Current Higher Education Data Analysis

Disability is common in the Australian population. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)’s most recent data estimates that 5.5 million Australians, or 21.4 per cent of the population, had a disability in 2022. Among people with disability aged 15 years and over living in households, 19.7 per cent had a bachelor degree or above in 2022, up from 16.1 per cent in 2018, however this is still lagging behind the overall population at 32%.^[1][2]

While reading this article, it is important to note that Higher education disability statistics are not collected or processed in the same way as ABS data. The higher education figures below count students who have reported disability through institutional data systems, which are then collated nationally. They are affected by student disclosure, provider collection processes, reporting definitions and the scope of each data source. For that reason, the figures are useful for monitoring participation and outcomes, but should not be read as a direct measure of all students with disability in the sector.   ^{[3] [4]}

Participation

The current undergraduate participation figure has grown substantially over the last decade. In 2024, 98,061 domestic undergraduate students at Table A providers identified as having disability. This represented 13.5 per cent of the undergraduate headcount, up from 12.7 per cent in 2023.^[5]

Department of Education data provides a broader count across domestic onshore students at both Table A and B providers. On that basis, a total of 126,895 domestic students with disability were reported in 2024. This figure should not be mixed with the ACSES reporting of undergraduates because it uses a broader population.^[6]

The following figures are useful for higher education staff because they show not only the size of the reported disability cohort, but also the diversity and unevenness of reporting across the sector:

The institutional range is interesting and worth exploration at an institutional level and as a sector. ACSES states that the variation may reflect differences in student profile, differences in data collection and reporting, or both, and that the available data do not allow the reason for the variance to be determined definitively.^[7]

For institutions, participation data has potential use cases for diagnostics and service improvement, beyond simply being descriptive. For example, a provider with a low reported disability share should not assume it has fewer students with disability. It could use relative positioning against national data to compare and contrast disclosure pathways, enrolment questions, accessibility messaging, adjustment processes and internal data transfer practices make it easy and safe for students to report disability.

Success

Success rates measure the effective full time student load passed as a proportion of the effective full time student load attempted. A success ratio compares the success rate for students in the equity group with the success rate for students not in that equity group. A ratio of 1.00 means parity; a ratio below 1.00 means the equity group has a lower success rate.^[8]

In 2024, the success rate for domestic students with disability across Table A and B providers was 85.38 per cent. The success ratio was 0.95, meaning that students with disability continued to have a lower success rate than students outside the disability equity group, although the gap was smaller than in 2022, when the ratio was 0.93.^[9]

The national ratio is useful as a benchmark, but it is too broad to identify where barriers sit. Institutions should review success by course, unit, discipline, mode of study, assessment type and adjustment use where data are available.

Retention

Retention measures the proportion of students who continue their studies from the previous year. The Department describes retention as an apparent or crude retention measure because some students who appear not to be retained may have changed student ID, taken leave, moved into research enrolment without load, undertaken cross institutional study, transferred provider or otherwise moved in ways the national data cannot fully identify^.[10]

The most recent Section 16 retention data are for 2023. Across Table A and B providers, the retention rate for domestic students with disability was 80.50 per cent. The retention ratio was 0.97, meaning that students with disability were retained at a slightly lower rate than students outside the disability equity group. Interestingly, there is variability between providers’ retention ratios for students with disability – ranging from 0.89 to 1.12.^[11]

The retention ratio is closer to parity than the success ratio. This does not mean retention should be ignored. At an institutional level, retention could be analysed alongside leave of absence, late withdrawal, fail and withdrawal patterns, support contact timing, adjustment implementation times and course progression to look for opportunities to improve support for students.

