outlined below this distinction in a final report and an interactive
between equitable access/success ‘global equity access map’ which can
and access/success overall is not be found on the WAHED website at
always clear in what differing countries https://worldaccesshe.com/.
4 Atherton, G, Whitty, G & Dumangane, C (2018) Charting Equity in Higher Education: Drawing the Global Access
Map, Pearson: London – see https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/
about-pearson/innovation/Charting-Equity_WEB.pdf
5 ASEF (2021) ARC8 Outlook Report 2030: Inclusive and Diverse Higher Education in Asia and Europe
6 Salmi, J. (2018) All around the world: Higher Education Equity Policies across the globe – Lumina Foundation -
https://worldaccesshe.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/All-around-the-world-Higher-education-equity-policies-
across-the-globe-FINAL-COPY-2.pdf
10 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021The study found that the large majority related to higher education equity
of countries refer to equitable access and only 32% have defined targets
or success in their higher education where equitable access/success is
policy documents. However, only a concerned. The Salmi (2018) study
very small majority – just over 10%, included 15 countries from Europe and
have a specific policy document 16 countries from Asia.
11 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20213 Methodology
A total of 47 ASEM countries In Appendix 1 the ASEM countries
responded to a request to complete which participated in the study are
an online questionnaire which looked listed. For each country, an individual
at what policy commitments in relation Country Brief was developed, which
to equitable access and success exist, is available on the WAHED website
how they are implemented, targets (https://worldaccesshe.com/research/
with relation to equitable access/ higher-education-equity-policies/). The
success and their measurement and questionnaire used can be found in
the impact of COVID-19 on progress Appendix 2.
in making higher education more
equitable. The survey was sent to In the rest of this report the responses
national ministries with responsibility from the 47 ASEM countries will be
for higher education and experts examined looking first at whether
in equitable access/success in policies are in place to support
higher education over the period equitable access/success and who
September 2020 and July 2021 by they are targeted at. It then outlines
the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF). the extent to which there are specific
For Belgium, two survey responses policy documents which focus on
were submitted by both the French equitable access/success, specific
community (Ministry of Wallonia policy targets and how progress is
Brussels Federation) and the Flemish measured. Finally, the engagement
Community (Ministry of Education and of different stakeholder groups in the
Training). For the United Kingdom, the formation of policy and the impact of
four nations England, Scotland, Wales the pandemic are considered.
and Northern Ireland were included as
separate entities given that each has
its own different approach to equitable
access/success in higher education.
The data was analysed and the report
written by Professor Graeme Atherton,
Director of the National Education
Opportunities Network (NEON) in the
United Kingdom and World Access to
Higher Education Day (WAHED).
12 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20214 Are policies in place and who are they targeted at?
4.1 Coverage in government policy documents
Equitable access/success in higher – Enhancing equal access to university
education features somewhere in education in terms of socioeconomic
government higher education policy and demographic characteristics
documents where every country in
the survey is concerned. Given the – Making university education
diversity of the 47 ASEM countries affordable for all qualified students
included in this study in terms of their
size and nature of their educational – Sizeable government budget for
systems the fact that in all of them need-based scholarship
inequalities in participation and
progress in higher education is seen – Financial aids, grants for meritorious
as an issue is an important finding. It students from poor families.
shows that this is an issue that unifies
both Asian and European countries In Malaysia and its 2015-2025 Higher
and provides the foundation for further Education Blueprint equity is one of
action at both the individual country its 5 aspirations and it includes a
and regional levels. commitment to reduce achievement
gaps in terms of urban-rural, socio-
How equitable access/success economic background and gender by
features in different policy documents 50%.
does differ greatly across countries
though as does the type of document In France in contrast higher education
they feature in. Broadly speaking systems have a role in combating
it features either in a legal decree wider social and economic inequalities
which frames the nature of the higher as stated in the Education Code, and
education system and in particular thus is positioned as part of a wider
its responsibilities with regard to societal commitment to addressing
discrimination/support for particular inequality. In other countries such
minority groups or in a wider plan that as Indonesia, Mongolia, Romania
has been established to orientate and Spain, a form of commitment to
the future development of the higher equity is positioned with ministerial
education system. For example, in the decrees or higher education law
Bangladesh Strategic Plan for Higher and associated as well with anti-
Education 2018-2030 the following discriminatory practice. This brief
objectives are specified: overview of a selected group
of countries shows that quite
contrasting countries can have some
commonalities in their approach to
this issues and countries which may
appear to have broad similarities can
also diverge in their approach.
