[ Current Issue ] [ Back Issues ] 

JAPP: Editorial

Volume 1, Number 2, Spring 2004

Mary Stuart
University of Sussex

Currently, education policy in Britain is big news. We hear daily of ‘failing schools’, the review of the 14–19 curriculum, funding for higher education (HE), or issues of access to HE. For those of us who work as teachers or lecturers this attention in the media feels strange: we are not used to being so ‘popular’. It may be that, as higher and further education (FE) are increasingly managed locally in Scotland, Wales and England, and as more and more people take on higher-level study, whether in FE or in an HEI, it is fitting that government and the general public become more interested in what we are doing.

Colleagues in the USA tell me that education in their country has received media attention for some time, so I suppose we are simply catching up. However, the level of scrutiny here is often superficial: the debate in the media about access to HE in England has largely focused on bright 18-yearolds from working-class backgrounds being able to ‘get into’ the ‘elite’ institutions. It has not tackled some of the real questions of access, such as the inequalities within schooling and the inequalities in funding for HE in further education colleges, nor has it addressed curriculum matters, or examined qualifications and their outcomes. It is these issues that are perplexing educationalists across the world. In the USA, cuts to HE budgets are forcing even the most public-spirited institutions to abandon affirmative action projects and to reduce their involvement in programmes to raise aspirations and attainment. Many state schools in poorer areas depend on unqualified teachers with little or no support.

In Australia, too, disadvantage in schooling is related to neighbourhoods and the economic context of families, although state and federal governments continue to attach blame to schools as if they were in complete isolation from their surroundings (Thomson, 2002). It is these questions of access that must be addressed, and in this edition of JAPP we attempt to examine some of these issues. Our theme is access in the context of different learners, different settings and different curricula. This issue does not deal with all the issues of access, nor does it provide any easy answers, but the articles do offer an interesting critique of some popular policy directions being heralded as solutions to the concerns of governments across the globe. John Field’s article on Higher National qualifications (HNs) in Scotland highlights that that country’s experience, often cited by government ministers in the UK as an example of HE participation success, must be questioned. He points out that progression for many students who started their studies in FE in Scotland is problematic, as statistically such students gain places only in the new universities.

Burke’s research examining the experience of women returners indicates that despite nearly thirty years of Access to HE, women returners from working-class backgrounds are still second-class citizens in HE. Using theories of multiple subjectivities, she skilfully draws out student voices and experiences. Following on from this, George, Cowan, Cannell and Hewitt describe work being undertaken to support mature part-time learners in Scotland. In this evaluation of adult learners they highlight how a lack of confidence and ‘feeling at ease’ in an HE context affects learners. They suggest that provision to create an environment where the students can feel able to take risks is vital to success. Questions on the development of Foundation Degrees (FDs) in England are raised by Brain, Layer and Reid, who have studied the first cohort of students. They suggest that, despite government policy heralding them as a solution for access to HE, there are many risks attached to the development of FDs – both for institutions and for learners.

Another sacred cow is challenged in the Debates and Discussion section. Selwyn argues that IT, much heralded by policy-makers as a valuable tool to enable learning, does not live up to its reputation. Based in Wales, where the IT policy for learning has been particularly strong, Selwyn suggests that the policy is based on several misconceptions and that access is far more complex than received wisdom allows.

Finally, Nichols’s article argues that the rhetoric of access does not seem to have moved on much since the turn of the twentieth century. She draws on policy documents from 1908 and compares them to the statements in the British government’s White Paper in 2003, to find that strategies do not seem to have changed over the last hundred years. We are still living with huge inequalities in educational attainment and potential. Her challenge is this: if these policies and strategies suggested in 1908 did not succeed then, what chance do they have of succeeding now? Of course there are differences, and of course many first-generation HE students have come through the system since 1908, but even allowing for the diminution in numbers of the working classes, they are still significantly under-represented in HE, and, indeed, they also have significantly fewer level-three qualifications than other social groups.

As I said at the beginning of this editorial, the articles do not suggest easy solutions, but some thoughts are offered by George et al: they suggest that course design must address issues of low self-esteem as well as content, and that more attention should be paid to cultural values and experiences of working-class students. This message needs to be heard loud and clear as we develop new qualifications such as foundation degrees. It must also be heard in discussions about the new vocational routes for 14–19 year olds. If we do not learn from research we will simply repeat the mistakes of the past, and we may find ourselves still arguing over access in yet another hundred years.

References
Thomson P (2002) Schooling and the Rustbelt Kids: Making the Difference in Changing Times, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.