Carrots and sticks: Levers for positive change in universities
Darlene McLennan and Ebe Ganon, University of Tasmania
As we delve deeper into the Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success (ACSES) Equity Fellowshipresearch ‘Empowering Disability Services in Australian Higher Education’, one thing has become crystal clear: good intentions aren't enough. We need systematic mechanisms to drive meaningful change in how universities support students with disability. The question isn't whether change is needed – the Australian Government's recent quadrupling of the Disability Support Fund to $53,905,928 million annually in last year’s MYEFO, signals recognition that current approaches aren't cutting it – but rather how we can create the right incentives and accountability structures to ensure lasting transformation.
Conventional policy approaches offer us two primary options: carrots (incentives and rewards) and sticks (penalties and enforcement). Both have their place, but getting the balance right is crucial if we want to move beyond tick-box exercises and towards genuine inclusion.
The appeal of carrots
Let's start with the sweeteners. Positive incentives have an undeniable appeal: they focus minds on achievement rather than failure, and they can create genuine enthusiasm for change rather than reluctant compliance.
Performance-linked funding represents perhaps the most direct carrot available. The expanded Disability Support Program now includes funding for staffing, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) implementation, and bulk IT licenses. What if this funding was tied to demonstrable outcomes rather than just inputs? Universities that can show improved retention rates for students with disability, higher satisfaction scores, or innovative inclusive practices could receive additional funding allocations or student places.
University league tables and rankings represent another potentially powerful carrot. Universities strive towards higher rankings, and for good reason: they influence everything from student applications, to research partnerships, to alumni donations.
An example of a "University Disability Inclusion Score" is exemplified through work by Johns Hopkins University's Disability Health Research Centre: their ranking system assesses institutions across accessibility, accommodation processes, and public commitment to inclusion. Back home, accreditation schemes like SAGE Athena Swan and the Australian Workplace Equality Index rank universities on their gender equity and LBGTQIA+ inclusion outcomes.
Imagine if disability inclusion metrics were weighted as heavily in major university rankings as research outputs or graduate employment rates...
The necessity of sticks
Carrots alone, however, aren't sufficient. Without accountability mechanisms, even well-intentioned initiatives can become box-ticking exercises that deliver minimal real-world change.
TEQSA monitoring and auditing represents the most obvious stick in our regulatory toolkit. TEQSA already requires providers to monitor participation and success of identified groups and uses this information to improve academic and support strategies. However, implementation of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE) is not monitored nor enforced, leaving significant gaps for students with disability.
What if TEQSA audits specifically examined the quality of disability support provision, not just its existence? Could they do this in partnership with DSE enforcement through the Department of Education? The regulator already has comprehensive guidance on academic monitoring, review and improvement – extending this to include systematic evaluation of disability inclusion would send a clear message about sector expectations.
Financial penalties for poor performance could provide another stick that focuses institutional attention. Universities showing declining retention rates for students with disability, or failing to meet accessibility standards, could face funding reductions or receive fewer student places.
The risk here is that universities who aren’t doing so well become underfunded, compounding negative experiences for students. Perhaps penalties could be deducted from non-disability funding pots (e.g. research) to create a real incentive to act?
Beyond individual institutions
Too many sticks without sufficient carrots breed resentment. Too many carrots without proper accountability risk initiatives becoming window-dressing.
The problems we're trying to solve aren't just institutional (usually) – they're sectoral and systemic. The Australian Disability Clearinghouse on Education and Training (ADCET) has highlighted the need for coordinated strategic action on "big ticket items" including Universal Design for Learning, staff capacity building, accessible ICT infrastructure, and rights-based approaches in higher education policy.
Individual institutional incentives and penalties, no matter how well-designed, can't address sector-wide challenges like inconsistent accessibility standards across campuses, inconsistent appreciation for the importance of delivering accessible and inclusive learning, or the need for systemic education and culture change.
This suggests we need carrots and sticks that operate at multiple levels – institutional, sectoral, and policy. Recognition schemes and funding penalties for individual universities must be accompanied by sector-wide initiatives that build collective capacity and address shared challenges.
Most importantly, any system of carrots and sticks must be developed in genuine partnership with students with disability. Their lived experience must be the ultimate measure of success, not institutional policies or compliance reports.
Needed now?
The current moment represents a genuine opportunity. Government has signalled its commitment through expanded funding. What we need now is the political and institutional will to move beyond good intentions to systematic change. Because students with disability deserve more than institutional promises – they deserve educational environments where they can genuinely thrive. And that requires both the right incentives to encourage excellence and the right accountability measures to ensure it happens.
Darlene McLennan is a 2025 ACSES Fellow at the University of Tasmania conducting a research project about improving the quality of disability support provision on university campuses.
Ebe Ganon is a Research Associate at the University of Tasmania, the Board Chair of Children and Young People with Disability Australia, and a trainer and facilitator at Ebe Ganon Community Engagement.