论文部分内容阅读
Abstract:This essay aims to analyze the policy of widening participation in higher education in the UK.The policy was made in the interest of the students with a historically disadvantaged background called“lower socio-economic groups”.It analyzes the different possible constraints of those students and what the government can do to help them solve the problems.
Key Words:Policy;Participation in higher education;Lower socio-economic groups
Introduction
Although the government in the UK issued and began to implement the policy of widening participation many years ago,aiming to provide greater opportunities to those who have been historically disadvantaged to have fair access to higher education(HE),relative statistics in the past few years have shown that the policy does not work as well as it is expected.And amongst all the targeted groups who are under-represented in HE,they can be classified by gender,race,age,disability,school type,social class,etc.In this article I will focus on the specific of social groups,i.e.people from sociallyand economically disadvantaged backgrounds,which are also called“lower socio-economic groups”,because these groups are believed to have aroused the most controversial debates amongst all the unfair access to HE.In this article I shall first and foremost,find out what the policy is;second,analyse whether it really works;third,find out the current situation of students from lower socio-economic groups participating in HE;fourth,analyse the reasons for their unfair access to HE;finally,raise some pieces of suggestion that should be taken to improve the current situation of the low participation rates of those from lower socio-economic groups.
Analysis and Discussion
I.What is the policy of widening participation in HE?
According to the Higher Education Academy (HEA,2006),the policy of widening participation in HE aims to broaden diversity in higher education,rather than simply increase the population in the sector.And particularly,the policy focuses on engaging people who are currently under-represented in HE,including women，thnicminorities,mature adults,the disable,and lower socio-economic groups,etc.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England’s Advisory Group on Access and Participation (HEFCE,1996,cited in Bird,2000) show that compared with the data in 1990,there were more women in HE,more students from minority ethnic groups in HE,more mature students in HE,more part-time students in HE;but the representation of students from lower socio-economic groups remained low.Burke (2002)also argues that the policy of widening participation is intended to open up HE to students from lower socio-economic groups but the unequal access to HE has been an obstacle for those students.Therefore,the participation of different social classes varies and the gap remains large,and I will focus on this issue and find out why students from lower socio-economic groups remain under-represented in HE although there has been a policy fostered to assist them.
II. Does the policy really work?
1.It works to an extent.
Although the policy is said to have worked poorly,there is some good practice due to the implementation.NCIHE (1997)show some examples of good practice for widening participation for those from lower socio-economic groups so as to demonstrate the policy works to an extent.For instance:
●The“open access”and“barrier-free”admissions policies of the Open University;
●The“2+2”degree program developed initially by the University of Warwick and the University of Salford in partnership with local further education colleges;……
●flexible curriculum structures to encourage inter-institutional transfer,greater mixed mode study and the recognition of prior learning,including work-based learning;for example,at the University of Paisley,the University of Wolverhampton,Sheffield Hallam University or the University of Northumbria;
●a multiplicity of Access courses supported by numerous universities and colleges.
2.It benefits the middle and higher classes more than lower classes in terms of rates of participation.
The policy of widening participation seem to serve those from disadvantaged backgrounds,especially those from lower socio-economic groups,however,there are quite a lot of counter-arguments that it benefits those from middle and higher socio-economic groups far more than the lower socio-economic groups in terms of growth in participation.
Reay (et al.,2001)point out that the widening participation in HE seem to be in favour of all,especially of those from lower socio-economic groups, but in effect,it has been of greatest benefit to the offspring of the middle and higher classes.NCIHE (1997)also find that whenever HE expands,rates of growth of the lower socio-economic groups are the fastest but the higher socio-economic groups keep the absolute greatest growth rates.
3.Policy contradiction:abolish the maintenance grants and charge more tuition fees than before.According to Reay (et al.,2001),the abolition of maintenance grants and the introduction of fees and loans as a policy is still in its infancy so it is still impossible for us to judge whether this will bring a negative impact on the lower-class students’participation in HE.But Straw (2003)provides an answer to this question soon by arguing that it is the gradual erosion of the maintenance grants that has decreased the participation of the students from the most economically disadvantaged groups.In addition, BBC (2005)reports that the government has allowed universities to raise the tuition fees up to a certain level according to their own needs.All these make it more difficult for the students from lower socio-economic groups,who are the major target of the policy of widening participation,to pursue education in HE.