13 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20214 Are policies in place and who are they targeted at?
4.2 Equitable Access/Success Target Groups
However, while there may be evidence Within the countries included in the
of some form or recognition of survey there are some differences
equitable access/success as an between respondents in terms of the
issue, in keeping with the findings of number of target groups prioritised.
the Salmi (2018) report, countries
then take differing, individual paths As Diagram 2 shows, there are a small
in terms of their commitment to number of respondents that identify
addressing this form of inequality over 10 priority groups. The remainder
and how this commitment manifests of respondents nearly equally identify
itself. Diagram shows the extent to 1-5 and 6-10 groups as policy
which differing groups are identified in priorities. The number of countries
government policy documents. identified does not necessarily imply
a greater practical commitment.
The diagram shows that not all Specifying actual equitable access/
countries prioritise all equity groups, success targets and having in place
as well as illustrating the range of an actual specific higher education
equity groups that exist. Students from equity policy document are of greater
lower income/lower socio-economic importance. These first two diagrams
backgrounds alongside disabled do show though the range of different,
students are the groups who appear contrasting target groups that are
to be common across virtually every encompassed by equitable access/
country but even here there will be success policy and practice and
significant differences in how these hence the scale of the challenge that
students are defined. Where socio- policymakers are setting themselves.
economic background is concerned in
particular, research has shown that
this can be measured through a range
of mechanisms including parental
occupation, household income or via
eligibility for state benefits.7
7 Atherton et al (2018)
14 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021Diagram 1
Equitable Access/Success Target Groups
Children of people affected by 5
historical violence
Students with disabilities 49
Gender groups 27
Indigenous populations 25
Low-income or lower socio-economic 50
background students
Members of the LGBT community 10
Older or mature learners 26
Other groups under-represented in HE 10
People from rural backgrounds 23
Refugees of all kinds (internally and 25
externally displaced; deported)
Students with care experience, 24
orphans, youth without parental care
Victims of sexual and gender violence 10
Diagram 2
No of target groups
1 to 5 22
6 to 10 25
10+ 4
15 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20214 Are policies in place and who are they targeted at?
4.3 Specific equity policy documents
Making access and success in which participated in the survey 13
higher education equitable is a major have a specific higher education equity
challenge. As illustrated in section strategy with 6 coming from Europe
2 no country in the world appears to and 7 from Asia (this is a higher %
have achieved it and it is complex of countries than found in the 2018
challenge involving groups with quite Salmi study however). These countries
differing characteristics. In this are listed below:
context, a specific set of policies that
builds on legal frameworks or higher Australia, Austria, Belgium, China,
education sector strategies may be Croatia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Korea,
needed. The existence of a separate Lao PDR, Malaysia, New Zealand,
strategy therefore, could in principle Romania, United Kingdom (England,
be seen as welcome. However, it Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales).
does not on its own guarantee that
progress will be made, nor does its Not all these strategies are equally
absence necessarily imply a lack detailed and comprehensive. Austria,
of commitment to making higher Croatia and Ireland have particularly
education participation more equal. well-developed strategy documents. In
Countries such as Bangladesh, the Australia and the nations of the United
Czech Republic, France, Malaysia, Kingdom there is a significant amount
New Zealand and Romania have made of work being undertaken with regard
clear expressions of commitment to equitable access/success and
via broader higher education policy different forms of strategic approaches
documents and do not have a specific exist. Whilst in the remaining countries
equity policy document. In Finland and there is evidence of distinct policy
Norway equity in higher education is commitments additional to what
seen as something integrated into all may be stated in national higher
aspects of higher education policy and education strategies/legal frameworks
practice thus a separate strategy is the evidence provided through the
not needed. responses to the survey as regard to
the nature of these commitments is
Nevertheless, specific policies may less detailed.
