Tertiary education in the 21st century.

Tertiary education in the 21st century.

 The nature of tertiary education is changing. It has broadened in form, now encompassing not just university education but also a wide TVET offering, as well as flexible learning pathways that include part-time, online and distance learning opportunities, the development of micro-credentials, etc. Moreover, tertiary education has seen a huge upsurge in participation across the globe. Over the past few decades, gross enrolment has doubled worldwide, from 19% in 2000 to 40% in 2020 (UIS data, n.d.), while acknowledging sharp disparities across regions and income levels8 . There has been a particular rise in rates in middle- and low-income countries and among women. Some contributing factors might be increased demand from the middle classes, improved progression rates through primary and secondary, greater wealth and more options for non-traditional students including parttime students and working adults (UNESCO-GEM Report & IIEP, 2017). This upward trend is often referred to as ‘massification’. The rapid growth in higher education was identified as a potential problem as early as the 1970s, when Trow (1973) described the transition of higher education systems from ‘elite’ to ‘mass’ higher education and eventually universal access. According to Trow, this journey of growth came associated with various positive and negative effects. Among the latter, it can impact upon finance, governance, recruitment and selection of students, curriculum and form of instruction and the recruitment, training and socialization of staff.

Fees and financing 

Financing higher education is a perennial issue. When the ICESCR was drafted, higher education was to be made ‘equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education’. Twenty-three years later, the CRC cut the tail from the provision, making ‘higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means’. Despite a duty of non-retrogression in relation to the right to education, higher education fees are actually increasing in many countries. In around one-third of OECD countries and economies with available data, tuition fees for bachelor’s degrees charged by public institutions to national students have increased by at least 20% over the past decade, in real terms (OECD, 2021). On the other hand, 40% of countries consider that they provide some level of free higher education, with well-funded systems offering tuition-free higher education to all (UNESCO IESALC, 2022). In Europe, most countries have offer (or at a very low cost) higher education in public institutions and in many other countries there is a move towards income-contingent, or progressive, fees. One of the most common concerns for many of the respondents to the Global Conversation was the expense of higher education in their country. This was true of both developed and developing countries – ‘university fees are a serious block to equitable access to quality education for the majority of the population which lives in poverty’, was one response, another reported ‘off-putting fees at university level for students from poorer backgrounds’. These costs entail both the up-front fees, to apply, enrol and for tuition, but also the hidden costs of higher education, such as accommodation, food, books and supplies and activities necessary to maintain a healthy life balance (UNESCO, 2022a). The consultative process also revealed that the opportunity cost constitutes an important barrier to access for low-income, female students in the Global South. As tertiary level education increasingly becomes a necessary precursor for a wide array of careers, these findings seem to go against the very heart of the CADE, by maintaining indirect discriminatory practices against vulnerable groups – such as those from low-income backgrounds – but also migrants, refugees and minorities and so forth. If the correct response is to remove tuition fees to level the playing field, according to McCowan (2012) there is little doubt that high fees will represent a disproportionate disincentive to students from low-income backgrounds. Some argue that the removal of all tuition fees can have counterproductive effects too – in countries with limited resources and high levels of inequality, it can be the richer students that maintain access to elite, publicly-funded tertiary education institutions while students with fewer economic resources and weaker academic preparation are left with lower quality, and in many cases, fee-paid tertiary education institutions (Marmolejo, 2015; UNESCO-GEM Report & IIEP, 2017). However, in countries where higher education is free, it is rather the academic requirements that limit their access as wealthier families can afford fee-paying secondary schools to gain access to public universities, while poorer families send their children to lower quality fee-paying universities. 55 years since ratification of the ICESCR, 27 Member States (33% of those that reported) declared that their national higher education system is available free of charge in public universities in the context of the 10th Consultation. However, the definition of free higher education is intricate and would benefit from a consensus on the core criteria that need to be respected for higher education to be considered free (UNESCO, 2022a).

