The Working Class Access Network is a voluntary membership group, which includes representatives from the Adult, Community, Third Level and Further Education sectors. It exists to effect change in the inequality of access to and participation in third level education for working class people, through the development of policies, structures and provision of resources. For more information on the WCAN, telephone the Higher Education Equality Unit, 021-4903133
The recent publication of the HEA commissioned report Evaluation of the Targeted Initiative on Widening Access for Young People from Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Backgrounds, prepared by Robert Osborne and Helen Leith is a welcome publication. This Initiative formed part of the work of widening access to higher-level education in Ireland. Since 1996 the HEA has provided funds to universities to facilitate them in establishing and in developing access programmes specifically aimed at students from working class backgrounds. These students may otherwise not have had opportunities to continue their education through to third level.
We are stating nothing new when we say that working class students experience educational disadvantage because the provision of education is not structured or resourced in a way that fully recognizes their needs, economically or culturally. While steps have been made towards addressing working class disadvantage in education, generally the educational system as it currently operates falls short of fully recognising cultural values, norms and mores of a body of students as valid, and misinterprets or fails to recognise the impacts of students’ economic constraints. Therefore, after six years of programmes, work and learning under this Targeted Initiative such an evaluation is timely. It provides us with an opportunity to take stock and to learn from the process that has taken place. As such it indicates a way forward in consultation with the players involved.
The initiation and development of a range of access programmes under this initiative demonstrates that there is a will within the universities to open their gates to non-traditional students. The attention to support structures for students who participate in access programmes is integral to their success and indicates the very genuine efforts those involved in access provision have throughout the institutions involved in the study.
However, this report makes clear that such commendable work is sometimes carried out in less than favourable circumstances. Throughout the report implicit and explicit reference is made to the rhetoric of access. This issue needs to be addressed if we are to move forward and genuinely make access to higher-level education a real choice for students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. It is clear from the report that there is not consistent acceptance within the universities that widening access is desirable. Reservations are expressed in a variety of ways. For example there is a fear that widening access will lead to lowering of academic standards. Such fears sometimes question the ability of students entering higher education through alternative routes to succeed academically. Importantly then the report stresses the weakness of entry grades and test scores as a predictor of academic performance. It refers to longitudinal evidence from the U.S. that indicates such criteria to be only between 15-20% reliable. Furthermore, the same research stresses the very positive effects that a diverse student population has to offer academically and culturally (Bowen and Bok 1998). ‘It is not the individuals alone who gain. Substantial additional benefits accrue to society at large through leadership and civic participation of the graduates and through the broad contributions the schools themselves make to the goals of democratic society’ (p.276). We reiterate the importance emphasising these findings and considerations.
It is essential that moves towards a more inclusive higher education are combined with an understanding of the benefits that this will bring throughout the whole environment of higher-level education. The message must reach all those working within the institutions through training, awareness raising and in the ongoing task of reflection on long standing practices and norms that may very well serve to build barriers instead of bridges. Access cannot be measured solely on a quantitative basis. Students learn from one another, from their lecturers and tutors and pick up signals from the variety of contacts they have on campus. In order for students from diverse backgrounds to be in a position to fully participate in academic, social and cultural life at higher level their diverse needs must be addressed.
Three factors have been identified as critical in facilitating transition to third level for students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Early school leaving, low grades at leaving certificate level and difficulties in transition to third level are well documented. They are also referred to by Robert Osborne and Helen Leith in their report. The Working Class Access Network previously prepared a paper that reflected on the relationship between structure, practice and initiatives at second level and the transition to third level. In this we focused on the factors that lead to disengagement of students from education at second level (WCAN 2000). Clearly, the task of constructing a more inclusive higher-level sector begins much earlier than third level. Resources need to be directed into guidance and counselling at second level as well as towards a range of student support mechanisms at secondary and primary levels. Lack of information, as well as inaccurate information, contribute to students’ anxieties about entry to and participation at third level. Guidance resources and personal support mechanisms for second level students are only inadequately provided for at present. Such a situation adversely affects those students who are most reliant on school resources for information and support and contributes to an apparent culture of disengagement from education. We stress the importance of adequate funding and resourcing at all levels of education.
Moves towards a closer examination of the selection of partner schools and individuals for inclusion in access programmes are positive. We welcome the recommendations to examine these selection criteria more closely. It is also important to remain aware of the reality that all students in a designated school will not have similar socio-economic backgrounds and not all working class students will attend designated schools. Criteria that focus more on individuals and communities as well as on designated schools will help direct resources more clearly at those most in need. The Working Class Access Network is concerned with the full range of issues regarding socio-economic access to education. We examine and highlight obstacles that present themselves at all levels in the educational system that impact on participation at third level. We are also concerned with promoting collaborative relations between working class communities and higher-level institutions where the interests of all concerned are served. We wish to emphasise the often multi-layered disadvantage faced by communities and individuals coming from working class backgrounds. We welcome the broadening of access initiatives to take account of layers of inequalities.