4.The policy does not guarantee equal choices of all universities and colleges.
The policy aims to broaden diversity in higher education,though;it does not guarantee students from lower socio-economic groups can choose prestigious universities or colleges as do the students from middle and higher socio-economic groups.Even with similar A level points,students from less privileged backgrounds less likely to apply to“prestigious”universities,and most of them prefer to choose new and local universities or colleges(DfES 2003b;Bowers-Brown,2006).The reasons why students from lower socio-economic groups can rarely choose prestigious universities will be addressed in Part IV of this section.
III.What is the current situation of lower socio-economic groups’participation in HE?
Metcalf(1997)analyses the participation rates of different social groups in HE.According to Table 1.she divides all citizens into six classes,with those from professional,managerial and technical backgrounds in the higher social classes,those from skilled and non-manual backgrounds in the middle classes and those from semi-skilled and unskilled backgrounds in the lower classes.Metcalf shows that in 1995 and 1996,young people from the lowest social groups are highly under-represented in HE,accounting for only 9 per cent of all.Their counterparts from the middle classes take up 29 per cent and in the even higher classes occupy 62 per cent.
Table 1.Class distribution of young people(under 21)entering HE,Britain,1995/96
Source:calculated from Department for Education and Employment(1997)participation by social class and OPCS(1993,Table 90)Census 1991 data.(Metcalf,1997,p.1)
Though nowadays there are a lot more students from the two lowest social groups participating in HE than before (NCIHE, 1997),as a result of the policy of widening participation in HE by the government and there have been some positive results of the policy since it was implemented,the inequality between higher socio-economic groups and lower socio-economic groups is still a hard nut to crack.According to HEFCE(1996,cited in Bird,2000),there are more students without A-level in HE,more part-time students are in HE,more women students are in HE,but the participation of those from lower socio-economic groups has been low and has been so for a long period of time.The white individuals from professional and managerial groups make up only about 39 per cent of the whole population but they account for 62 per cent of the HE population while the two lower social groups which account 19 cent of the whole population occupy only 9 per cent in HE (Metcalf,1997).Furthermore,NCIHE(1997)makes it clear by showing that the ratio of students from higher socio-economic groups and those from lower groups was approximately 75:25 before 1992 and the ratio was about 68:32 afterwards. That is to say, the gap between the participation rates of the higher and lower social classes remained unfairly huge.In the following part I will analyse the reasons for the gap.
IV.Why is there such a low rate of the lower socio-economic groups?
Metcalf (1997) and Lynch and O’Riordan (1998) find out some reasons why lower-class students are suffering from the unequal access to HE.Some reasons are objective,such as the scores of exams,the economic condition of the family,the learning and teaching facilities;while other reasons are subjective,such as students’attitudes towards HE,the cultural difference of different social groups and the psychological stress.All those reason can fall into four types as follows:qualification constraints,economic constraints,social and cultural constraints,and psychological constraints.
Qualification constraints
Metcalf (1997) suggests that the qualification for entering HE amongst those young people declines with social class.As can be seen in Table 2,only a very low percentage (16 per cent) of people from lower socio-economic groups achieve the minimum entry qualifications for university,i.e.2“A”Levels or equivalent.By comparison,there are 27 per cent of those from the middle social classes and 50 per cent from the higher social classes achieving the same records.In addition,not all those who achieve the qualifications choose to go to HE,and the propensity to apply to university, again, decline with social class. Less than 50 per cent of those who have achieved the qualifications to HE in the lower classes participate in HE while the figure in the middle and higher classes are 59 per cent and 77 per cent respectively. Thus, the qualifications to HE is an objective factor that prevent a vast majority of young people from the lower classes from going to university.
