Access, Equity and Capacity in Asia Pacific Higher Education IFE 2020 Leadership Institute

1. Access, Equity and Capacity in Asia Pacific Higher Education IFE 2020 Leadership Institute February 23-March 6, 2009 John Hawkins and Deane Neubauer

2. Exploring Capacity • Common understandings of capacity • Structural problems with measurement • Implications for linking capacity with access and equity considerations • The importance of measurement for planning and quality assurance • All these yield the “dilemma of measuring capacity” • A new capacity paradigm

3. Conventional Understandings of Capacity • Universal law of higher education: the more capacity an institution has, the better it is. • More is better! • The presumption that capacity is a necessary precondition of access • The further presumption that capacity is invariably a precondition of quality

4. Some Further Dimensions of Capacity • Measuring capacity not very sensible without knowing its purposes • Capacity is always capacity for something and exists within politicized contexts • For example capacity and access are always contested terrain--particular interest groups will define access in terms of their specific needs. • E.g. HE administrators define and implicitly measure capacity differently than legislators or governmental administrators

5. Conceptualizing Capacity Measurement • Understandings of capacity co-vary with structural conditions, including demography. Under-capacity, Optimal-capacity, and Over-capacity • These in turn yield notions of “appropriate capacity” for a “given situation” • For HEI’s two results occur: (a) what are they meant to do in response to such situations (e.g. expand, contract, differentiate, change mission) and (b) what resource streams are available for the determination of direction?

6. The Dilemma of Situational Determination • Because capacity is always situationally determined, • its effective measure is always (literally!) a moving target. • What is acceptable capacity within one set of access aspirations will be inadequate in another • Because of this situational uncertainly, HEI’s, accreditation and QA bodies tend to develop measures of capacity based on inputs; institutions and governments seek to increase quality, achieve access and implement equity by managing inputs

7. Making Progress on Capacity Understandings • Ideally we want an understanding of capacity which is dynamic • That is: our understanding of effective capacity can change with respect to: • The institutional purposes to which it is meant to refer, e.g., alignment with access, teaching institutions, research institutions, undergraduate, graduate, professional education, etc. • And, the functional components of institutions within which it is contained, e.g., teaching, research, service, administrative efficiency, etc.

8. Toward a New Capacity Paradigm • A new paradigm would combine the sense of a dynamic notion of capacity with • An understanding of the relative, and differentiated nature of institutional effectiveness • This was the task the Western Association of Schools and Colleges set for itself in developing a new model of US accreditation in 2000.

9. The Paradigmatic Breakthrough • From inputs to a linkage between inputs and outputs • The idea of “core commitments”: institutional capacity and an institution’s concept of educational effectiveness • Central focus on quality • From stipulation to inquiry

10. Variations on Equity and Access in Asian HE • Background • Assumption: nations develop=more access to HE • Post WWII optimistic vision: increased access to HE meant reduction in inequalities • 1970’s cynicism sets in: gap between rich and poor continued to increase • Failure to account for internal and external structural contradictions

11. TYPES OF EQUITY & Equality • EQUALITY OF ACCESS • EQUALITY OF SURVIVAL • EQUALITY OF OUTPUT • EQUALITY OF OUTCOME

12. Income Related Equity • INCOME DISTRIBUTION AND EQUALITY • CAPABILITY POVERTY • FINANCIAL BURDENS ON POOR: FEES AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES

13. Region Related Equity • REGIONAL URBAN-RURAL DISPARITIES • REGIONAL DISPARITY WITHIN COUNTRIES • REASONS FOR REGIONAL DISPARITIES • URBAN POVERTY

14. Socio-Cultural Related Equity • ACCESS AND EQUITY IN EDUCATION FOR ETHNIC MINORITIES • FOR LINGUISTIC GROUPS • FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS • FROM A GENDER PERSPECTIVE • OVERALL ISSUE OF DISPARATE VALUES, BELIEFS, AND AWARENESS • CASTE

15. Structural Responses • Tracking mechanisms • Public-private debate, Neoliberalism as policy • Shadow educational systems one outcome: juku, buxiban, hakwon

16. Some Regional Cases: Cost Issues Who pays, how much, mechanisms for financing HE? “Cost-sharing” now present in most systems But in a context of financial austerity, declining faculty morale, student unrest

17. SUMMARY • Low Cost; State Subsidized: Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam • High Cost; Low State Support: Korea, Philippines • Mid-range Cost; Some State Support: Taiwan, Japan, China • Region-wide: growing tuition, rising costs; privatization; yet, cost-sharing schemes by State

18. Responses • Development • Philanthropy • Alumni development • Private sector partnerships • More transparency for families and students • Will the access gap widen or narrow?