The report refers to the impact of attitudes of young people and their parents on educational attainment. In the course of discussions WCAN members expressed concern at what may be interpreted as an implicit acceptance within the report, of apparent negative attitudes towards the education of those who come from working class backgrounds. The Working Class Access Network wish to stress that such a focus may lead one away from a structural examination of the manner in which individuals become distanced from education from an early age. Kathleen Lynch and Claire O’Riordan undertook a study of class barriers in higher education in the mid 1990s. Their findings suggest that ‘[W]orking-class students do not ‘give up’ on the education system in some predetermined manner. Rather, they negotiate and inhabit the education system with an eye to the opportunities which are open and those which are not’ (1998: 474). They conclude that social and cultural constraints are critical barriers to equality of access to and participation in higher education. Their research examined the interpretation of barriers from the points of view of different groups involved in education: teachers, community workers and students and demonstrated clear differences in interpretations. For instance teachers’ conception of parental choice to encourage study/part-time work was not considered to be a real choice in the minds of community leaders.
At the same time teachers considered a culture of disengagement to be a by-product of working class alienation, whereas community leaders were critical of the role of teachers in contributing to low expectations and attainment. Lynch and O’Riordan conclude that ‘any change-related strategy needs to address differences of interpretation as to the cause of inequality’ (1998:470). What may manifest as negative attitudes may well be grounded in people’s experiences of and interaction with a system which in reality has offered them little opportunity.
The Clondalkin Higher Education Access Network also recently published a report entitled Young People, living in a severely Disadvantaged Area, and their Experiences of Third Level Education: Some Observations and Recommendations (Kennedy & Fleming 1999). They make a number of recommendations related to student support in this report. These include developing partnerships between education sectors and parents in disadvantaged areas and the development of a comprehensive guidance and support process throughout second level and onto third level. The challenge is to reflect on the attitudes of those working within education and on the exclusionary structures that are already in place.
Osborne and Leith also highlighted the importance of financial support in their report. Levels of grant maintenance have been an issue of debate and contention for some years now. We wish to add our voice to the call for a level of grant funding that allows the student at higher level the possibility to undertake their studies without recourse to part-time work. Currently the level of grant maintenance assumes the student has access to other means of support. Younger students eligibility for grant maintenance is determined with reference to household of origin income while a range of potential older learners are excluded from back to education initiatives, for instance, because of their status as dependents, or because of their participation in low paid employment. While this situation continues to exist financial factors will continue to adversely affect the ability of students from working class backgrounds to choose to participate in higher-level education. It is timely to actively move away from the conceptualisation of a student as a young adult with, at best, semi-independent status. In recognition of the changing composition of the student population and in the spirit of actively supporting inclusion, attention needs to be focused on addressing the diverse financial circumstances of potential students and incorporating these circumstances into a broad range of supports.
Colleges may also operate hardship funds in order to supplement students’ incomes. However, there are issues to be considered around the manner in which these funds are accessed. They are administered in different ways by different colleges. Because of this lack of transparency it may become difficult for the student, especially the student who is unfamiliar with the institutional layout, to get information on these funds. There are also issues around terms such as ‘hardship’ funds. It is not easy to request assistance from a ‘hardship’ fund, especially at a time when the new student may be doing their best not to be singled out as different. Becoming more pro-active, distributing information on support funds as well as reflecting on their administration would strengthen these sorts of student supports.
We are looking forward to action on the lessons that are being learnt from this evaluation process. A national strategy for access throughout the full higher-level sector with clear guidelines, criteria and support structures for students, a network of alternative routes, flexible provision of courses and well resourced and trained staff can place issues of access more centrally on the agenda of higher-education institutions.
Table of Contents of Newsletter 10
Bowen W.G. and D. Bok, (1998) The Shape of the River – Long Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions, N.J. Princeton University Press, Cited in Robert Osborne and Helen Leith, (2000) Evaluation of the Targeted Initiative on Widening Access for Young People from Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Backgrounds, Higher Education Authority, Dublin.
Drudy, Sheelagh and Kathleen Lynch, (1993) Schools and Society in Ireland, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin.
Kennedy, Olive and Brian Fleming, (1999) Young People, living in a severely Disadvantaged Area, and their Experiences of Third Level Education: Some Observations and Recommendations, CHEAP, Dublin.
Lynch, Kathleen and Claire O’Riordan, (1998) ‘Inequality in Higher Education: A Study of Class Barriers’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 9, No. 4 pp. 445-478.
Osborne, Robert and Helen Leith, (2000) Evaluation of the Targeted Initiative on Widening Access for Young People from Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Backgrounds, Higher Education Authority, Dublin.
WCAN, (2000) Socio-Economic Disadvantage in Third Level Education: Reflections on the Relationship between Structure, Practice and Initiatives at Second Level and Transition to Third Level, TUI Congress Journal.
Table of Contents of Newsletter 10