Table2.Qualifications and university participation of 18-19 year-olds by social class: incidences,England and Wales,1993（Source:YCS,1993(Cohort 5,Sweep 3)(Metcalff,1997,p.5)
Economic constraints
Lynch and O’Riordan (1998) hold that poverty is regarded as the principal barrier to equality of access and participation for students from low-income families,and it is also called“material constraint”(Reay,et al.,2001;2005).Poverty can give rise to the many problems.First of all, low-income families can not afford to support their children to participate in HE in that they have to keep the whole family surviving with the only money they have.The parents think that their children’s participation in HE is just like a luxury,which is beyond their purchasing ability.Second,lower-class students usually can not attend the relatively better secondary schools like their higher- and middle-class counterparts do (i.e.private schools,grammar schools and single-sex schools),let alone private tutoring.That is also a main reason why not many of them can achieve the qualifications to HE.Third,compared to the students from the middle and higher classes,lower-class students lack a quiet and comfortable place where they can study well.They may have too many siblings to share their rooms and make their learning environment noisy and it may be too cold in winter but they do not have enough heat indoors. Fourth,NCIHE (1997)argue that students from lower socio-economic groups seem to have been guided from an early age that they should enter the labour market or have further education,rather than participate in HE.So they have the pressure to leave school after they finish the compulsory education. Lastly,if they finally decide to go to HE,lower-class students find it too difficult to afford things like books and accommodation. Reay,et al.(2005) point out that lower-class students feel “geographically”constrained because they can not afford to live outside their homes nor can they spend too much on transportation every day so they had better choose universities which are close to their homes.
Social and cultural constraints
Raffe (1992,cited in NCIHE,1997) points out that the low esteem that is attached to the education of those from lower socio-economic groups is one of the social and cultural constraints.Metcalf (1997)and Lynch and O’Riordan (1998) also argue that the higher education of lower-class children is not highly valued by the parents themselves and teachers.On the one hand, most of the parents of students from lower socio-economic groups lack degrees of HE,so they can not set themselves as models for their children and do not value HE much, and thus they do not encourage their children to go to HE as do the parents from middle and higher social groups.On the other hand, some teachers view that students from lower socio-economic groups have a cultural deficit and do not have enough information about what HE is.
Furthermore,there is cultural alienation in some universities,which makes students from lower socio-economic groups decrease their propensity to apply for HE (Metcalf,1997).Some universities, especially those have been long established and prestigious,can appear that they do not welcome students from lower social groups and to some races and the disabled as well.This is also one of the psychological constraints of the lower-class students and hence they rarely choose prestigious universities.
Psychological constraints
There are two main psychological constraints for the students from lower socio-economic groups. One is that they struggle to decide whether they should go to university,and the other is if they decide to go to university,what kind of university they should go to.
The first constraint of students from lower socio-economic groups normally stems from the poverty of the family and the worry that going to university is likely to become a burden of the whole family.Lynch and O’Riordan (1998) argue that this kind of psychological pressure is closely related to the economic condition of the family.A lot of lower-class students decide to join the labour market or go to have further education after they leave secondary school in that they do not want to add more burdens to the family and instead,they want to get a job and support the family as soon as possible.Nonetheless,there are a number of students from lower socio-economic groups want to participate in HE because they hope to get a degree to make themselves competent in the labour market in the future,though they know for this there is a price to pay.
When students from lower socio-economic groups decide they want to participate in HE,then comes the second psychological constraint,i.e.which university to go to (Reay et al.,2001;2005)?In Reay et al.’s research,lower-class students express that they will not choose universities such as LSE or King’s,because they believe that those universities are for the middle and higher classes,and they can not fit in even if they become part of them.They state that“What’s a person like me going to do at a place like that?”(Reay et al.,2001,p.864),showing that they know where they should go. Eventually,they usually choose less prestigious universities and colleges,where they think they would be happier and fit in without much difficulty, and also,which are not so expensive.
From the four constraints shown above,we can see that the unfair access to HE mainly stems from the gap of different social classes.Gomme and Micucci(1999)suggest that class and inter-generational class transmission are best understood in the context of four interrelated types of inequality:condition, opportunity,benefit,and result.Those from middle and higher classes seem to have better condition,greater opportunity,more benefits and better results from generation to generation than those from lower classes.In a nutshell, it is a beneficial circle for the middle and higher classes and a vicious one for the lower classes.Those from the lower classes in the society have far fewer opportunities to participate in HE (HEFCE,1996,cited in Bird, 2000).Though there has been the policy of widening participation in HE,which aims to help those from lower social classes,it can not really raise the rate significantly.So how can the government help the students from lower socio-economic groups obtain a real equal chance to stand on the starting line?This question will be addressed in the following part.
V.What else should be done to benefit the students from lower socio-economic groups?
