Widening access: a ‘backwards step’ on a slippery slope

4th January 2019, 12:00am
Magazine Article Image

Share

Widening access: a ‘backwards step’ on a slippery slope

https://www.tes.com/magazine/archived/widening-access-backwards-step-slippery-slope

“If we want universities to be for the many and not the few, the government needs to step in and pledge to ensure vital outreach work is properly funded.”

These were the words of charity chief executive Andy Ratcliffe as he labelled a move by the Office for Students (OfS) a “backwards step”.

Ratcliffe, who runs Impetus-PEF, an education charity, said that the OfS’ decision to no longer require colleges and universities to set aside a specific amount of tuition fee income for widening participation activities opened the door to for institutions to cut expenditure on them completely.

“I am pleased that the OfS will expect universities to set tough targets for widening participation in higher education for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. But achieving those outcomes costs money, and the decision not to set a minimum level of expenditure is a backwards step,” he said.

In the past, higher education institutions charging more than £6,000 for a course had to establish an “access agreement” with the former Office for Fair Access (OFFA), which included a recommended spend of between 15 and 30 per cent of tuition fees.

Under this system, HEIs were required to spend this money on supporting students from underrepresented or disadvantaged groups, including those from low-income backgrounds or BAME backgrounds, or care leavers, for example.

The money could be spent on travel costs, staff costs for student services or direct cash support for these students.

From September onwards, students who started courses in previous years will still be covered by access arrangements, but new students will not.

The report by the OfS said: “We will not set a minimum expected level of expenditure. Our focus will be on the outcomes that providers achieve and the level of ambition they set, rather than inputs in the form of investment. We will challenge providers’ investment through our assessment of whether we believe their plans to be credible, given the level of intended investment.”

You need a Tes subscription to read this article

Subscribe now to read this article and get other subscriber-only content:

  • Unlimited access to all Tes magazine content
  • Exclusive subscriber-only stories
  • Award-winning email newsletters

Already a subscriber? Log in

You need a subscription to read this article

Subscribe now to read this article and get other subscriber-only content, including:

  • Unlimited access to all Tes magazine content
  • Exclusive subscriber-only stories
  • Award-winning email newsletters
Recent
Most read
Most shared