Current government policy of increasing participation in higher education is justified on the grounds of individual benefit, the national economic interest and, most significantly, as part of a moral agenda of promoting equality of opportunity. This article examines a range of empirical findings in the light of ideas about equality and, in particular, the concept of ‘equality of opportunity’, and what these entail. It concludes that widening participation in higher education, at least as envisaged in current policy, cannot compensate for social and educational disadvantage, and is not only ineffectual in promoting equality of opportunity, but carries serious disbenefits.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlairT. (2004), Speech to the Labour Party Annual Conference, 28 September.
2.
BourdieuP. (1974), ‘The School as a Conservative Force: Scholastic and Cultural Inequalities’ in EgglestonJ. (ed.), Contemporary Research in the Sociology of Education, London: Methuen.
3.
BourdieuP. (1977), ‘Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction’ in KarabelJ. and HalseyA.H. (eds.), Power and Ideology in Education, New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
BynnerJ. and JoshiH. (2002), ‘Equality and Opportunity in Education: Evidence from the 1958 and 1970 Birth Cohort Studies’, Oxford Review of Education28, pp. 405–425.
5.
Committee on Higher Education (1963), Higher Education, London: HMSO (The Robbins Report).
6.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003a), Widening Participation in Higher Education, London: DfES 0301/2003.
7.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003b), The Future of Higher Education, London; HMSO: DfES, White Paper Cm 5735.
8.
DouglasJ.W.B. (1964), The Home and the School: A Study of Ability and Attainment in the Primary Schools, London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1964.
9.
FeinsteinL. (2004), ‘Mobility in Pupils' Cognitive Attainment During School Life’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy20, pp. 213–229.
10.
ForsythA. and FurlongA. (2003), ‘Access to Higher Education and Disadvantaged Young People’, British Educational Research Journal29, pp. 205–225.
11.
HalseyA.H.HeathA.F. and RidgeJ.M. (1980), Origins and Destinations: Family, Class, and Education in Modern Britain, Oxford: Clarendon.
12.
IllsleyR. (2002), ‘A City's Schools: From Equality of Input to Inequality of Outcome’, Oxford Review of Education28, pp. 427–445.
13.
KeepE. and MayhewK. (2004), ‘The Economic and Distributional Implications of Current Policies on Higher Education’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy20, pp. 298–314.
14.
Labour Party (1995), Revised Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution.
15.
LeathwoodC. and O'ConnellP. (2003), ‘It's a Struggle: The Construction of the “New Student” in Higher Education’, Journal of Education Policy18, pp. 597–615.
16.
MayhewK.DeerC. and DuaM. (2004), ‘The Move to Mass Higher Education in the UK: Many Questions and Some Answers’, Oxford Review of Education30, pp. 65–82.
17.
MorrisE. (2001), Speech at London Guildhall University, 21 September.
18.
Office for Fair Access (OFFA) (2005), Available at: http://www.offa.org.uk/ (accessed 26 August 2005).
19.
SaundersP. (1996), Unequal But Fair? A Study of Class Barriers in Britain, London: IEA.
20.
SchwartzS. (2004), Fair Admissions to Higher Education: Recommendations for Good Practice, report of the Admissions to Higher Education Review, Nottingham: DfES.
21.
YoungM. (1958), The Rise of the Meritocracy 1870–2033, London: Thames and Hudson.