As is shown above,the policy of widening participation does not work as well as it is expected,and the targeted groups do not benefit much from it.According to DfES,(2003b),the gap between the higher and lower social classes in entry to higher education remains unacceptably wide in spite of the policy of widening participation.While a lot more people from all backgrounds benefit from HE,the amount coming from lower socio-economic groups has not substantially increased.In the following I shall find out what actions should be adopted on the part of the government to benefit the students from lower socio-economic groups.
In the first place,according to NCIHE (1997),there should be an increasing supply of places in HE.An absolute increase of places in HE means there are more opportunities available to people from different backgrounds,including those from lower socio-economic groups.And this also encourages all students from disadvantaged groups to aspire a chance to study in HE.The more places available in universities,the less fierce the competition of entering the HE becomes,and thus more chances the lower-class students have.
In the second place,the access to higher education should be localised. NCIHE(1997)suggest that it seems to be a standard pattern for students from middle and higher socio-economic groups to study full-time away from home in HE while their counterparts from lower socio-economic groups can only study part-time and stay at home.In the research of Reay et al.(2001),some students from lower classes express that they have no choice but choose local universities or colleges because they do not need to spend much on transportation and accommodation in this way. Brint and Karabel (1989,cited in NCIHE,1997) point out that is why the“Community Colleges”are so successful in USA.In a word, localising the access to university can break the conventional practice that one should and has to pursue higher education in a distant residential campus,and it meets the needs of the lower-class students indeed.
In the third place,there should be restored maintenance grants.According to BBC(2001),the government was considering restoring grants for students who need it.This is also encouraged by DfES(2003a)as a policy to improve access financially for the students from low-income families. Furthermore,the government has allowed universities to raise the tuition fees up to a certain level according to their own needs,which makes the financial burden on the lower-income families even heavier,so if there are no grants for students in need,the participation rate is quite impossible to rise.
Conclusion
The policy of widening participation has been in effect for years but the targeted groups that have been under-represented in HE,or rather,those who are“non-traditional”participants,have not been effectively benefited,especially those from lower socio-economic groups. This article has analysed the flaws of the policy and found out some main reasons for the low participation rate and raised some possible suggestion on raising the rate of the lower social classes in HE. In short,the policy of widening participation in HE has brought some good practice,but there are also some flaws.And there are mainly four constraints for lower-class students to participate in HE in terms of qualification, economy,society and culture,and psychology.Finally,there are some pieces of suggestion to be taken to help to raise the rate of students from lower socio-economic groups in HE,i.e.providing more places in universities and colleges,localising the access to HE and restoring maintenance grants.
References:
[1]BBC (British Broadcasting Company)(2001).Student grants back on the agenda. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1577689.stm.
[2]BBC(British Broadcasting Company)(2005).Q&A:Student fees.Available from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3013272.stm.
[3]Bird,J.(2000).“Social class and mature entrants”,in:D.Woodward and K.Ross(eds)Managing equal opportunities in higher education:a guide to understanding and action. London:Society for Research into Higher Education and O.U.Press.
[4]Bowers-Brown,T.(2006).“Widening participation in higher education amongst students from disadvantaged socioeconomic groups”,Tertiary Education and Management,12,59–74.
[5]Burke,P.J.(2002).Assessing education:effectively widening participation.Stoke on Trent:Trentham Books.
[6]DfES(Department for Education and Skills)(2003a)Widening Participation in Higher Education,London,HMSO.
[7]DfES(Department for Education and Skills)(2003b)The Future of Higher Education,London,HMSO.
[8]Gomme,I.M.and Micucci,A.J.(1999).Class inequality in higher education,Peace Review,11,1040-2659.
[9]HEA(Higher Education Academy)(2006).What is widening participation?Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/199.htm.
[10]Lynch,K.and O’Riordan,C.(1998).Inequality in higher education:a study of class barriers,British Journal of Sociology of Education,19:445-478.
[11]Metcalf,H.(1997).Class and higher education: the participation of young people from lower social classes.CIHE.
[12]NCIHE(National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education)(1997).Report 6:Widening Participation in Higher Education for Students Lower Socio-Economic Groups and Students with Disabilities, London, HMSO.
[13]Reay, D., Davies, J., David, M., and Ball, S. (2001)“Choices of degree or degrees of choice? Class,‘race’,and the higher education choice process”,Sociology,35,855-874.
[14]Reay,D.,David,M.,and Ball,S.(2005) Degrees of Choice: Social class,race and gender in higher education.Stoke on Trent:Trentham Books.