For other countries, free higher education might not be realistic at present. However, it is important that it is made affordable as well as accessible (UNESCO-GEM Report & IIEP, 2017) and that efforts are made to make it progressively free. The CESCR made this distinction in General Comment No. 13 (1999, para. 6), interpreting the requirement of economic accessibility under the 4As framework as meaning ‘affordable’ in the context of levels of education that are not mandated to be free in the international legal framework. Yet, what constitutes affordable higher education requires further explanation to understand what this means in practice (UNESCO, 2022a). Affordability likely means that tuition fees, if they cannot be removed entirely, should be kept minimal taking into account socio-economic circumstances. Needs-based scholarships and income contingent loans can work together with low tuition fees to fix the quality-affordability gap (UNESCO GEM & UNESCO IIEP, 2017). Means-tested targeted support in the form of grants should offer students that are disadvantaged, whether through household income, race, gender or other factors, the financial aid that they need to enter and remain in higher education. An alternative approach is income-targeted free provision, that creates free higher education for some while retaining the principle of charging user fees to those who can afford it, protecting the right of vulnerable students to higher education. This model has been taken up in diverse locations including Chile, Ontario and New Brunswick (Canada), New York (USA), Italy, Japan and South Africa (UNESCO-IESALC, 2022). Higher education institutions require high levels of reliable investment and resources to function and massification in higher education must be carefully balanced with these needs to prevent a decline in quality of public institutions. States should also consider the affordability of living costs, which can be a barrier to access for many students, by implementing measures that ensure there is accommodation, transport and meal options catering to low budgets

Admissions procedures 

Higher education is predicated on a certain level of selectivity. The right to higher education recognizes that not all people will want or be suitable to take up the opportunity (UNESCO, 2022a). When the right to higher education was conceived, its access was limited to those that were thought to have the ‘capacity’ or ‘merit’ to engage in the learning as per article 13(2)(c) of the ICESCR and article 26 of the UDHR, respectively. While such concepts of ‘merit’ and ‘capacity’ are in principle designed to prevent the use of unfair or discriminatory criteria when undergoing the selective process of admission to higher education, their use does not always address the existing social inequalities in between or among social groups.

The use of high school results, rank-in-class measures and standardized high-stakes tests does not compensate for systemic barriers that exist in vulnerable populations. These criteria reflect knowledge already gained, but not the ability to succeed going forward. Simplistic measures of ‘merit’ that rely heavily on test scores and have bias against minorities and students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds create a need for establishments to implement affirmative action to ensure a minimum level of diversity in colleges (Alon & Tienda, 2007). Affirmative action policies can be effective, but also controversial. The SDG-Education 2030 Steering Committee (2020) redefined the term ‘merit’ as ‘the potential to succeed’, making the criteria ‘merit in context’. This entails the diversification of access mechanisms and admission requirements that take into account the contextual variables to which students are exposed. The term ‘capacity’, as found in the ICESCR and the CADE, should be interpreted in a forward-looking manner, and place less emphasis on students’ academic history and more on their ability to take the path of further study. General Comment 13 of the CESCR clarifies that ‘capacity’ is assessed by reference to all of the individual’s expertise and experience. McCowan (2012) goes further, suggesting that capacity should be conflated as a requirement to ‘fulfil the minimum level of preparation’ and suggests that in a system of a right to universal higher education, there should be a place for every learner that is thought to have ‘capacity’. As ‘the potential to succeed’ and ‘capacity’ requires a judgement by a third party, the policy debate remains controversial. During the consultative process, some advocated for higher education to be accessible for all. During the consultative process it was suggested that specific methods to counter issues of equity in admissions procedures, such as training admissions officers in social justice principles and the realities of conscious and unconscious bias and barriers which are pervasive in higher education. Others suggested the development of specific competencies for admissions officers and the improvement of transparency in admissions processes. Several participants reiterated that universities, even private ones, should be considered as State actors due to their close relationship with the State through funding and other factors, thereby holding them accountable to human rights standards. Finally, the introduction of quota policies is a contemporary political issue. Some countries (such as in Brazil and India) reserve seats for underrepresented groups such as ethnic minorities in order to remediate systemic discrimination and improve diversity. While in the recent US Supreme Court decision, race-conscious affirmative action policies were prohibited in college admissions on the grounds of being unconstitutional. These national examples raise questions as to the assumed necessity of selectivity in higher education, and reinforce the notion that increasing the availability of institutions, programmes, courses and spaces will reduce the reliance on selective admissions procedures. By broadening access and addressing the issue of underrepresentation of certain groups, we not only uphold individual rights but also work towards achieving social justice. In the same vein, there is a need to redefine what constitutes capacity in international human rights law to further clarify State obligations and bring principles of inclusion to the fore in tertiary education.

