WIDENING PARTICIPATION: Overview and Commentary by

1
WIDENING PARTICIPATION: Overview and Commentary
by David Jary and Rob Jones
Note: Much of the general discussion this Overview relates especially to
England. But the related policies and issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland are specifically discussed in Section 2, with references made to relevant
websites. Although disability is an integral concern in WP, for more detailed
treatment the reader is referred to separate documentation (especially see
Section 3 and the Reference and Resources section).
1. Background – a generic overview
Widening Participation has in the last few years become a central concern of
both the higher education and further education sectors. It has a chapter of its
own in the 2003 White paper The Future of Higher Education, which asserts that:
‘Education must be a force for opportunity and social justice, not for the
entrenchment of privilege.’
A policy of Widening Participation:
‘is about working actively to make sure that potential is recognised and
fostered wherever it is found.’
The Future of Higher Education, p. 65
However, as has much HE policy recently, the 2003 White Paper has a Janusface. At the same time as endeavouring to create fair access and social justice
within a much expanded system it also sets out to maintain a minority of
institutions as ‘world class universities’. How and whether these goals can be
simultaneously achieved is a central issue and dilemma in current HE policy.
Key Reports on Widening Participation
Two significant reports, Learning Works and Higher Education in a Learning
Society (the Kennedy and Dearing reports - both published in 1997), served to
establish the central importance of Widening Participation. Since then, there
have been numerous policy developments, operating at national, regional and
institutional levels.
The Kennedy report particularly addressed the issues for widening participation
arising from structural changes being experienced by further education as a
consequence of attempts to marketise the sector. The committee’s brief was to
2
examine the nature of participation in further education and to identify ways in
which entry rates could be increased. However, this brief was subtly, but
significantly modified by Kennedy, and rather than simply pointing to good
recruitment practices amongst providers, the committee investigated ways in
which the sector had evolved in preceding years. This in turn led Kennedy to
posit a need to widen, not simply increase, participation. Although Kennedy
recognised that competition had produced some positive results for the FE
sector, Learning Works concluded that marketisation (coupled with changes in
funding arrangements) led to the exclusion of many potential entrants,
particularly from lower socio-economic groups. Ways of overcoming this were
proposed which involved rolling back some of the aspects of marketisation,
replacing competition with cooperation and collaboration, including stronger links
with communities.
The Dearing report also affirmed the need to address forms and patterns of
participation. The committee recommended that
‘when allocating funds for the expansion of higher education,’ the
government should ‘…give priority to those institutions which can
demonstrate a commitment to widening participation,’
(NCIHE, 1997, p 14).
None of this is to suggest that the issue of entry to higher education is new;
rather prior to the mid 1990s, concerns with participation arose as part of an
‘Access’ agenda. This included the provision of access courses to provide
special routes and a ‘second chance’ for those without traditional entry
qualifications who had missed out on the opportunity to enter higher education.
Throughout the ‘80s and ’90s a significantly higher proportion of the population
entered universities, leading to a transition from an ‘elite’ to a ‘mass’ system (Jary
and Parker, 1998). This initially suggested that a student body more socially and
culturally representative of the nation as a whole would be achieved. However, it
is clear that this was not so. Thus in 1990 37% of the top three socio-economic
groups entered higher education, against 10% from the bottom three. By 1997
the former figure had risen to 49%, the latter to 18% (CVCP 1999). There is also
the issue that new ‘non-traditional’ entrants – including students from some
ethnic minorities and disabled students) are also more likely to become
negatively positioned (e.g. study in less prestigious institutions) (cf. Williams,
1997, Reay et al 2001), defined as problematic (e.g. problems of retention) and
be less successful in the labour market.
As Thomas (2000) has sought to show, it will be necessary to change
institutional structures and practices, and to avoid 'individualising the problem' of
participation and progression in HE, if widening participation and successful
participation are to be achieved.
3
2. Policies, Practices and Policy Issues
In the last five years or so, the goal of widening participation has been addressed
in a range of ways, at national, regional and institutional levels. Policies on
widening participation have come thick and fast, and this trend can be expected
to continue since the 2003 White Paper contains a new set of proposed changes
in policy.
The most significant recent policies have included the following:
Performance Indicators and ‘Benchmarks' – the latter constructed for
groups of universities, cover recruitment from state schools, from social
class iiim-v, as well as from under represented geo-demographic areas
(indicated by post code).