[15]Straw,W.(2003).“Education for all -widening access to higher education”,education review,16,34-38.
Key Words:Policy;Participation in higher education;Lower socio-economic groups
Introduction
Although the government in the UK issued and began to implement the policy of widening participation many years ago,aiming to provide greater opportunities to those who have been historically disadvantaged to have fair access to higher education(HE),relative statistics in the past few years have shown that the policy does not work as well as it is expected.And amongst all the targeted groups who are under-represented in HE,they can be classified by gender,race,age,disability,school type,social class,etc.In this article I will focus on the specific of social groups,i.e.people from sociallyand economically disadvantaged backgrounds,which are also called“lower socio-economic groups”,because these groups are believed to have aroused the most controversial debates amongst all the unfair access to HE.In this article I shall first and foremost,find out what the policy is;second,analyse whether it really works;third,find out the current situation of students from lower socio-economic groups participating in HE;fourth,analyse the reasons for their unfair access to HE;finally,raise some pieces of suggestion that should be taken to improve the current situation of the low participation rates of those from lower socio-economic groups.
Analysis and Discussion
I.What is the policy of widening participation in HE?
According to the Higher Education Academy (HEA,2006),the policy of widening participation in HE aims to broaden diversity in higher education,rather than simply increase the population in the sector.And particularly,the policy focuses on engaging people who are currently under-represented in HE,including women，thnicminorities,mature adults,the disable,and lower socio-economic groups,etc.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England’s Advisory Group on Access and Participation (HEFCE,1996,cited in Bird,2000) show that compared with the data in 1990,there were more women in HE,more students from minority ethnic groups in HE,more mature students in HE,more part-time students in HE;but the representation of students from lower socio-economic groups remained low.Burke (2002)also argues that the policy of widening participation is intended to open up HE to students from lower socio-economic groups but the unequal access to HE has been an obstacle for those students.Therefore,the participation of different social classes varies and the gap remains large,and I will focus on this issue and find out why students from lower socio-economic groups remain under-represented in HE although there has been a policy fostered to assist them.
II. Does the policy really work?
1.It works to an extent.
Although the policy is said to have worked poorly,there is some good practice due to the implementation.NCIHE (1997)show some examples of good practice for widening participation for those from lower socio-economic groups so as to demonstrate the policy works to an extent.For instance:
●The“open access”and“barrier-free”admissions policies of the Open University;
●The“2+2”degree program developed initially by the University of Warwick and the University of Salford in partnership with local further education colleges;……
●flexible curriculum structures to encourage inter-institutional transfer,greater mixed mode study and the recognition of prior learning,including work-based learning;for example,at the University of Paisley,the University of Wolverhampton,Sheffield Hallam University or the University of Northumbria;
●a multiplicity of Access courses supported by numerous universities and colleges.
2.It benefits the middle and higher classes more than lower classes in terms of rates of participation.
The policy of widening participation seem to serve those from disadvantaged backgrounds,especially those from lower socio-economic groups,however,there are quite a lot of counter-arguments that it benefits those from middle and higher socio-economic groups far more than the lower socio-economic groups in terms of growth in participation.
Reay (et al.,2001)point out that the widening participation in HE seem to be in favour of all,especially of those from lower socio-economic groups, but in effect,it has been of greatest benefit to the offspring of the middle and higher classes.NCIHE (1997)also find that whenever HE expands,rates of growth of the lower socio-economic groups are the fastest but the higher socio-economic groups keep the absolute greatest growth rates.
3.Policy contradiction:abolish the maintenance grants and charge more tuition fees than before.According to Reay (et al.,2001),the abolition of maintenance grants and the introduction of fees and loans as a policy is still in its infancy so it is still impossible for us to judge whether this will bring a negative impact on the lower-class students’participation in HE.But Straw (2003)provides an answer to this question soon by arguing that it is the gradual erosion of the maintenance grants that has decreased the participation of the students from the most economically disadvantaged groups.In addition, BBC (2005)reports that the government has allowed universities to raise the tuition fees up to a certain level according to their own needs.All these make it more difficult for the students from lower socio-economic groups,who are the major target of the policy of widening participation,to pursue education in HE.
4.The policy does not guarantee equal choices of all universities and colleges.