Rights upon entering higher education

 As higher education becomes a reality for students from a wider range of backgrounds and levels of preparation, it is important to reconsider the rights that students have once they enter the higher education system. Mohamedbhai (2014), in describing massification of higher education in Africa, refers to theimportance of ‘equity in success’, finding that increases in enrolment and institutional massification leads to an increase in dropout rates. This could be due to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds finding tuition fees or living expenses unaffordable, or due to students from rural areas or low-income schools being underprepared, or a lack of language proficiency, for example. It is important that discussions around accessibility are balanced with the holistic use of the 4As rights framework. It is not enough that students are offered admission to higher education and that spaces are made available, this Level of education must be accessible on an ongoing basis (with the necessary support and measures for students to continue), acceptable (of quality, meeting the aims of education and with culturally sensitive education) and adaptable (meeting the unique needs of all students). Essack (2012) identifies a number of post-admission strategies that can be employed to ensure that marginalized groups enjoy ‘equity in success’. Orientation and mentoring programmes, counselling and welfare services, monitoring and early alert systems and curriculum and pedagogical interventions to support marginalized learners can aid the translation of equity of access into equity of outcome. Critical to this discussion is the need for more explicitly safeguarding of the right to academic freedom as a key precondition for quality education, and in this regard, quality higher education. This point emerged as an important consideration during the consultative process. This is because academic freedom is an intrinsic part of the right to education, as it protects and promotes free intellectual inquiry and knowledge generation (Shaheed, F., 2023 and General Comment 13, 1999). However, academic freedom remains a principle under constant negotiation, confronted by – among other things – political, cultural, and economic pressures. Under international human rights law, States have obligations to refrain from and protect against violations of academic freedom, support victims, deter future violations, and promote understanding of academic freedom’s benefit to society and democracy. Yet, States and non-state actors may obstruct academic expression and inquiry through violence, legal prosecution, employment actions, surveillance, university closures, and regulations (Scholars at Risk, 2020). Therefore, it is crucial to publicly recognize threats to academic freedom, address violations by assisting victims and holding perpetrators accountable, and promote academic freedom in law (de jure) and practice (de facto) (Scholars at Risk, 2020; see also Kaye, 2020).

Inequalities in tertiary education

 SDG Target 4.3 stipulates that Member States should strive to: ‘By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.’ UIS data shows a huge uptake in tertiary education, with the figure doubling over the last twenty years. However, some regions, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, have had a slower increase in participation rates and in all countries, low-income populations lag behind with 10% access to higher education in 2018 compared with 77% of the higher-income sector in the same year (UNESCOIESALC, 2020). Increasing access to tertiary education must not come at the expense of cementing existing vulnerabilities. One positive conclusion is that massification in some regions has led to increasing equality between men and women. In Sub-Saharan Africa, in 2000, female gross tertiary enrolment ratio (GTER) was 3.58, while male was 5.29. In 2021, female GTER was 7.92, while male GTER was 10.23. Despite a higher percentage point increase for males, this represents an increase of 121% enrolment for females and 93% for males, suggesting that massification is closing the gap for gender inequality, albeit at a rate that should be improved (UIS data, n.d.). Nevertheless, more could be done to encourage women into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects, where they remain woefully underrepresented in all regions. Women also remain underrepresented in leadership and decision-making roles in higher education, as has been noted by the CEDAW in their concluding observations to a number of countries during the last reporting period (UNESCO, 2022a). In the area of research, women tend to publish less than their male counterparts (UNESCO-IESALC, 2021).

