ResPublica's Dion Watts on early intervention for fair access to higher education
The build up to, and eventually the appointment of,
Professor Les Ebdon as Director of the Office of Fair Access (OFFA) has
dominated the news over the past week. And understandably so. Professor Ebdon will
have the power to prevent universities from charging the maximum £9,000 a year
in tuition fees if they fail to agree fair access arrangements with him. These
contracts must set out how universities will support students and attract more
applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Several Cabinet Members, including the Prime Minister, are
said to have been concerned by the appointment on the grounds that Professor
Ebdon has been critical of the Government’s Higher Education policies. However,
the same legislation which grants OFFA the power to fine universities also
stipulates that the appointment of its head must be made by the Secretary of
State in the department responsible for universities. This situation has led to
calls for stewardship of universities policy to be transferred to the
Department for Education. However, rather than put pressure on his Business
Secretary to abandon the appointment, the Prime Minister chose instead to
negotiate a concession over early
repayment of student loans.
The Fair Access to University Group (FAUG) has published a well-timed
report called Achieving Fair Access: Removing Barriers,
Realising Potential, setting out a range of proposals designed to
“ensure that the most able students, regardless of academic or social
background, are able to access the UK’s top institutions without the need to
compromise on institutional autonomy or academic excellence”. This report is
intended to challenge existing approaches to fair access, epitomised by the
appointment of Professor Ebdon, which have consisted mostly of universities
collecting an increasing amount of “contextual data” on applicants in order to
determine if they would be the first in their families to attend university.
The concern is that this data will be used to skew admissions to top
universities in favour of applicants from deprived backgrounds, even if they do
not meet the academic standards required. As my ResPublica colleagues have
mentioned, balancing equality of opportunity with unequal processes is
something that should be carefully
considered, whilst levelling the playing field should not focus on
immediate measures but look at root
causes.
The issue of “social engineering” using contextual data has monopolised
the current debate. However, focusing attention on those students who are
the first in their families to apply for university is missing the most
important point. These young people are not the ones most in need of government
support. They have already made the decision that university is right for them
and most likely have been working hard to achieve the necessary grades. We need
early intervention targeted at young people with the potential to attend top
universities, but who actively choose not to because of endemic scepticism
towards education in their own communities. When we talk about disadvantaged
backgrounds, this is a key part of what we should mean.
There is an urgent need for community-level interventions,
co-ordinated by government and delivered by organisations with the means to
influence the most hard to reach people, to combat negative perceptions of education
perpetuated by families and peer groups. If we can achieve this, there will be
no need to give preferential treatment to university applicants from any
particular social background, as those from challenging socioeconomic
circumstances will number as many as those from more privileged situations. Without
first taking this crucial step, the very sensible suggestions to improve the
quality of state education contained in the FAUG report, including partnerships
with the independent sector and measures to raise
standards in the teaching profession, can only hope to benefit a fraction
of those who really need it.