Whilst the rationale for policies on access-participation-mobility can, almost exclusively, be explained by the economic value of higher education (human capital theory) and meritocracy (equality of opportunity), examining other
discourses in the White Papers gives a more complete picture of the ideas shaping policies on access-participation-mobility. Efforts to widen access in 1987 and 1991 align with a broader policy concern for establishing a co-ordinated, national higher education system, which would be achieved through the abolition of the binary line and encouraging more competition between institutions. Although the widening access and continuing education policies were not subordinate to the other policies set out in the 1987 and 1991 White Papers, their primary function was to support economic objectives. In contrast, an important role of the policies and discourses on fair access, widening participation and lifelong learning in 2003 was to counterbalance the narratives on cost sharing and the role of variable fees. Similarly, the 2011 policies on social mobility and fair access serve to offset the narratives associated with austerity and a three-fold increase in tuition fees. As the Social Mobility Strategy affirmed:
Our reforms to higher education funding put new obligations on universities to improve access. In particular, those universities charging over £6,000 will have to attract more students from less affluent backgrounds (Cabinet Office, 2011, p. 7).
During the twenty-five year period, expressions of access-participation-mobility have done considerable policy work to support Government aspirations for the economy and, latterly, to offset equity-related concerns surrounding structural and financial reforms. In this way, policies on access-participation-mobility have been increasingly subordinated to economic and technocratic objectives. The nature of economic objectives has also changed, shifting from a focus on
rationalisation, efficiency and manpower needs towards students as consumers, the market and global competition and, more recently, austerity.
Trow’s observation (1974) that the passage to mass higher education can create new sources of tension is particularly salient to how expressions of access- participation-mobility interact with other key policies on reform. In his reading of the 1991 White Paper Trow (1992) argued that the multiple and conflicting sets of ideas underpinning the document presented specific challenges for the system:
The strategy adopted in the UK seems almost to have been designed to create very high levels of difficulty. It is marked by very high levels of uncertainty about the future, and unclear, and indeed conflicting expectations on the part of nearly all the participants in the system. British academics, on the whole, find themselves exposed to contradictory incentives and
disincentives marked by unclear signals from central
Government about where it is going or what it wants (Trow, 1992, p. 218).
The recognition that White Papers on higher education seek to combine and reconcile a range of different and difficult positions continues to be pertinent. For example, the popularity of meritocracy as a framework for access-participation- mobility policies, as evidenced by repeated policy concerns for a ‘level playing field’ in the 2011 White Paper, is combined with claims for the benefits of greater competition. Yet meritocracy, in its classical sense, favours selection and
academic achievement as principles for access to higher education, as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2.
Each of the White Papers refer implicitly to meritocracy, specifically the notion that individuals should have equal chance to participate in higher education regardless of their social background and status. Meritocracy has, however, undergone different interpretations between 1987 and 2012. By recognising new entry routes, the 1987 and 1991 White Papers interpreted meritocracy more generously than previously. In 2003, meritocracy and social justice were presented as complementary principles in the discourses of successive Blair governments. Importantly, Lawton (2005) warned against New Labour’s pre- occupation with meritocracy and its emphasis on academic achievement as a ‘supreme arbiter’, which, he suggested, would lead to new forms of unfairness (p. 161). However, the idea of contextualised admissions decisions, first presented in the 2004 Schwartz Report, implied a reworking of the notion of meritocracy, this
time as ‘academic achievement plus potential’, rather than Young’s original formula of ‘IQ plus effort’ (Lane and Birds, 2013).
In 2011, the grades achieved for entry to undergraduate education became an important element of the core/margin number control policy. Although this policy ceased after 2014/15, the three years of its operation represented an important phase for policy interpretations of meritocracy. In opening up the market to ‘high achieving’ students, those achieving grades of AAB or higher, entry qualifications were to be regarded as a scarce resource which institutions must compete for in annual competitions for student numbers. In this way, there is relevance in the claim by Brown and Tannock (2009) that a ‘new phase of neo-liberalism’ and ‘hyper-meritocracy’ is emerging (p. 378) where ‘the best are disproportionately rewarded as the (global) war for talent devalues everything other than “top” performance’ (p. 384). For others commenting specifically on the 2011 White Paper, the core/margin policy would increase ‘super-selection’ and stratification of institutions by their entry qualifications (Blackstone, 2011, p. 27). The media were certainly quick to define high achievers as ‘gold dust’ (Grimston, 2011).
Again, the ambiguities and complexities associated with the concept of meritocracy are not acknowledged in official policy texts. Despite successive Governments recognising the relationships between socio-economic background and academic achievement, the core/margin policies effectively silenced these issues. The emergent hyper-meritocracy has also placed school-leaving
qualifications and reform under increasing and considerable political attention. The Liberal Democrat party recently called for a period of stability, warning against the ‘politicisation’ of these agendas (Sellgren, 2014). In an earlier period, Trow (1974) warned that the ‘politicisation of the university’ could arise from processes of mass expansion, presenting yet further sources of tension. Indeed, the nature of policies on access-participation-mobility has been informed by socio-political change. Continued politicisation of equity agendas and
subordination of access-participation-mobility policies to technocratic ends and market-led measures could, however, weaken concerns for equity as a legitimate policy goal.