'Post-code premiums' – allocation of an extra 5% funding to institutions for
each student recruited from under represented geo-demographic areas
This policy was dependent WP benchmarks and PIs (above) by which the
council monitored institutions' recruitment patterns and determined
eligibility for post-code premium. As an indirect index of deprivation or
social class, the validity of geo-demographic measures has been
questioned, and there are plans in the White Paper to replace these with
new measures.
Widening participation strategies. Since 2001, the Council has also
required from all HEIs a separate strategy document on WP (for an
analysis of documents see Action on Access, 2002)
'Collaborative' and 'partnered' initiatives and forms of provision. In
Learning Works, Kennedy advocated more co-operative and co-ordinated
approaches as a means to address the excesses of neo-liberalism and to
foster more effective approaches. Taking a cue from the further education
sector, there has also been a move in HE towards initiatives to enhance
cooperation and collaboration between institutions, including schools and
colleges and the community agencies.
Partnerships for Progression. In the context of HE, Partnership for
Progression is perhaps the most explicit example of collaborative activity,
a call for universities to forge links with outside bodies and organisations.
Schools, colleges and training providers are cited amongst the appropriate
partners. HEFCE has created a number of regional partnerships, each of
which receives funding on the basis of specific formulae. The Partnerships
for Progression strategy also encompasses other earlier HE initiatives
such as those involved in Excellence Challenge.
4
In the 2003 White Paper, against a backdrop of raising participation and
standards in secondary and further education, the following directions and
revisions to policy are proposed:
16-19 Education maintenance grants, previously experimental, are now to
be rolled-out more generally
A unified AimHigher programme to build links between schools and
colleges and universities. Road-shows under this rubric have proved
highly effective in raising aspirations
Provision of good-quality and accessible ‘second chance’ routes into HE
Ensuring that admissions procedures are fair and transparent and use a
range of information about students
Provision of better benchmarks to appraise progress of widening
particiaption – these are expected to include family history (especially
whether students are ‘first generation’ entrants) and performance of
students’ school, as well as parental income,
Support to secure fair access in prestigious universities, including an
Access Regulator, who will negotiate and 'police' Access Agreements with
those universities that want to charge top-up fees
Reform of the access premiums (and raising these from 5% - 20%) to
ensure that universities and colleges are properly funded.
Institutions with unacceptably high dropout rates will be asked to plan
improvements
As well as directly addressing WP, there are other elements in the White Paper
that are equally likely to impact on WP, but with more adverse effects. These
include:
Top-up fees (max. of £3,000 p.a.) where universities wish to charge these
The deterrent effect of increased levels of student debt arising from top-up
fees repaid at the rate of 9 per cent of income when a graduate’s earnings
reach £15,000
The White Paper does appear to acknowledge the problems these policies will
cause for WP, and has attempted to offset them with other directives:
Fees no longer need be paid up-front by students and tuition fees up to
£1,100 will continue to be waived for poorer students, whilst some
5
students whose family incomes of between £10,000 and £20,000 will have
part of their fees waived
Maintenance grants will be reintroduced (£1,000 p.a. for students from
families with an annual income of less than £10,000, with lesser sums for
those with family incomes of between £10,000 and £20,000)
There is also the expectation that both universities and potential
employers will want to introduce a range of measures, including
supplementary bursaries, repayment of fees
A central dilemma arising from the White Paper
In relation to all of the above initiatives, the central issue arising from the White
Paper is the tension between the document's two main policy goals, i.e. creating
and maintaining ‘world class universities and promoting widening participation
and fair and worthwhile access to HE (see also Jary, 2002). Attempts at
reconciliation of these main planks will doubtless exercise both the HE sector
and government over the next few years. Real dilemmas exist in the package of
funding and other measures proposed. For example, on the one hand top-up
fees plus a huge hike in the research funding for elite institutions, and on the
other, the creation of ‘teaching only’ institutions together with the introduction of
mainly vocationally oriented Foundation Degrees as the main vehicle for further
expansion of access.
From a different perspective, concerns are also voiced about a ‘politicisation’ of
admissions and about the potential injustice of ‘Affirmative action’.