play an important role here. They
create a focus on this issue and a In order to understand better what a
mechanism of levering in commitment national strategy focused specifically
from policymakers and in particular on equitable access/success in higher
higher education providers. education may include then in Box 1
the Austrian ‘National Strategy on the
But this survey has found, as did Social Dimension of Higher Education
the Salmi (2018) report that only a Strategy’ is outlined.
minority of countries have such a
strategy. Of the 47 ASEM countries
16 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021Box 1
Equitable Access/Success strategy in Austria
The ‘National Strategy on the Social Dimension of Higher Education’ was launched
in 2017. It was developed over a two year period utilising data from the 2015
national student social survey which collected information on the background
of students and their progress through higher education and through a process
of workshops and consultation with a range of key stakeholders. Three ‘target
dimensions each underpinned by three goals as described below:
Target
Dimension I More inclusive access
Improve quality and accessibility of information materials
Outreach activities and diversity-sensitive course guidance
Recognition and validation of non-formal and informal skills.
Target
Dimension II Avoiding drop-out and improving academic success
Ease entry into higher education
Structure of study programmes and quality of teaching
Increase compatibility of studies with other areas of life
Target
Dimension III Creating basic parameters and optimizing the regulation of
higher education policy
System-related issues in higher education
Integrate the social dimension into strategic planning for higher
education and create appropriate governance structures
Further develop the Student Support Scheme
The strategy is delivered via performance agreements between the Federal
Ministry and each of the 22 public universities. To ensure the implementation of
measures outlined in the agreements the federal minister can retain up to 0.5% of
a university’s overall budget. There is an interim evaluation of the national strategy
planned for 2021 and a final evaluation for 2025.
17 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20214 Are policies in place and who are they targeted at?
4.4.1 Equity policy targets
Along with a specific policy focused Amongst the countries with targets,
on equitable access/success the majority of these focus on
another expression of strong policy addressing inequalities in access/
commitment would be specific success related to ethnicity, gender
targets related to the participation and socio-economic group. Where
of particular priority groups in higher gender is concerned in two countries
education and/or their attainment – France and Germany targets are
in higher education or progression in place related to the participation
afterwards. As Diagram 3 shows, of of female students entering science
the 51 responses to the survey only related subjects. It is noticeable
16 indicated the existence of such though that despite students with
targets. disability being a priority group in every
country in the survey, only 3 countries
have targets for such students.
18 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021Diagram 3
Number of respondents who have/do not have equity
policy targets
Yes 16
No 35
19 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20214 Are policies in place and who are they targeted at?
4.4.2 Equitable access and success plans/performance
agreements
A small number of countries with a arrangement. Of the countries with
strong focus on equitable access/ such plans – 6 are from Europe with
success in higher education have the 4 nations from the United Kingdom
introduced plans/performance and the others are Austria and Croatia
agreements specifically in this area. and 2 are from Asia being Australia
There are 8 countries who have such and New Zealand. Box 2 describes
agreements and Finland is working how the Access and Participation (APP)
toward the development of such system in England works.
20 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021Box 2
Access and Participation Plans in England
Access and participation plans set out how higher education institutions will
improve equality of opportunity for underrepresented groups to access, succeed in
and progress from higher education. They include:
– the institution’s ambition for change
– what it plans to do to achieve that change
– the targets it has set
– the investment it will make to deliver the plan.
They are monitored by the Office for Students (OfS) which is the body that
oversees and regulates higher education in England. The role of the Ofs is to make
sure that the providers honour the commitments they make to students in these
plans, and take action if they do not. If providers want to charge a tuition fee over
£6000 per year, their plans must be approved by the Director for Fair Access and
Participation who works for the OfS. A plan is submitted for a 5 year period.