Technical and vocational education and training 

University education is just one form of higher education. A strong TVET offering is increasingly becoming an integral part of this level as well, just as it is for secondary education. TVET has the dual purpose of preparing youth for work and continuing professional development, while also regarded as a crucial vehicle for social equity and inclusion (as well as sustainable development) in that it tends, in some countries, to reach parts of the population ordinarily excluded from general education. 

The UNESCO Recommendation concerning Technical and Vocational Education and Training (2015) recommends that States should transform and expand TVET in all its forms to address the diversity of learning and training needs. TVET is also a part of the right to work under article 6 of the ICESCR. There are many different learners that would benefit from the transformation and expansion of TVET in all its forms and it should be more accessible to the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups including marginalized rural and remote populations. However, in terms of inclusivity, countries’ skills development policies have overwhelmingly focused on persons with disabilities. The first consultation on the UNESCO Recommendation concerning Technical and Vocational Education and Training (2015) occurred in 2018-2019. One of the key findings of the report on this consultation is that TVET policies need to be harmonized with other skill policies including foundational literacy skills and numeracy skills, transversal skills and citizenship skills as integral components of TVET, on a par with job-specific skills. Which is both relevant for secondary education and at the tertiary level. In many countries, a patchwork of initiatives and programmes generated by different parts of government individually meet a distinct and worthwhile need, however, there is a lack of overarching policy and political commitment to bring them together in a holistic approach (ILO, 2020). A legal entitlement to lifelong learning opportunities in adulthood that provide training in a variety of skills and combine economic growth, social equity and sustainability priorities should increase the reach and priority given to TVET by governments

Towards a universal right to higher education 

This section has discussed a more generous interpretation of the ‘merit’ and ‘capacity’ thresholds to admissions processes so as to broaden access to higher education. The expansion of the group that is considered eligible for higher education must be matched with the availability of capacities, faculties and resources, including diverse modalities of provision and certification. The international legal framework is inching closer to considering tertiary education a universal right, which will be made possible by diversifying the range of options to include an enhanced TVET offering and ensuring opportunities for learners to take preparatory courses and learn foundational skills so as to meet the minimum level of academic preparation for higher education. This interpretation is in line with an inclusive, lifelong learning approach, that anticipates supporting learners on their journey from early childhood and throughout their school career with an assumption that they can pursue learning in higher education and beyond. A universal right to higher education requires emphasis on the related importance of affordable higher education, with a view to it being progressively free. Affordability has been interpreted as entailing low tuition fees, although more clarity is needed for States to understand their responsibilities in supporting tertiary institutions. Expanding provision without consideration for fees and financing will further entrench divisions in society. The meaning of ‘progressively free’ could be developed further, perhaps even with some time constraints, to put tangible pressure on States to move in the right direction.

 Tertiary education can no longer be thought of as the reserve of the elite population. The opportunity to engage in in-depth study, deep inquiry, critical reflection and intellectual development should be available to all (McCowan, 2012). Inclusive and supportive practices within tertiary education take on heightened importance if learners with a more diverse variety of backgrounds and ability are given opportunities to continue learning at this level. Moreover, as the landscape of higher education evolves, the growing role of for-profit private tertiary education institutions also warrants careful consideration, ensuring that their contributions align with the principles of accessibility, affordability, and inclusivity, thereby fostering a holistic and equitable approach to tertiary education. Enforcing a right to higher education and expanding the TVET offering as part of this right, has the dual advantage of giving individuals the chance to engage in deeper learning, but also help learners succeed in their life post-higher education, providing preparation for an ever-evolving world, and in particular a globalized economy and workforce.