Suffice to say, it remains to be seen where these policies will lead, but the
outcome is likely to be a much more differentiated and unequal HE system. The
possibility is that the exigencies of a new global economy in knowledge leave few
alternatives. But as social scientists supportive of equity, we will need to
continue questioning whose interests are served by this increasing differentiation
of HEI's missions.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
In Scotland, where the 50% participation in HE has already been reached, we
see a different pattern to England, not least because many more students are
studying for HE qualifications in further education colleges. There is a lot of
innovative WP activity in Scotland, and much experience of e.g. 2+1 programmes
that seem likely to become more prominent in England. There is also interesting
work being done on retention.
Arising from the Cubie Report, Scotland was ahead of England in not requiring
6
students to pay fees up front. At present, there is no enthusiasm for top up fees
in Scotland but some concern that, as well as an influx of English students
seeking cheaper courses, the extra funding in English HE may make the Scottish
system less competitive in research terms.
For further details of the Scottish context, see the web references below.
In Wales there is a greater integration in the administration FE and HE There are
also somewhat higher levels of participation in HE by non-traditional students
than in England. A mix of special initiative funding for WP includes: Widening
Access Premiums, Widening Access Strategy Funding and Disability Premiums.
Welsh Assembly Learning Grants are available to poorer students. Under a new
banner ‘Reaching Higher – Reaching Wider’ new National Assembly funding was
made available from 2002-3, some of which is financing four widely based HEI
and FE college Reaching Wider Partnerships.
For further details of Welsh arrangements see the relevant web references
below.
There are also special provisions for Northern Ireland, which also has a
distinctive pattern of participation from other parts of the UK.
3. Implications for Recruitment, Learning & Teaching and Retention in our
three disciplines
The issues for learning and teaching arising from the WP agenda can be seen as
four-fold:
Recruitment and admissions. New ways in which departments can be
externally involved - with schools, teaching on summer schools, etc. - in
raising aspirations, and steps to be taken in changing recruitment policies
and patterns
Course content and course delivery. Establishing and providing what is
needed for new kinds of students, including new elements in course
content and new forms of delivery and a careful consideration of forms of
assessment. This will need to include consideration of the positive and
negative implications of changes in the curriculum and changed modes of
delivery, including an increased emphasis on ‘flexible learning’ (e.g. Is
there a risk of the advent of the ‘McUniversity’?)
Retention and monitoring of students. Improved tracking of the progress of
students, identifying students at risk, and overall monitoring of
performance will also be required. As part of what can be seen as a
tendency to the democratisation of teaching and learning and in terms
7
indicated by the White Paper, students are to be given enhanced powers
to make judgements and to report on HE provision. Finding ways of
sharing and interpreting such evidence will be important.
Wider questions. Finally, there is the wider question of the market as well
as the more general value of new credentials such as Foundation
Degrees. Given that hitherto sub-degrees have been difficult to 'sell' to
potential students but in future, the supply of traditional honours degrees
is to be capped, important questions of equity are also raised. Similar
questions may also emerge regarding the value of the credentials of the
new tier of 'teaching only' institutions. There may specifically be a need to
monitor the implications of a wider separation of teaching from research.
Disability
There is a justified emphasis on mainstreaming access issues in relation to
disability. At the same time, there is also a need to foreground these as an
issue. As such, the specialist website of the National Disability Team – see
References and Resources – should be consulted. There are two important
strands of NDT: i) concern with base level provision, ii) concern with teaching
and learning. NDT are anxious to engage more closely with subject communities
through LTSN.
C-SAP Research on WP in our three disciplines
C-SAP has been awarded £50.000 to make a start in study of how our three
disciplines are responding to the Widening Participation Agenda.
The expected output is:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Website updates
Commissioned Reports – C-SAP Findings and Overviews - from
Departments
Overview Report
C-SAP Workshop
Sessions at C-SAP Conference
Assembly of an annotated bibliography
Possible C-SAP Monograph.
Questionnaires have been sent to C-SAP contacts with 2 aims; obtaining an
overall picture of general orientations to WP within departments and perceptions
of the teaching and learning issues arising from the emergence of broader
cohorts of entrants, and secondly, locating key examples of initiatives and action
in departments worthy of commissioned written reports.
8
A broader conceptualization at sectoral and institutional levels is also underway.
The research has identified a sample of institutions, structured according to
performance against three key performance benchmarks (young entrants by
socio-economic group, young entrants against low participation areas and
mature entrants by low participation areas). The sample produced from HEFCE
data for 1999-2000, contains 20 institutions; 10 ‘high performance’ universities
and 10 ‘low performance’ universities. This will allow analysis of differing
institutional responses to widening participation (including institutions’ WP
Strategy Documents) and help gauge the commitment to this goal across the
sector. There will also be structured interviews with relevant staff at the 20
institutions. This series of interviews is timetabled for early 2003 and will provide
a further opportunity to identify and confirm instances of innovative and ‘good
practice’.