The activities in the plan will include both what are described in this report below
as ‘non-monetary’ and ‘monetary instruments’ i.e. any preferential admission
arrangements for specific equity groups, outreach work and scholarship
programmes. The plans include not just work to support greater entry into higher
education for target groups but also to enable them to achieve their potential
in higher education. A key part of the plan is evidence of strategic commitment
to equitable access/success from the higher education institution. This means
showing that this work is built into the planning structures of the institution and
responsibility for targets in the plan are held at senior management level.
The plan must include quantitative targets to address the individual challenges
of the institution showing how many more students they will admit each year
from target groups. Activities both monetary and non monetary are funded by the
institution itself from the fee income it receives.
21 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 202122 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021
5 How are policy objectives achieved?
There are a number of ways in which attainment and provide them with
policy targets in the field of equitable careers/higher education progression
access/success can be achieved, but advice. Also included in this category
a demarcation that has been used of work are special considerations/
effectively in previous international pathways for students from priority
research studies is between ‘non- groups to progress to higher
monetary’ and ‘financial’ instruments.8 education. Financial instruments
Non-monetary instruments include included bursaries, scholarships and
outreach work where higher education loans which are provided for specific
institutions work with students from priority groups.
equity priority groups to support their
8 Herbaut, E & Koen, G (2019) What Works to Reduce Inequalities in Higher Education? A Systematic Review of
the (Quasi-Experimental Literature on Outreach and Financial Aid, Policy Research Working Paper World Bank
23 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021Diagram 4
Non-monetary equitable access/success instruments
Yes 34
No 17
Diagram 5
Non-monetary equitable access/success instruments
Special institutions 2
Bridging programmes 4
Specific pathways 2
Preferential admission 19
Outreach programmes 15
24 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20215 How are policy objectives achieved?
5.1 Non-monetary instruments
As Diagram 4 shows for two-third of study places will be filled on the
respondents their higher education basis of matriculation grades, and
institutions are engaged in systematic in universities of applied sciences
work of a non-monetary nature or on the basis of matriculation grades
such programmes are funded by and vocational upper secondary
central government and delivered on a qualification. Selection based on
national basis. common marks obtained from the
selection test and the grades will be
The nature of the non-monetary abandoned.
activities undertaken are illustrated
in Diagram 5. Some respondents Russian Federation
indicated more than one activity. According to paragraph 2 of article
34 of the Federal Law „On Education
As can be seen the most frequent in the Russian Federation“ special
practice pursued by different rights in admission to higher education
governments is some form of institutions are granted to the
preferential admission arrangement following groups of persons: orphans
for priority groups which includes a and children left without parental care,
set quota for entrance by one specific children with disabilities, people with
group. Examples of how preferential disabilities, citizens under the age of
admissions work in practice are twenty who have only one parent with
outlined below: disabilities and with a low income,
children of military personnel who died
Ireland in the line of their military service,
Separate admission schemes for military veterans, participants in
students with disabilities (Disability military operations.
Access Route to Education, DARE)
and for school-leavers from socio- Thailand
economically disadvantaged A quota for ethnic and local students
backgrounds (Higher Education Access exists among certain public and
Route, HEAR) exist. HEAR and DARE autonomous higher education
are joint initiatives agreed between institutions.
the higher education institutions
themselves and originally seed funded Outreach activities are relatively
by the government but are now funded frequent where the kind of non-
by the higher education instututions. monetary instruments implementd
They offer places in higher education are concerned but still only taken
at lower entry requirements to eligible forward by a minority of respondents.
students. When delivered consistently over time
evidence shows that outreach work
Finland can have a real impact on equitable
From 2020, more than half of the access to higher education.9 In some
9 Herbaut & Koen (2019)
25 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021countries, for example Sweden and aims to develop the academic
also the nations of the United Kingdom ambitions of middle and high school
the higher education institutions students and broaden their horizons,
themselves have the primary introducing them to the diversity of
responsibility for undertaking (although possible paths to higher education.
in the UK there are also centrally The scheme is targeted at students
funded outreach programmes). attending secondary schools in urban
Outlined below are 5 examples of how underprivileged neighbourhoods
governments are supporting coherent, or isolated rural areas, as well as
targeted outreach programmes at the vocational secondary school students.
