JAPP: Editorial

Access to and through further and higher education as a strand of education policy has been a concern of governments across the world since the 1970s. In the USA, this strand was particularly shaped by the civil rights movement and had a particular flavour, one which emphasised local provision for black and minority ethnic students as well as other students from poorer backgrounds.

The USA saw considerable strides being made in the numbers of people entering higher-level study, but the pattern of that study was diverse and complex, leading to concern about low completion rates. However, this concern has recently been challenged by Weko (2004). He argues that if you look at the standard student who studies for an equivalent of an honours degree, from high school through university the retention rate is pretty much the same as the UK - around 85 per cent. However, if one looks at the more complex range of HE study in the USA, including first-cycle two-year programmes and the well-established credit system, retention is much lower than the UK. This is a consequence of a nearly universal system of HE in the USA. Of course, in Britain we still have not yet made the breakthrough to a universal system of HE, but we are moving in that direction.

The class issue remains the difficult nut to crack. Programmes and projects to encourage this transformation, such as the Aimhigher programme in England and the Reaching Higher, Reaching Wider programme in Wales, have been shaped by examples from the USA and Australia: however there are some significant differences. In particular, the programme in England is almost exclusively focused on young people in schools, whereas many of the programmes in other countries recognise that without the support and involvement of parents and communities (Coles and Roth, 2002), widening-access initiatives will not succeed. Willis has consistently pointed out through empirical studies of working-class secondary students, that working-class male culture is antagonistic to the ethos of schooling. This form of ‘antimentalism’ (Willis, 1977, 2000) prevents any major breakthrough in encouraging students from working-class backgrounds to study towards higher education.

This edition of the Journal of Access Policy and Practice reflects the range of actions that need to be undertaken to ensure a successful widening-access policy. The articles serve as a strong reminder to policy makers that there is no quick fix to the age-old problem of class distinction in a late-/post-modern society.

Dodgson’s research with parents of young people involved in the Aimhigher initiative highlights the importance of their attitudes and economic position to their children’s success. Working with parents must form a vital part of practice to enable the transformation that the British government requires.

Waller identifies that Access programmes with mature students, often the parents of the young people involved in Aimhigher programmes themselves, provide an opportunity to re-visit the negative identities that developed for them in the school environment. The importance of ‘second-chance learning’ seems to be being forgotten in current thinking on policy formation for widening access.

Equally, Simpson points to the importance of open and distance learning for access and retention of students. The original Aimhigher programme in England only focused on inner-city students and did not take account of rural or small town disadvantage. As well as the importance of thinking through widening access beyond our inner cities, the bite-sized chunk approach made possible by work undertaken through organisations such as the Open University provides another route for learners who cannot or do not want to follow the conventional approach to learning, another vital thread in the web of approaches required to fulfil government aspirations.

Paczuska highlights an important strand of work that has proved successful in other parts of the world, the use of student mentors with young people. Youth work has recognised that people closer in age to the young people they are working with can have a significant impact on the attitudes and behaviour of the group (Wyn and White, 1997), and Paczuska highlights that the current policy initiatives have enabled practitioners to refine and improve their practice in this area. However, while mentoring is one strand of what is required to achieve significant change, this edition of the journal highlights that we need a more holistic approach to the overall problem of widening access.

In the Debates and Discussion section we publish two lectures which raise a number of other important questions related to the current approach to widening access. Brown points out the historic role of advice and guidance for adults, reminding us of the importance of assisting learners through the confusing paths of education. While government policy highlights the work of connexions with young people, it is also the adults, their parents and other family members who must be informed and supported in learning. Finally, Gray in his inaugural lecture questions both policy and practice by examining the economic and political geography of coastal cities and towns. He highlights how higher education has a crucial role to play in supporting the economic and social development of these areas, but also points out that they have singularly failed the very groups who government is trying to regenerate through their education and other social policies. There is a salutary lesson in this piece, namely that widening access is not a singular activity. If it is to be of real social value it cannot be about individuals coming through the system, it must be about whole communities developing and regenerating.

The policies that must be adopted and the practices that need to be implemented are wide-ranging, enabling all members of the community to access education at a level to meet their own and their community’s needs. Further and higher education need to support all the communities in their locality, not only those that are able to provide them with research or commercial funding. Most of all, programmes to bring working-class young people into and through higher education need to work with community education and youth work, not just work in schools. Schools need to transform themselves, so that they are not just providing learning that made sense in earlier forms of capitalist society for an elite who would and could succeed into professional positions. They now need to engage with the employment possibilities of the future, specifically relating these to the cultural and social milieu of young people themselves.

I started this editorial by talking about the progress made in the USA in the 1970s, however it is clear now that some of the approaches described above have been forgotten or misappropriated. It is almost as though these lessons need to be learned in Britain and re-learned in the USA. These types of interventions are crucial for the development of a real widening-access campaign in any part of the world, as this issue of JAPP clearly shows.

References

Coles, A and Roth, DM (2002) ‘Pathways to college networks: collaborating nationally to improve college access and success for under represented students in the US’, in L Thomas, M Cooper and J Quinn (eds), Collaboration to Widen Participation in Higher Education, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.

Weko, T (2004) New Dogs for Old Tricks, What can the UK teach the USA about Student Retention? London: HEPI.

Willis, P (1977) Learning to Labour, Aldershot: Saxon House.

Willis, P (2003) ‘Foot soldiers of modernity: the dialectics of cultural consumption of the 21st century school’, Harvard Educational Review, vol. 73(3), pp 390-415.