The New Zealand government's fees-free tertiary education scheme, a costly initiative aimed at widening access to higher education, has fallen short of its goals, according to a recent study. The scheme, which offered a year of free tertiary education, has been scrapped in the upcoming budget, sparking debate among students and policymakers. While the decision may be seen as a sensible cost-cutting measure, the study raises important questions about the scheme's effectiveness and the underlying barriers to tertiary education access.
The research, conducted by AUT University, examined the impact of the fees-free scheme on participation, program choice, retention, and completion rates. The findings suggest that the scheme did little to increase tertiary participation, particularly for students from lower-decile schools. Interestingly, the study highlights that many barriers to tertiary study emerge well before students face tuition fees, such as living costs, school achievement, family resources, and information.
One of the key insights from the research is that the fees-free scheme may have had a more significant impact on reducing future debt for students, rather than removing immediate cash barriers to enrollment. This distinction is crucial, as it suggests that the scheme's benefits were more financial than practical for many students. Furthermore, the study found no evidence that the policy encouraged students to pursue bachelor's degrees over certificate or diploma-level study, or improved retention and completion rates.
The implications of these findings are far-reaching. The fees-free scheme, which cost approximately NZ$350 million annually at its peak, may have only influenced the enrollment decisions of around 400 students per cohort. This raises questions about the scheme's value for money and its ability to address the root causes of unequal access to tertiary education.
The study also highlights the importance of addressing barriers to tertiary education earlier in the process. By the time young people are deciding on their tertiary pathways, many inequalities in achievement, family resources, and information have already shaped their choices. A universal tertiary subsidy, such as the fees-free scheme, simply arrives too late to make a significant impact.
In my opinion, the real lesson from the fees-free scheme is that universal fee subsidies are a blunt and expensive tool for widening access to tertiary education. While cost is a significant concern for students and their families, the scheme's failure to address the deeper inequalities in access suggests that a more comprehensive approach is needed. By focusing on earlier interventions and addressing the root causes of inequality, we can create a more equitable and accessible system of tertiary education.