national level. It is based on partnerships between
higher education institutions and
Australia secondary schools. The aim is to
The Higher Education Partnership provide comprehensive support
and Policy Programme (HEPP) including support social and cultural
was introduced in 2011. It now outreach and tutoring/mentoring
provides funding to universities actions on the other. There is a
to increase the participation of continuum of support starting for
domestic students from low socio- 13-year-olds and up to their entry to
economic backgrounds in accredited higher education, with the objective to
undergraduate qualifications, and making guidance support a real lever
support the retention and success of for equal opportunities.
those students. Funding is allocated
to universities by formula, based Malaysia
on the number of students from The MOHE hold a series of tours
low SES backgrounds enrolled at throughout the country working with
each university. In the wake of the HEIs to disseminate information on,
pandemic, in late 2020 the Australian higher education opportunities in
Parliament passed the legislation for HEIs and other agencies related to
the Job-ready Graduates Package. higher education; admission to higher
As part of the Job-ready Graduates education nationwide and procedures
package, from 2021 the HEPPP has and requirement for program
been refocused to support students admission offered by the HEIs and
who are from regional Australia, programmes intake policy by HEIs.
remote Australia, Aboriginal and/or
Torres Strait Islander backgrounds and Romania
from low socio-economic backgrounds. The Ministry of Education and
Research carries out the Romania
Secondary Education Project (ROSE)
France Project, in which students at risk
The „cord for success“ scheme take part in university activities, by
26 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021attending summer schools organized innovative study opportunities and
at different universities in the country. learning pathways to higher education.
Students can participate in workshops, Three regional Reaching Wider
study visits, sports competitions Partnerships lead activities in North
and cultural events directly related and Mid Wales, South West Wales
university life over a two/three week and South East Wales. All higher
period. The ROSE project is worth a and further education institutions in
total of 200 million euros. Wales are members of Reaching Wider
Partnerships. Other regional partners
United Kingdom/Wales vary, but include local authorities,
Established in 2002/03 as a employers, schools, the voluntary
Wales-wide, collaborative, long-term sector and Careers Wales.
programme to widen access to higher It is also notable that in two countries
education and higher-level skills, the – China and New Zealand there are
Reaching Wider Programme aims to special higher education institutions
increase higher education participation that have been created to cater for
from priority groups and communities specific ethnic groups.
in Wales by raising educational
aspirations and skills, and creating
27 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20215 How are policy objectives achieved?
5.2 Financial Instruments
Of the 51 respondents 48 described provide additional funding for higher
some form of financial support for education institutions to undertake
students from equity priority groups. activities such as outreach with
As with non-monetary instruments, students from equity groups whilst
each country has its own individual Germany, as well as having no
approach and some offer more than students tuition fees, provides a
one form of financial assistance. In range of grant/loan support. There
Diagram 6, the frequency of different are examples of financial support
forms of support is outlined. Some offered by Asian nations provided by
respondents described more than one respondents though with Korea for
form of financial support. example offering scholarships for low
income students which enable them
Scholarships are by far the most to also work whilst studying, study
common form of financial support abroad and pursue particular subject
offered. These scholarships are disciplines.
offered mainly to low income students
and those with disabilities and Financial instruments to support
less commonly those from specific equitable access/success need to
ethnic groups including refugees. be seen in a context where the cost
The scholarships can be attached to of higher education differs hugely
performance thus being available for across Asia and Europe ranging from
the most able students e.g. in Cyprus, countries where tuition is free to the
Czech Republic and the Russian most expensive on average country
Federation. in the world (England). Addressing
financial barriers to progression is
Less frequently provided forms of a necessary, but not on its own a
support are grants and loans which sufficient approach to promoting
can support students in either equitable access/success. Any form
paying student tuition fees or their of financial assistance is welcome for
living costs with less than a third students from equity priority groups
of countries offering grants and but performance based scholarships
only just over 20% loans. The most will inevitably favour only a certain
comprehensive packages of support proportion of any cohort and miss out
are found in Europe with Belgium, others. They need to sit alongside the
France and Hungary offering support wider provision of financial support in
for students with housing costs. the form of grants/loans.
