In this paper we discuss recent policy attempts (in 2017) to introduce new frameworks for Australian higher education access and equity programs. These include introducing fees and a tendering process for access or ‘enabling’ programs, as they are called in Australia, and an evaluation framework based on an evidence hierarchy for widening participation or ‘equity’ programs. We illuminate how those policymaking attempts contradict the conditions required for equity-oriented programs because they misrecognise the experiences of the participants. We argue that different conceptual approaches to provision and evaluation are required for practitioners, providers and policymakers to shape future policy together ( Heimans and Singh, 2018 ) so that enabling and equity programs can be understood in ways that value the knowledges and experiences of the participants involved ( Sayer, 2011 ). Our aim is to contribute to work that disrupts the positioning of ‘objective’ policy evaluation frameworks vs ‘subjective’ practices because this decontextualises ( Burke and Lumb, 2018 ) and oversimplifies ( Tesar, 2016a ), and may serve paradoxically to reduce the programs’ impacts.

In Australia, access to music education is inequitable due to the challenges of distance, different state education systems and a lack of resources in schools. As a means to address this social justice issue, we explore here the viability and effects of a digitally based music outreach programme undertaken in collaboration with Hands on Learning (HOL), an alternative education provider. The programme was delivered over 6 weeks using GarageBand to children in a small rural town who were experiencing difficulties in upper primary and lower secondary school years. A qualitative approach was taken, holding focus groups, observing sessions and accessing HOL daily notes. The programme had a significant impact on the teachers and children involved, showing promise for a larger scale project in the future.

No abstract

No abstract

Equity and widening participation (EWP) initiatives in Australia are increasingly reimagined in policy as sites where participants are constructed as competitor‐individuals, with education considered only in terms of employability, social mobility and nation‐state market competition. In the context of EWP outreach, and with school students in particular, this can transpire into demands for narrow forms of ‘legitimate’ aspirations. Goffman defines obscenity as when (1) the very intimate is forced into the public sphere, while (2) the humanising dimensions or contexts are stripped away, with an example being pornography—where intimate encounters are reproduced as de‐contextualised acts while being made public. This article argues that dominant approaches to practicing and evaluating EWP risk obscene consequences if they force community members to present static future‐oriented valuations of intimate, fluid aspirations and experiences of education against a backdrop of increasingly individuated, competitive and standardised educational institutions. In this article, firstly we detail the context to establish a foundation for theorising consequences of particular socio‐educational discursive practices. Secondly, we engage with notions of frame, keying and fabrication as a toolbox to reveal some of the unintended (obscene) dynamics risked via certain approaches to programmatic practice and evaluation. Thirdly, we review the diversity of approaches to evaluation (and their attendant debates), highlighting the importance of these debates and diversities, making a case against methodological imperialism.