Steps by the government to dismantle Connexions, abolish the EMA and allow universities to raise tuition fees threaten to lock the middle classes out of university, says Brian Lightman. And it undermines the coalition’s aim to improve social mobility.

The gap years...

In the foreword to the coalition agreement, David Cameron and Nick Clegg wrote: “We both want a Britain where social mobility is unlocked; where everyone, regardless of background, has the chance to rise as high as their talents and ambition allow them.”

Later in the same document they promised to consider Lord Browne’s final report into higher education in the context of the need to:

• increase social mobility
• take into account the impact on student debt
• attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds

A newcomer reading some of the commentary on this subject might think that the concept of social mobility had just been invented. Like many of the ‘day zero’ ideas that have characterised education policy since May, much of the good practice that went on before appears to have been forgotten or ignored.

Raising the aspirations of students who have the ability but possibly not the confidence to aim for a university degree has always been a priority for schools and colleges. Over the last decade or so, as developments in neuroscience have proved beyond doubt that intelligence is not fixed at birth and that it really is possible to make a difference, a vast amount of effort has been put into helping young people from less fortunate backgrounds to overcome potential barriers.

I have not come across anybody in education who would argue this job is done. We all know that there is still a vast challenge and it lies at the heart of the mission of school and college leaders. At the same time as we celebrate steps that are made, we continue our efforts to do more.

Raft of initiatives

Two successes have been the continuing trend of improving results and the fact that last year’s A level results showed an increase in the numbers of young people who had clearly chosen their subjects with the labour market in mind.

Universities need to recruit students who are capable of achieving the highest levels of academic excellence whatever their background and who are ready to progress to the rigours of undergraduate study. They cannot simply be selected on the basis of where they grew up and went to school or who their parents are.

Efforts to increase the number of students from poorer backgrounds who meet these criteria have been supported by a raft of initiatives that help young people stay in education and aspire to university. They include the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) as well as programmes like Aim Higher and the host of other interventions designed to raise achievement.

Large numbers of school and college leaders report that these have made a real difference to students’ aspirations. University grants are not enough. Work has to start early – even at primary school – and continue throughout secondary education.

One by one however these initiatives have lost their funding and schools and colleges have been left high and dry, struggling on their own to try to maintain this important provision. They are working hard to do this but it is an uphill struggle in which not all will succeed.

Attendance and success for learners go hand-in-hand. In a recent Institute for Learning poll of students on the likely effect of removing the EMA, 69 per cent of the 1,700 respondents believed it would have a significant effect on attendance.

As fees to be charged by England’s top universities have been announced and the government’s panic reaction has been the threat of more targets, there has been a suggestion from some quarters that schools and colleges will be to blame if the numbers applying to university from poorer backgrounds drops.

The bearers of simplistic solutions argue that it is down to ‘bad teaching’ and low expectations for these students. I wish they would visit our schools and colleges which, once again, are expected to carry sole responsibility for and to solve society’s problems.

Pointing the blame at schools and colleges is a smokescreen that masks the real issue: many young people will be put off by the thought of having to pay back tens of thousands of pounds once they start working.

Understandable deterrent

The reality of a £9,000 tuition fee, however presented, is that prospective students face some hard choices. Add on the cost of accommodation and other basic needs and it is difficult to imagine how the total debt could be much less than £40,000 even when supported by part-time work.

However the repayments are packaged or profiled, this amounts to an understandable deterrent to many. Even when a scholarship is available to cover the cost of fees, the other expenses will not go away. Many of these, such as rent for halls of residence or deposits on accommodation, require significant payments upfront.

Parents who are neither the lowest nor high earners will understandably warn their sons and daughters against taking on significant debt. Those are the young people who won’t be eligible for grants or scholarships or free school meals, but will still find it a hardship to pay for living expenses, never mind paying back huge chunks of money when they graduate.

And we know how difficult it is to enter the housing market in many parts of the UK. Being saddled with debt of this magnitude on top of a mortgage is hardly desirable.

It is utterly disingenuous of the government to play down the impact of this, especially at a time when the dangers of getting into debt have never been so clear.

Uncertainty on careers advice

The other consideration is access to high quality careers advice and guidance. The Connexions service is being dismantled in many areas. The government is planning an all-age careers service, a concept which ASCL fully supports, but at the moment the detail of how this will operate or be funded is alarmingly absent.

Once again the government has put the cart before the horse, dismantling one structure before it has thought through how it will pick up the pieces.

Schools and colleges are completely in the dark about what this means in practice. A requirement to provide students with access to professional and impartial careers guidance is in the Education Bill before the new service is in place. Most incomprehensibly, the requirement only relates to pupils up to 16. Post-16 students finding their way through the quagmire will not be guaranteed support.

The Education Bill also removes any duty to provide careers education. Ministers urgently need to listen to the profession about this. We know that a well planned and properly coordinated programme of careers education and guidance is a vitally important part of the mix when it comes to raising aspirations.

A dangerous concoction

Combined, these factors make a dangerous concoction. And along with tuition fee increases, the removal of the EMA and the absence of professional careers guidance, we have the threat of a more restrictive and less engaging curriculum at Key Stage 4. The mix has the potential to become truly explosive.

Schools and colleges will continue to do all they can to raise aspirations, but the bottom line is that they can’t do it in a vacuum. No matter how good their grades are and how well they are coached to pass an Oxbridge entrance test, if students have to find an additional £40,000 or £50,000 for the privilege, many will say no.

This is a price our economy most certainly cannot afford.

• Brian Lightman is ASCL general secretary
  

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us