Ireland, France and Romania also
28 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021Diagram 6
Different forms of financial support offered to students
Scholarships 30
Grants 17
Loans 13
29 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 202130 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021
6 How does policy formation work?
Addressing inequalities in access/ As was discussed above a minority,
success in higher education is around a third, of countries
inherently a multi stakeholder effort. are working with international
It requires work partnership between organisations. Respondents were also
schools, higher education institutions, asked about how such organisations
insights from students and civil could play a greater role in supporting
society organisations have a key role the development of equitable access/
to play engaging with different priority success policies. This study adds
groups. As Diagram 7 shows there is to the growing amount of evidence
a considerable amount of engagement that points to equitable access
from different stakeholders in how and success in higher education
policies are formed across Asia and being a challenge that is shared
Europe. across countries and one that is
achieving increasing attention from
Virtually all countries engage with policymakers. As in other parts of the
their Higher Education Institution higher education field international
associations, and a large majority dialogue and sharing of knowledge/
(around two thirds) with student practice can play an important role
organisations. This engagement with in enabling individual countries to
students is also relatively evenly split better utilise the resources they have
across the two continents. Private to address the issue. Diagram 8
sector organisations seem to be outlines 4 areas in which respondents
engaged in more countries than those were asked to rank in terms of how
from civil society and only a minority valuable they thought the contribution
work with international organisations of inter-governmental/international
on policy formulation. Only 2 countries organisations could be from 4 (most
mentioned working with unions and valuable) to 1 (least valuable). It
one only with schools. There may shows that respondents perceive
be considerable potential to extend policy setting to be the area where
engagement with these groups given inter-governmental/international
that they have such an important organisations have the greatest role
role to play in supporting students to to play. However, the combined rank
progress to higher education. Overall, scores across the 4 areas are within
further work would be valuable to a fairly close range. This shows that
explore in more detail how these to some extent these organisations
different stakeholders are engaged can support different countries in
in policy formation across different each of these areas dependent on
countries and the added value such the particular circumstances of that
engagement brings. country.
31 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021Diagram 7
Stakeholder engagement in policy formation
International associations 16
Civil Society organisations 23
Private sector organisations 31
Student associations 38
Higher Education Institutions 48
Associations
Diagram 8
Role of inter-governmental/international organisations in
supporting equitable access/success
Area of contribution Combined score across all countries
(4 most valuable to 1 least valuable)
Policy setting 128
Facilitating peer learning/exchange of 117
experience across countries
Financial assistance/grants/loan 109
financing/scholarships
Technical assistance and capacity 93
building
32 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20217 How is progress measured?
Putting in place systems to capture The monitoring of progress in this area
the progress being made in enabling is a challenge in many countries for
equitable access/success and the reasons outlined above but unless
also the impact of differing policy impact can be established then it will
interventions is vital. However, be difficult to secure further resources
previous work has shown that such and policy commitments. There is a
data collection systems can take potential role for inter-governmental/
significant time and resource to international organisations to
develop and for cultural or legal support the policy setting/exchange
reasons it is very difficult in some of practice highlighted above in this
countries to collect information on area. Countries could benefit from
the progression into/through higher learning more about how others are
education for particular equity building evaluation into specific policy
priority groups.10 As Diagram 9 initiatives and also collecting data
shows the majority of respondents on the progress into and through
are undertaking activities related higher education of equity priority
to the systematic collection of data groups within resource and cultural
on students progressing into higher constraints.
education but only a minority are
collecting such information with regard
to priority equity groups.
10 Atherton et al (2018)
33 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021Diagram 9
Monitoring of equitable access/success and data
collection
Data collected on students from 15
priority equity groups
Data collected on all students 36
34 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 20218 What has the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic been on
policies related to equitable access and success?
