Search results

This chapter provides the context for understanding how English widening participation (WP) policy has interacted with the development of a marketised and expanding higher education (HE) system (the ‘dual imperative’ highlighted in the introductory chapter of this volume). It traces the intensification of market approaches in HE since 1997, examining how these interact with and become intertwined with evolving national WP policy concerns. Since 1997, WP for under-represented groups as a national policy aim has become firmly embedded in the activities undertaken by higher education providers (HEPs). Policy initiatives have moved between incentive and risk to encourage HEPs to address national and local inequalities of access and (later) student success and differential graduate outcomes. This chapter gives an overview of the key policy moments in this period and argues for how they have shaped the way in which the business of WP is enacted throughout the sector. It highlights how the business of WP drawn widely has become simultaneously a regulatory requirement, a way for institutions to differentiate themselves in the HE market and a key marker of institutional civic or social responsibilities. Situating this alongside the increasing focus on students and applicants as consumers, this chapter also begins to problematise the issues of collaboration and competition this creates.

The Teaching Excellence Framework was explicitly introduced as a mechanism to ‘enhance teaching’ in universities. This chapter suggests, however, that the highly complex ‘black box’ methodology used to calculate TEF outcomes effectively blunts its purpose as a policy lever. As a result, TEF appears to function primarily as performative policy act, merely gesturing towards a concern with social mobility. Informed by the data and metrics driven Deliverology approach to public management, I suggest the opacity of the TEF's assessment approach enables policymakers to distance themselves from and sidestep the wicked problems raised by the complicated contexts of contemporary higher education learning and teaching. At the same time, however, I argue that the very indeterminacy through which the framework achieves this sleight of hand creates a space in which engaged teaching practitioners can push through a more progressive approach to inclusive success.

Widening participation (WP) has increasingly become part of the normal ‘business’ of English higher education (HE) providers during the last 25 years. WP entered the policy mainstream for the entire HE sector following the Dearing Review (NCIHE, 1997) and the election of a new Labour government wedded to notions of social justice but also concerned with ‘lifelong learning’ in the name of human capital growth. This book employs a dual usage of the term ‘business’ in relation to WP policy, practice and culture in the context of the marketised English HE system. The first, figurative, usage explores the ways in which WP has been drawn into institutional positionality as HE providers are encouraged to differentiate themselves in the market. The second, literal, usage explores the ways in which the business of WP has become ‘business as normal’ for the sector and institutions, increasingly intertwined with other activities and which play out variously, often in response to regulatory demands of the state. This introductory chapter first contextualises these developments with a brief overview of the evolution of the HE sector in England before proposing a multilevel model – the HE policy enactment staircase – as a way of thinking about how policy is made, enacted and implemented within the sector. This chapter then draws upon this model to acts as a structure for this book. It does this by moving from a macro-level exploration of ideological levels of policymaking, through National/Sectoral level right down to the issues at an institutional and operational levels. In doing so, this chapter creates a framework from which to understand how the various elements and levels of the business of WP play out within the English HE sector.

Alongside universities, there are an increasing number of ‘third sector’ organisations actively involved in shaping widening participation (WP). In partnering with universities, employers and collaborative programmes like Uni Connect, they are responsible for delivering on institutional and national policy objectives around WP, as well as accountable to their own organisational missions. Despite being part of established practice in WP, with their activities praised by policymakers, their roles and practices are rarely considered in assessments of WP activity. In comparison with universities, they can experience different expectations, challenges and opportunities and can also have separate agendas driven by their missions and organisational sustainability. This chapter explores how these organisations have emerged, the roles that they have created for themselves and how they have attempted to sustain or develop these. It traces how these organisations have emerged as key players in national and institutional policy and draws on interviews with third sector leaders and practitioners to understand how WP is understood and done outside higher education providers (HEPs).

The existence of neuropsychological deficits associated with antisocial behaviour has received considerable attention. The pilot study investigates the cognitive impairments in a sample 9‐17 years old with suspected or previously diagnosed intellectual disability and/or neurodevelopmental disorders referred to a tier 4 CAMHS service in South East London. This paper aims to present the preliminary findings from the study.

In total, 28 participants between the ages of nine and 16 years, who had been referred to a tier 4 South London Forensic CAMHS, were administered selected subtests to assess intellectual, executive and social functioning using the WISC IV/WAIS IV, NEPSY II and DKEFS. Descriptive and non‐parametric statistics were used to describe the sample and identify neuropsychological deficits.

Consistent with previous research participants FSIQ and VCI were lower than the general population mean and young people identified as being high risk on the SAVRY were more impaired than those assigned to the lower risk group. The results also identified neuropsychological deficits in behavioural inhibition, cognitive flexibility, problem solving and processing fear but spared cognitive inhibition, general social processing and non‐verbal reasoning.

These preliminary findings serve as a platform for better understanding the neuropsychological functioning of the young people referred to the clinic and in the future it is hoped that the data will be used to evaluate cognitive rehabilitation adjuncts to established interventions provided by the service.