Student experience survey

The Student Experience Survey is part of the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching program. It provides a national framework for collecting student feedback on aspects of the higher education experience that institutions can reasonably seek to influence, including skills development, peer engagement, teaching quality and engagement, student support and services, learning resources and overall educational experience.^[12]

In 2024, students with a reported disability continued to rate their overall educational experience lower than students without a reported disability. Among undergraduates, 74.1 per cent of students with disability rated their overall educational experience positively, compared with 76.9 per cent of students without disability. Among postgraduate coursework students, the figures were 75.4 per cent and 76.8 per cent respectively.^[13]

The 2024 SES also highlights belonging as a useful indicator for disability inclusion. The report states that students with a reported disability rated their sense of belonging lower than their counterparts, with a gap of 5.3 percentage points for undergraduates and 5.6 percentage points for postgraduate coursework students. QILT identifies this as an area for institutional improvement, including induction, orientation and opportunities for students with disability to mix with peers and feel included.^[14]

Considered leaving is another useful signal, but it should be interpreted carefully. In 2024, 18.3 per cent of undergraduates and 16.0 per cent of postgraduate coursework students had seriously considered leaving their institution during the survey year. For undergraduates, the most cited reasons included stress levels, mental health, financial difficulties, study workload and study/life balance. These reasons are reported for students who considered leaving, not specifically for students with disability, however, with mental health conditions being a highly reported disability, this may benefit from exploration.^[15]

For disability practitioners and institutional staff, the SES data should be used alongside administrative data. Lower experience ratings may point to areas where institutions can test whether support pathways, teaching practices, accessibility of learning resources, assessment design and belonging initiatives are working for students with disability.

Graduate outcomes

The Graduate Outcomes Survey measures short term labour market outcomes for recent higher education graduates, usually around 4 to 6 months after course completion. The GOS uses labour force concepts aligned with Australian Bureau of Statistics definitions. For example, graduates are considered employed full time if they work, or usually work, 35 hours or more per week across all current jobs.^[16]

In 2024, domestic undergraduates with a reported disability had lower employment outcomes than those without a reported disability. The full time employment rate was 66.8 per cent for undergraduates with disability and 75.0 per cent for those without disability. Overall employment was 82.9 per cent compared with 87.4 per cent, and labour force participation was 89.8 per cent compared with 93.0 per cent. Median full-time salaries were $74,000 for graduates with disability and $75,000 for graduates without disability.^[17

For readers who have been following this dataset for some time, this is an ongoing and known gap without systemic resolution.

The postgraduate coursework pattern is also relevant. In 2024, domestic postgraduate coursework graduates with a reported disability had a full time employment rate of 81.5 per cent, compared with 88.7 per cent for those without disability. Their median full time salary was $92,900, compared with $101,000 for graduates without reported disability.^[18]

The graduate job market became less favourable in 2024. QILT reported that the share of domestic undergraduates in full time work fell from 79.0 per cent in 2023 to 74.0 per cent in 2024, as employers faced less pressure to hire than in the previous tight labour market. This broader context matters when interpreting the disability figures. The data show a gap in outcomes, but they do not identify the causes of that gap.^[19]

For providers, graduate outcome data should be read with course mix, study mode, local labour markets, field of education, previous labour market attachment and careers support in mind.

Using these data in institutional practice

The data above are most useful when they prompt local investigation. At minimum, providers should compare national indicators with their own data using like-for-like populations and definitions.

Practical checks for providers include:

• Reviewing their overall relative positioning using the ACSES Interactive Equity Data tool
• Comparing reported disability participation by course, campus, study mode and student lifecycle stage.
• Checking whether students can disclose disability clearly, safely and repeatedly, including after enrolment.
• Reviewing time from disclosure to adjustment implementation, not only the number of students registered for support.
• Analysing success and retention by unit, course, mode and assessment type where possible.
• Use SES results to test whether student support, learning resources, peer engagement and belonging initiatives are improving the student experience for students with disability.
• Use GOS results with careers and work integrated learning data to examine employment preparation and transition supports for graduates with disability.
• Consider whether your institution would benefit from custom SES / GOS questions to learn more about these gaps.

A note about data sources

Caution: The Department notes that during the transition to the Tertiary Collection of Student Information system, 2020 enrolment numbers for students with disability were substantially under reported for several universities, affecting 2020 access, participation and success indicators and 2020 retention rates. The disability categories were also updated in 2020, creating a break in series for comparisons of disability categories before and after that change.^[20],[21]

This means that longitudinal comparisons must be made carefully and with caveats. In particular, changes after 2020 should not be treated as an uninterrupted trend without checking whether reporting changes, disclosure practices or category changes are affecting the result.

Updated May 2026