In parallel with the above there will also be a trawl of published and website
material on WP involving, or relevant to, the three disciplines. Further
commissioned reports may be derived from this source.
4. Concluding Footnote on Widening Participation alongside other Current
HE Policies
On the one hand, the many measures introduced in recent years confirm the
present Government’s seriousness about the need to achieve a breadth and
fairness of access across all HEIs. The introduction of new measures in the 2003
White Paper, including an Access Regulator, is further confirmation that they
continue to mean business on widening participation.
On the other hand – and more cynically - it might also be argued that a widening
participation policy is what is what might be seen as necessary to make top-up
fees acceptable. It may be that the attention on widening participation to elite
institutions is ultimately supplementary to the more important goal of securing the
future of ‘world class’ UK universities.
There is also the obvious risk that focus on widening participation in elite
institutions - ‘Our biggest problems of access are some of the big researchintensive institutions’ - will simply serve to accentuate the growing status
differences between institutions.
All of this once again underlines the central dilemmas involved in WP policy and
indeed in the entirety of HE policy. It again underlines that as social scientists we
perhaps ought to be doing much more than we have in the past to analyze what
is going on in HE, not only in relation to our involvement in learning and teaching,
but regarding the HE system as a whole.
9
5. References and Resources
ActiononAccess is a HEFCE advisory unit based at Bradford University. Its
primary function is to advise institutions and partnerships on WP and offer more
general support. Its website is: www.actiononaccess.org/
ActiononAccess (2002) Review of 2001 Widening Participation Strategies
Archer L et al (2003) Higher Education and Social Class: Issues in Exclusion and
Inclusion, London: RoutledgeFalmer – a recent empirical study
CVCP (1999) Briefing Note: Widening Participation, London
Department for Education and Skills (2002) The Future of Higher Education –
available at the DfES website:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/highereducation/hestrategy/
National Disability Team Website: www.natdisteam.ac.uk
LTSN Generic Centre: Powerpoint presentation:
http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre
Kennedy, J (1997) Learning Works: Widening Participation in Further Education
Coventry: FEFC (the Kennedy report)
The Institute for Access Studies, located at Staffordshire, is a research unit
specialising in WP. It also hosts the journal Widening Participation and
Lifelong Learning. The Website of the Institute, with many links, is:
www.staffs.ac.uk/access-studies
Jary, D (2002) ‘To Fee or not to Fee? Questions about the recent past and
future of widening participation in UK Higher Education,’ Widening
Participation and Lifelong Learning, 4(3): 1-12
Jary, D &Thomas, L (1999) ‘Widening participation and lifelong learning: rhetoric
or reality? Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 1(1): 3-9
Jary, D & Thomas, L (2000) ‘Editorial: the case of Laura Spence – inequalities in
entry to elite universities, Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 2(2):
2-5
LTSN Generic Centre Resources – http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre - contains
useful WP resources and links
NCIHE (1997) The Report of the National Committee of Enquiry into Higher
10
Education, London: HMSO (The Dearing Report)
Reay, D, Ball, S, David, M and Davies, J (2001) ‘Choices of degree or degrees of
choice? Class, ‘race’ and the higher education process’, Sociology, 35(4):
855-74
Reay, D, Ball, S and Davies, M (2001) ‘Making a difference? Institutional
habituses and HE choice’ Sociological Research Online 5(4)
Savage, M and Egerton, M (1997) ‘Social mobility, individual ability and the
inheritance of class inequality’, Sociology 31(4): 645-672 – using longitudinal
data, an analysis of the part played by ‘ability’ in social mobility
Scottish websites:
www.shefc.ac.uk
www.sfefc.ac.uk
www.universities-scotland.ac.uk
Thomas, L (2002) Widening Participation in Post-compulsory Education, London:
Continuum
Welsh sites
www.wales.gov.uk/subieducatiotraining/content/higher/reachinghigher-e.pdf
www.elwa.ac.uk/doc bin/he%20circulars/w0229he.pdf
Williams, J (ed) (1997) Negotiating Access to Higher Education: the Discourses
of Selectivity and Equity, Buckingham: SHRE/Open University