The policy aims to broaden diversity in higher education,though;it does not guarantee students from lower socio-economic groups can choose prestigious universities or colleges as do the students from middle and higher socio-economic groups.Even with similar A level points,students from less privileged backgrounds less likely to apply to“prestigious”universities,and most of them prefer to choose new and local universities or colleges(DfES 2003b;Bowers-Brown,2006).The reasons why students from lower socio-economic groups can rarely choose prestigious universities will be addressed in Part IV of this section.
III.What is the current situation of lower socio-economic groups’participation in HE?
Metcalf(1997)analyses the participation rates of different social groups in HE.According to Table 1.she divides all citizens into six classes,with those from professional,managerial and technical backgrounds in the higher social classes,those from skilled and non-manual backgrounds in the middle classes and those from semi-skilled and unskilled backgrounds in the lower classes.Metcalf shows that in 1995 and 1996,young people from the lowest social groups are highly under-represented in HE,accounting for only 9 per cent of all.Their counterparts from the middle classes take up 29 per cent and in the even higher classes occupy 62 per cent.
Table 1.Class distribution of young people(under 21)entering HE,Britain,1995/96
Source:calculated from Department for Education and Employment(1997)participation by social class and OPCS(1993,Table 90)Census 1991 data.(Metcalf,1997,p.1)
Though nowadays there are a lot more students from the two lowest social groups participating in HE than before (NCIHE, 1997),as a result of the policy of widening participation in HE by the government and there have been some positive results of the policy since it was implemented,the inequality between higher socio-economic groups and lower socio-economic groups is still a hard nut to crack.According to HEFCE(1996,cited in Bird,2000),there are more students without A-level in HE,more part-time students are in HE,more women students are in HE,but the participation of those from lower socio-economic groups has been low and has been so for a long period of time.The white individuals from professional and managerial groups make up only about 39 per cent of the whole population but they account for 62 per cent of the HE population while the two lower social groups which account 19 cent of the whole population occupy only 9 per cent in HE (Metcalf,1997).Furthermore,NCIHE(1997)makes it clear by showing that the ratio of students from higher socio-economic groups and those from lower groups was approximately 75:25 before 1992 and the ratio was about 68:32 afterwards. That is to say, the gap between the participation rates of the higher and lower social classes remained unfairly huge.In the following part I will analyse the reasons for the gap.
IV.Why is there such a low rate of the lower socio-economic groups?
Metcalf (1997) and Lynch and O’Riordan (1998) find out some reasons why lower-class students are suffering from the unequal access to HE.Some reasons are objective,such as the scores of exams,the economic condition of the family,the learning and teaching facilities;while other reasons are subjective,such as students’attitudes towards HE,the cultural difference of different social groups and the psychological stress.All those reason can fall into four types as follows:qualification constraints,economic constraints,social and cultural constraints,and psychological constraints.
Qualification constraints
Metcalf (1997) suggests that the qualification for entering HE amongst those young people declines with social class.As can be seen in Table 2,only a very low percentage (16 per cent) of people from lower socio-economic groups achieve the minimum entry qualifications for university,i.e.2“A”Levels or equivalent.By comparison,there are 27 per cent of those from the middle social classes and 50 per cent from the higher social classes achieving the same records.In addition,not all those who achieve the qualifications choose to go to HE,and the propensity to apply to university, again, decline with social class. Less than 50 per cent of those who have achieved the qualifications to HE in the lower classes participate in HE while the figure in the middle and higher classes are 59 per cent and 77 per cent respectively. Thus, the qualifications to HE is an objective factor that prevent a vast majority of young people from the lower classes from going to university.
