Closing off university access is the essence of levelling down

It is wrong for UK ministers to set up higher and further education in opposition to one another, says former education secretary Justine Greening

August 6, 2020
Bouncer with arm outstretched outside nightclub
Source: Alamy

“Talent is spread evenly, opportunity is not.”

This is a phrase we often hear nowadays. It was first used in my foreword to the Department for Education’s social mobility strategy in 2017. It was a statement of strategy, not just of fact, and a successful plan on social mobility needs to address both issues, not just one.

In the UK we have an attainment gap between more privileged and more disadvantaged young people that must be closed. We must ensure that we open up opportunity more fairly, so that a wider talent pool can reach it. And education is at the heart of that undertaking. We won’t become the levelled-up country that the government says it wants, complete with a high-skill, high-wage economy, without a strong education strategy.

I was the first UK secretary of state for education to have been educated at my local comprehensive school. I’m also proud to have been the first person in my family to go to university. It transformed my prospects and I wish my experience were more widespread.

In government, however, I unfortunately had to deal with a Treasury that knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Well into the 21st century, staggeringly, it still has no robust approach for understanding how to invest in developing any country’s most important asset: its people. 

The Treasury mantra was that too many people were going to university who didn’t have good enough grades. And that mantra now seems to have been taken up by the Department for Education too, judging by recent ministerial speeches suggesting that many disadvantaged students would be better off in further education.

Yet, as the Office for Students pointed out in its January report on access and participation plans, “Transforming opportunity in higher education”, academic attainment cannot be the sole proxy for judging potential, and with the right support, many students from diverse and more challenging backgrounds can thrive. The wider evidence shows that young people from disadvantaged families can do just as well if not better than their privileged peers once in higher education.

But we do need a system that gives them the opportunity to get through the door in the first place. That’s why contextualised admissions should be much more widely used, not less. We should be deeply intolerant of the attainment gap that remains in our secondary education system, but as we strive to close it we must not, in the meantime, let today’s disadvantaged young people with the potential to go into higher education miss out. 

The second Treasury fallacy was its simplistic fixation on average graduate earnings as the only proxy for whether a degree course and institutions delivered value for money. This blinkered logic ignores how vital it is that higher education helps produce the lower paid but vital teachers and healthcare professionals that the UK needs.

There is another distortion in relation to assessing value for money solely on graduate earnings: young people can get a better class of degree from the same course at the same university yet still go on to earn less than more privileged peers with more connections. There is a privilege premium as well as a graduate premium.

It is an indictment of 21st-century Britain that connections still come before competence and it is utterly perverse that instead of fixing this structural inequality, an argument is now being constructed within government and its supporting commentariat that turns their disadvantage against young people who aspire to do better – and against those higher education institutions that help them the most. 

Levelling up is about enabling more young people to have high aspirations and realise their potential. It is wrong to set up higher and further education in opposition to one another. The reality is that the UK’s higher education institutions are already reaching further into their local communities than ever before. Universities including York, Liverpool John Moores and UWE Bristol are among those collaborating with nearby further education institutions, as well as local businesses, to spread opportunities more widely.

The UK faces simple but profound choices. A move to reintroduce student caps longer term, shift away from contextualised admissions and penalise less well-connected young people for being less able to reap the financial rewards from their degree would be the essence of levelling down.

More progress can and must be made. But if urgent reform is needed anywhere, it is within government thinking itself. Unless policymakers take a long, hard look in the mirror, the danger is that short-term, myopic and dysfunctional Treasury thinking will further entrench privilege, prevent levelling up and harm the UK’s talent pipeline – just as it is attempting to forge a post-Brexit economy and emerge from the economic ravages of the coronavirus.

Justine Greening is the founder of the Social Mobility Pledge. She is a former secretary of state for education, minister for women and equalities, secretary of state for international development, secretary of state for transport and economic secretary to the Treasury.

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (3)

Like most people of my age and above, I was also the first person in my family to go to university so there's not much value in that statement. I agree that the process was transformational and enabled me to go on to my PhD and subsequent career. However, making it too widespread reduces the value much as would be the case if gold was suddenly a common element. The proposed government position does not seem to set HE and FE against each other but seeks to encourage young people to take that route that will bring them the most success, the highest sense of wellbeing and ultimately the most fulfillment.
'Levelling down', hardly, the dumbing down of HE is a major concern for many employers, something that's barely acknowledged in the rarefied air of HE's ivory towers. Many students who enrol in University struggle with the work, their preparation in FE right the way back to pre-school is a factor, as is the inability of HE to set sensible entry grade requirements that match the minimums actually needed, desperation for fee's post Covid will likely make this even worse. But it's not just the prep, unpopular as it is to discuss intelligence and ability those on the lower part of the bell curve will never be able to be 'lifted up' simply by attending University, the inbred wealth elite produce some of the least able s-too-dense, many of whom have their way 'bought' into the HE system by their families and many then buy their way into jobs too. Likewise too many on the upper part of the curve have been failed at school, lazy Marxist teachers hate bright questioning children, something I saw far too often as a school governor. There's a very real skills shortage FE and employers working together have been trying to address, though actually getting ones hands dirty when you can sit in lectures at Uni might not seem popular many able and functioning but less able (I.Q.80 and up) young people do rather better with 'trade skills' training, and a qualified electrician or plumber has a skill for life that pays quite well, especially without the burden of a student loan to pay off. HE and FE need to work together, and acknowledge both their strengths and their weaknesses in the process, Universities cannot operate without the skilled trades people that build and maintain their physical infrastructure, nor with on-line courses the skilled and semi-skilled trades people getting their hands dirty installing the fibre optic links that make it possible.
Thank you for these sensible comments. There seems to be a myth that everyone can learn everything to a high standard. I can learn to be a competent artist but Picasso could draw better at age 5 than I ever will (have a look in the museum in Barcelona one travel is possible). There is something called talent and one has to find what yours is and follow the appropriate direction.