This is the ARCHIVE SITElive site is here: |
||||||||||||||||||||
  |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Funding for widening participation in HE:
new proposals 2000-2001 to 2003-04.
NIACE Response to HEFCE Consultation Document 00/50:
Published: November 15th 2000
NIACE welcomes this document and HEFCE’s aspiration to develop a system of higher education which is more inclusive and open. We particularly welcome:
 | the comprehensive approach to widening participation focusing on the three key areas of pre-entry, admissions and success. |
| strengthening of the commitment to institutional change as a pre-requisite of effective widening participation. |
We believe, however, that more is required to ensure that different policy initiatives (e.g. Foundation Degrees, HEROBAC) work together to ensure sustainable success.
NIACE has a number of questions about the proposals. In particular we have two concerns:
| How do the proposals connect to the research sponsored by HEFCE into local widening participation needs during academic year 1998-9. What analysis has been undertaken of these documents to inform policy development? |
| An ongoing tension remains between the commitment of HEIs to research status and quality recognition and to widening participation. The document offer no guidance about how these contending pressures can be reconciled. In particular NIACE would look to HEFCE for leadership in articulating how wider participation can be realised whilst maintaining quality. |
NIACE is not yet convinced by a number of proposals:
| The proposals in the Excellence Challenge document do not reflect the full extent of the Government’s aims as set out in the introductory context to the document: |
"the Government’s aim is that, by 2010, 50% of young people should have the opportunity of benefiting from HE by the time they are 30. If this is to happen, it is critical that more of our young people who come from families with no HE in their backgrounds are able to enter universities and other HEIs, not necessarily straight from school, but some time in their twenties, if that suits them better".
The overall emphasis in the rest of the document is not on this broad age range, but on school pupils, thus ignoring both the importance of developing effective mechanisms for working with young adults who have already left school, and the intergenerational impact of adult participation in higher education.
| Whilst acknowledging the Excellence in Cities initiative, NIACE urge the government to ensure that wider participation build upon work with Education Action Zones and the local strategic partnerships which are working to deliver the Government’s proposals for neighbourhood renewal. |
| We do not believe that directing funding to institutions with less than 80% of students from poorer backgrounds is the best use of public money. It sends out the wrong messages. At one level, this may be seen as rewarding inaction at the expense of institutions which have done most in widening participation on limited funding. At another level the likely outcome will be that newer universities will revert to becoming the safety net for older students who were not, while at school, targeted as ‘bright’ enough for higher education by the older universities. It will also re-inforce the funding differential per head between students in older and newer universities. |
We suggest that the funding is only made available to universities with furthest to travel if they propose initiatives which:
| demonstrate clear targeting mechanisms in relation to children from poorer backgrounds; |
| demonstrate practical ways in which such initiatives will complement and connect with existing HE initiatives to widen participation in the identified area; |
| have the full backing of LEAs and school staff who will be expected to institute, administer and sustain targeting and tracking processes. |
NIACE believes that emphasis on the targeting of individual ‘bright’ children from poorer areas is flawed and likely to be of limited effectiveness in delivering policy objectives. There are no clearly established and effective mechanisms identified in the paper and the lack of well-established mechanisms for targeting ’gifted and talented’ young people is already a cause of some controversy in Excellence in Cities. There appears to be evidence that targeting mechanisms used in current initiatives are of limited use. For example, it seems that HE Summer schools have largely been accessed by pupils with middle-class parents.
We believe that there is a real danger of ‘creaming off’ individual children through untested and possibly subjective processes which may effectively re-introduce a less objective version of the 11+ examination.
If this is so, the Government will find it hard to close the gap between under-represented communities and higher education. This is a goal which can only be narrowed as higher education recognises its responsibility to work in local communities. And through a visible presence in areas of deprivation, promotes the belief that entering university, whether on a full or part-time basis, is an achievable and desirable goal for people of all ages.
Effective outreach activities should be built into mainstream strategic activities and undertaken by staff skilled in community development approaches and well-placed to act as a broker on behalf of the university. Incentives should also be available to encourage existing HE students from identified communities, of all ages, to work alongside professionals in achieving these objectives.
It is unclear why Opportunities Bursaries are to be made available only to full-time students. Once again, this highlights the over-emphasis on young students at the expense of young adults who may be seeking to enter higher education on a part-time basis.
The consultation document can be
downloaded from the Deadlines for Responses are: |