Table2.Qualifications and university participation of 18-19 year-olds by social class: incidences,England and Wales,1993（Source:YCS,1993(Cohort 5,Sweep 3)(Metcalff,1997,p.5)
Economic constraints
Lynch and O’Riordan (1998) hold that poverty is regarded as the principal barrier to equality of access and participation for students from low-income families,and it is also called“material constraint”(Reay,et al.,2001;2005).Poverty can give rise to the many problems.First of all, low-income families can not afford to support their children to participate in HE in that they have to keep the whole family surviving with the only money they have.The parents think that their children’s participation in HE is just like a luxury,which is beyond their purchasing ability.Second,lower-class students usually can not attend the relatively better secondary schools like their higher- and middle-class counterparts do (i.e.private schools,grammar schools and single-sex schools),let alone private tutoring.That is also a main reason why not many of them can achieve the qualifications to HE.Third,compared to the students from the middle and higher classes,lower-class students lack a quiet and comfortable place where they can study well.They may have too many siblings to share their rooms and make their learning environment noisy and it may be too cold in winter but they do not have enough heat indoors. Fourth,NCIHE (1997)argue that students from lower socio-economic groups seem to have been guided from an early age that they should enter the labour market or have further education,rather than participate in HE.So they have the pressure to leave school after they finish the compulsory education. Lastly,if they finally decide to go to HE,lower-class students find it too difficult to afford things like books and accommodation. Reay,et al.(2005) point out that lower-class students feel “geographically”constrained because they can not afford to live outside their homes nor can they spend too much on transportation every day so they had better choose universities which are close to their homes.
Social and cultural constraints
Raffe (1992,cited in NCIHE,1997) points out that the low esteem that is attached to the education of those from lower socio-economic groups is one of the social and cultural constraints.Metcalf (1997)and Lynch and O’Riordan (1998) also argue that the higher education of lower-class children is not highly valued by the parents themselves and teachers.On the one hand, most of the parents of students from lower socio-economic groups lack degrees of HE,so they can not set themselves as models for their children and do not value HE much, and thus they do not encourage their children to go to HE as do the parents from middle and higher social groups.On the other hand, some teachers view that students from lower socio-economic groups have a cultural deficit and do not have enough information about what HE is.
Furthermore,there is cultural alienation in some universities,which makes students from lower socio-economic groups decrease their propensity to apply for HE (Metcalf,1997).Some universities, especially those have been long established and prestigious,can appear that they do not welcome students from lower social groups and to some races and the disabled as well.This is also one of the psychological constraints of the lower-class students and hence they rarely choose prestigious universities.
Psychological constraints
There are two main psychological constraints for the students from lower socio-economic groups. One is that they struggle to decide whether they should go to university,and the other is if they decide to go to university,what kind of university they should go to.
The first constraint of students from lower socio-economic groups normally stems from the poverty of the family and the worry that going to university is likely to become a burden of the whole family.Lynch and O’Riordan (1998) argue that this kind of psychological pressure is closely related to the economic condition of the family.A lot of lower-class students decide to join the labour market or go to have further education after they leave secondary school in that they do not want to add more burdens to the family and instead,they want to get a job and support the family as soon as possible.Nonetheless,there are a number of students from lower socio-economic groups want to participate in HE because they hope to get a degree to make themselves competent in the labour market in the future,though they know for this there is a price to pay.
When students from lower socio-economic groups decide they want to participate in HE,then comes the second psychological constraint,i.e.which university to go to (Reay et al.,2001;2005)?In Reay et al.’s research,lower-class students express that they will not choose universities such as LSE or King’s,because they believe that those universities are for the middle and higher classes,and they can not fit in even if they become part of them.They state that“What’s a person like me going to do at a place like that?”(Reay et al.,2001,p.864),showing that they know where they should go. Eventually,they usually choose less prestigious universities and colleges,where they think they would be happier and fit in without much difficulty, and also,which are not so expensive.
From the four constraints shown above,we can see that the unfair access to HE mainly stems from the gap of different social classes.Gomme and Micucci(1999)suggest that class and inter-generational class transmission are best understood in the context of four interrelated types of inequality:condition, opportunity,benefit,and result.Those from middle and higher classes seem to have better condition,greater opportunity,more benefits and better results from generation to generation than those from lower classes.In a nutshell, it is a beneficial circle for the middle and higher classes and a vicious one for the lower classes.Those from the lower classes in the society have far fewer opportunities to participate in HE (HEFCE,1996,cited in Bird, 2000).Though there has been the policy of widening participation in HE,which aims to help those from lower social classes,it can not really raise the rate significantly.So how can the government help the students from lower socio-economic groups obtain a real equal chance to stand on the starting line?This question will be addressed in the following part.
V.What else should be done to benefit the students from lower socio-economic groups?
As is shown above,the policy of widening participation does not work as well as it is expected,and the targeted groups do not benefit much from it.According to DfES,(2003b),the gap between the higher and lower social classes in entry to higher education remains unacceptably wide in spite of the policy of widening participation.While a lot more people from all backgrounds benefit from HE,the amount coming from lower socio-economic groups has not substantially increased.In the following I shall find out what actions should be adopted on the part of the government to benefit the students from lower socio-economic groups.
