Unpacking ‘disadvantage’ and ‘potential’ in the context of fair access policies in England

Abstract

Policy makers internationally are increasingly preoccupied with the need for education systems to be developed in ways that mitigate unfairness. What is more contestable is what might need to change. In England this emphasis has informed the development of fair access policies that aim to improve the representation of ‘disadvantaged’ young people of high ‘potential’ at high status universities. Drawing on research conducted at the inception of one fair access intervention, this paper provides original insights into a process of policy translation that requires multiple encodings and decodings of two constructs that defy ready definition, with their intersection being a particular point of difficulty. Behind the apparent objectivity of commonly used selection criteria sits a process of situated decision-making that incorporates not only the particularities of institutional context and the understandings of key actors, but also macro level pressures that reinforce the need for changes in understandings of fairness at the top.

Keywords:

• Equality/inequality
• higher education/university
• participation
• policy/politics

Acknowledgement

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author alone. I would like to thank: former colleagues Professor Judy Sebba, Dr Sarah Aynsley and Dr Angie Jacklin for their contributions to the original research; the third sector organisation that developed the intervention and funded the research; the many research participants who shared their insights and experiences over time.

Notes

1. Typically defined as those belonging to the Russell Group and including Oxford and Cambridge.

2. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

3. Black and Minority Ethnic.

4. Additional funding for schools in England, linked to a high profile policy agenda that aims to narrow attainment gaps between ‘disadvantaged’ young people and others.

5. Primarily relates to eligibility for Free School Meals (FSM) but also includes Looked After Children and those with parents serving in the armed forces.

6. This approach was tightened after the first year.

7. In receipt of either Free School Meals or Education Maintenance Allowance (replaced in the second year with a maximum household income threshold of £25,000 when this was withdrawn following a change of national policy).

8. Pupil Premium policies have raised the institutional profile of young people eligible for FSM but were not well established at the time of the research.

9. The intention was in future years to work through from Year 10–13, avoiding this necessity.

10. Changes have subsequently been made at policy level to prevent such practices.

11. Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (2014) gives a figure of 7%.

12. The school performance data published by the DfE now includes university destinations, broken down by institutional status. See: https://www.gov.uk/school-performance-tables

13. Performance tables have been successively tightened to try to avoid institutional ‘gaming’ and there is no reason why this case will be any different.