The pandemic has had a seismic and a COVID-19 grant to support
impact on higher education across disadvantaged students in accessing
the world, but it has borne down ICT devices.
particularly on those students from
minority or disadvantaged majority New Zealand
backgrounds.11 Of the 51 respondents In response to the COVID-19
only 8 felt that it had not had a pandemic, and its impact on Pacific
significant impact on such students learners, the Ministry of Education
and in 3 cases they were still awaiting established the Pacific Education
data to be collected to establish the Support Fund and the Pacific
nature of this impact. The answers Education Innovation Fund. The
to this question focused in particular Support Fund aims to help fund
on the need to support students from community providers, groups, and
equity priority groups in terms of digital organisations that help learners, and
access to teaching/learning resources their families, meet education and
and also providing additional financial wellbeing needs arising from, and/
resources. or exacerbated by COVID-19. The
A number of respondents described Innovation Fund provides targeted
activities which were undertaken funding to support innovative practices
to support students affected by that support Pacific learners’ wellbeing
the pandemic to progress to higher and curriculum needs, where they
education or succeed/complete their have been impacted by COVID-19. The
studies. Examples of such activities Innovation Fund is open to educators,
are described below: places of learning, community groups,
providers, researchers and academics.
Ireland
In response to the COVID-19 Vietnam
pandemic, the Government announced Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
a €168 million once-off support two periods of university entrance
package for higher education examinations were established. The
institutions and students in July 2020. exams in those areas affected by the
This funding included a doubling of the pandemic were also conducted later
Student Assistance Fund which is the compared to that in the other areas
money allocated for students who are across the country as were enrolment
experiencing financial difficulties when and admissions at universities.
studying; a COVID-19 Contingency
Fund to enhance the delivery of The pandemic is still exerting a huge
access and support services for influence on higher education, but
vulnerable students from target groups this influence will one day abate.
11 Atherton, G (2020) University Access, Student Success and COVID-19 in a Global Context, London: Sutton Trust
- https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Covid-and-Global-University-Access.pdf
35 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021What is crucial looking forward are they need to act as a platform for an
the implications of the pandemic enhanced commitment to equity in
for equitable access/success over higher education and a permanent
the next decade. The activities recognition of the challenges priority
described earlier were important but groups face.
36 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 202137 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021
9 Key Findings
In all countries higher education equity There is some form of additional
features in government produced financial support available for students
higher education policy documents. from equity target groups identified
by 47 of the 51 respondents who
Less than a third of countries – 30% participated in the study. The most
have specific higher education equity common form of support offered
strategy with 6 from Europe and 7 though is a scholarship which is only
from Asia. available to certain cohorts or any
equity target group and usually the
There are 8 countries with equitable most able.
access and success plans/
performance agreements. Almost all – over 90% of countries
consult with higher education
The most common equity target associations in the formation of
groups are lower income/socio- equitable access/success policy but
economic background students and less than half consult with civic society
students with disabilities. organisations.
There are 28 countries where at least Inter-governmental/international
6 different equity target groups are organisations should focus on policy
identified. setting and facilitating peer learning/
exchange of experience if they want to
Only 34% of countries have specific maximise the support they can offer
targets related to the access and in formulating effective policy in this
success in higher education of equity area.
target groups.
In 84% of countries COVID-19 has had
Over two-thirds – 68% of countries are a significant impact on policies related
supporting non-monetary equitable to equitable access and success.
access/success instruments of which
the most common are preferential
admission arrangements followed by
national outreach programmes.
38 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 202110 Summary
Equitable access/success in higher participation that can afford to develop
education is recognized as a universal coherent policy approaches focussed
issue across the 47 ASEM countries on equitable access/success. There
who participated in this study. are examples of smaller countries
However, a detailed focus on the issue from different income brackets who
via specific policy documents related have placed policy focus on this
to the issue or targets that relate to issue. There is a need for further
access or success in higher education work to assist countries from across
for particular target groups is far from the income/participation spectrum
universal. Similarly, while virtually every in developing policies in this area
country has some form of additional but the foundations are there which
financial support in place for equity can be built on through dialogue and
groups only a minority are pursuing collaboration.