In the first place,according to NCIHE (1997),there should be an increasing supply of places in HE.An absolute increase of places in HE means there are more opportunities available to people from different backgrounds,including those from lower socio-economic groups.And this also encourages all students from disadvantaged groups to aspire a chance to study in HE.The more places available in universities,the less fierce the competition of entering the HE becomes,and thus more chances the lower-class students have.
In the second place,the access to higher education should be localised. NCIHE(1997)suggest that it seems to be a standard pattern for students from middle and higher socio-economic groups to study full-time away from home in HE while their counterparts from lower socio-economic groups can only study part-time and stay at home.In the research of Reay et al.(2001),some students from lower classes express that they have no choice but choose local universities or colleges because they do not need to spend much on transportation and accommodation in this way. Brint and Karabel (1989,cited in NCIHE,1997) point out that is why the“Community Colleges”are so successful in USA.In a word, localising the access to university can break the conventional practice that one should and has to pursue higher education in a distant residential campus,and it meets the needs of the lower-class students indeed.
In the third place,there should be restored maintenance grants.According to BBC(2001),the government was considering restoring grants for students who need it.This is also encouraged by DfES(2003a)as a policy to improve access financially for the students from low-income families. Furthermore,the government has allowed universities to raise the tuition fees up to a certain level according to their own needs,which makes the financial burden on the lower-income families even heavier,so if there are no grants for students in need,the participation rate is quite impossible to rise.
Conclusion
The policy of widening participation has been in effect for years but the targeted groups that have been under-represented in HE,or rather,those who are“non-traditional”participants,have not been effectively benefited,especially those from lower socio-economic groups. This article has analysed the flaws of the policy and found out some main reasons for the low participation rate and raised some possible suggestion on raising the rate of the lower social classes in HE. In short,the policy of widening participation in HE has brought some good practice,but there are also some flaws.And there are mainly four constraints for lower-class students to participate in HE in terms of qualification, economy,society and culture,and psychology.Finally,there are some pieces of suggestion to be taken to help to raise the rate of students from lower socio-economic groups in HE,i.e.providing more places in universities and colleges,localising the access to HE and restoring maintenance grants.
References:
[1]BBC (British Broadcasting Company)(2001).Student grants back on the agenda. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1577689.stm.
[2]BBC(British Broadcasting Company)(2005).Q&A:Student fees.Available from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3013272.stm.
[3]Bird,J.(2000).“Social class and mature entrants”,in:D.Woodward and K.Ross(eds)Managing equal opportunities in higher education:a guide to understanding and action. London:Society for Research into Higher Education and O.U.Press.
[4]Bowers-Brown,T.(2006).“Widening participation in higher education amongst students from disadvantaged socioeconomic groups”,Tertiary Education and Management,12,59–74.
[5]Burke,P.J.(2002).Assessing education:effectively widening participation.Stoke on Trent:Trentham Books.
[6]DfES(Department for Education and Skills)(2003a)Widening Participation in Higher Education,London,HMSO.
[7]DfES(Department for Education and Skills)(2003b)The Future of Higher Education,London,HMSO.
[8]Gomme,I.M.and Micucci,A.J.(1999).Class inequality in higher education,Peace Review,11,1040-2659.
[9]HEA(Higher Education Academy)(2006).What is widening participation?Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/199.htm.
[10]Lynch,K.and O’Riordan,C.(1998).Inequality in higher education:a study of class barriers,British Journal of Sociology of Education,19:445-478.
[11]Metcalf,H.(1997).Class and higher education: the participation of young people from lower social classes.CIHE.
[12]NCIHE(National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education)(1997).Report 6:Widening Participation in Higher Education for Students Lower Socio-Economic Groups and Students with Disabilities, London, HMSO.
[13]Reay, D., Davies, J., David, M., and Ball, S. (2001)“Choices of degree or degrees of choice? Class,‘race’,and the higher education choice process”,Sociology,35,855-874.
[14]Reay,D.,David,M.,and Ball,S.(2005) Degrees of Choice: Social class,race and gender in higher education.Stoke on Trent:Trentham Books.
[15]Straw,W.(2003).“Education for all -widening access to higher education”,education review,16,34-38.