the use of non-monetary instruments
in a systematic way. The study shows Further work is required, though
the complexity of the challenge that is substantial in nature and is not
policymakers face with every country confined to a focus on a particular
prioritising at least 2 target groups sub-set of countries from Asia or
and the majority at least 5. To make Europe. As Salmi (2018) indicated in
a significant difference implementing his study, and his follow up research in
non-discrimination legislation and 2019 which took a more detailed look
funding a scholarship programme are at policy/practice in a small number of
unlikely to be sufficient. countries, establishing the evidence
base which can point to which policies
Fortunately, there are some excellent deliver the most impact for investment
examples of what more well developed is a major challenge. It is vital as
policy approaches in this field look Salmi argued as well that we look
like and a recognition of the value to identify what policy commitments
of international dialogue to form really mean and identify where they
relationships of mutual support which are supported by real investment
can enable countries to construct and effort and where this is less so.
approaches that work in their own This study provides the platform for
particular context. These examples this work though. There are networks
are drawn from both Asia and Europe. of organisations/groups that work
It is a fact that participation in higher with national governments and are
education per head of the population able to lead this further, including
is on average higher in Europe and the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF),
a significant number of European World Access to Higher Education
countries are able to fund higher Day (WAHED) and the European
education well. However, this does not Commission Working Group on the
mean that it is only richer countries or Social Dimension.
countries with a high higher education
39 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021As we hopefully take the tentative see existing inequalities in access/
steps across two continents to emerge success in higher education only
from the shadow of the pandemic it worsen. There is the opportunity to
is vital this work is done. The risk is avoid this, but to do so action must be
that the post-pandemic period will taken now.
Recommendations
1. 4.
ASEM countries should explore the Non-monetary instruments and
production of specific strategies to outreach work should be extended
address equitable access/success in via pilot work led at the national/
higher education with clear progress institutional level.
targets learning from established
practices in other Asian and European 5.
nations. A suitable ASEM platform/forum to
share practice and policy development
2. in equitable access/success amongst
Schools and teaching unions should policymakers should established in
be more closely involved in the partnership with appropriate inter-
development of equitable access/ governmental/international bodies.
success policies.
6.
3. Progress in the development of
Monitoring/evaluation and data effective equitable access/success in
collection has to be built into the higher education policies should be
development of equitable access/ reported on bi-annually via a Higher
success polices and the production of Education Policy Study report, to be
international standards and practices presented at ASEM Senior Officials
in the field explored. Meetings and ASEM Education
Ministerial Meetings.
40 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021A Appendices
A.1 Participating ASEM countries in the
National Equity Policy Survey12
01 Australia 25 Lithuania
02 Austria 26 Luxembourg
03 Bangladesh 27 Malaysia
04 Belgium13 28 Malta
05 Brunei Darussalam 29 Mongolia
06 Bulgaria 30 Myanmar
07 Cambodia 31 New Zealand
08 China 32 the Netherlands
09 Croatia 33 Norway
10 Cyprus 34 the Philippines
11 Czech Republic 35 Poland
12 Estonia 36 Portugal
13 Finland 37 Romania
14 France 38 Russian Federation
15 Germany 39 Singapore
16 Greece 40 Slovakia
17 Hungary 41 Slovenia
18 Indonesia 42 Spain
19 Ireland 43 Sweden
20 Japan 44 Switzerland
21 Kazakhstan 45 Thailand
22 Korea 46 United Kingdom14
23 Lao PDR 47 Viet Nam
24 Latvia
12 For all countries, responses from the respective Ministry of Education or Higher Education Authority were
received and included except for Bangladesh, Croatia, England, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Northern Ireland, Scotland
and Wales within the timeframe of the survey outreach. For these countries, higher education or other education
institutions provided the survey responses.
13 For Belgium, two survey responses were submitted by both the French community (Ministry of Wallonia
Brussels Federation) and the Flemish Community (Ministry of Education and Training).
14 For the United Kingdom, the four nations England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were included
as separate entities given that each has its own different approach to equitable access/success in higher
education.
41 ASEM National Equity Policies in Higher Education 2021You can also read
