This document summarizes a research project exploring the impact of targeting activities and resources to specific learners in Nottingham schools to encourage progression to higher education. The research utilized a questionnaire completed by 19 education professionals and semi-structured interviews of 4 participants. The literature review covers key terminology, the political history of widening participation, and references critical theory and social capital theory to understand the philosophy behind targeting. The research aims to gain practitioner perspectives on the issues and impact of targeting to make recommendations for future practice.

1. To explore the impact on widening participation to
higher education of ‘targeting’ activities and resources
to specific learners in Nottingham Schools
C. D. Penford
MA
2011
M odul e Tut ors
S ue Craggs
Derek B l ac k m an

2. 2
C ontents
Abstract Page 3
1. Introducti on Page 5
2. Li terature Revi ew Page 10
3. Methodology Page 29
4. Research Methods Page 40
4.1 Ethi cal Issues Page 45
5. Research Fi ndi ngs Page 49
6. Research Analysi s Page 57
7. C onclusi on Page 66
8. References Page 69
9 Appendi x 1 – Roles of parti ci pants Page 81
10 Appendi x 2 – Research questi onnai re Page 83
11 Appendi x 3 – NS-SEC C lassi fi cati on Page 87
12 Appendi x 4 – Fullan’ s C hange Lessons Page 96
13 Appendi x 5 – Questi on group 4 response Page 98
14 Appendi x 6 – Intervi ew notes Page 112

3. 3
Abstract
From a practi ti oner stance, thi s research explores the i mpact
on wi deni ng parti ci pati on to hi gher educati on of ‘ targeti ng’
acti vi ti es and resources , desi gned to encourage progressi on
onto hi gher educati on, to speci fi c learners i n Notti ngham and
Notti nghamshi re Schools.
Wi thi n li mi ted resources targeti ng can be arg ued to be an
economi c necessi ty. The practi cal nature of thi s research
questi ons the appli cati on, not the pri nci ple, of targeti ng. It
offers the opportuni ty for those i nvolved i n deli veri ng the
targeti ng agenda, teachers, managers and advi sers worki ng i n
Notti ngham and Notti nghamshi re schools, academi es and
colleges, to have thei r opi ni ons recogni sed regardi ng the
i mpact of the targeti ng of learners wi thi n thei r i nsti tuti ons. The
research readi ng questi ons the phi losophy and soci ology of
targeti ng, wi deni ng parti ci pati on, and the need for posi ti ve
di scri mi nati on vi a targeti ng resources on those under -
represented or excluded from hi gher ed ucati on. The research
stri ves to place targeti ng wi thi n a wi der phi losophi cal,
soci ologi cal and poli ti cal perspec ti ve, to attempt to consi der
practi ce i n the li ght of theory.
Uti li si ng a pragmati c methodology, a s well as the opi ni ons of
teachers, manager and advi sers from wi thi n educati on, the
research takes account of the researcher’ s own experi ence .
The researcher’ s professi onal experi ence allows the data to be
analysed wi thi n a pragmati c perspecti ve. The research, i n
terms of methodologi cal approach and analysi s ai ms to be
pragmati c, to achi eve an i nsi ght that may be useful for other

4. 4
professi onals engaged i n wi deni ng parti ci pati on to reflect on
when consi deri ng thei r own targeti ng i ni ti ati ves. The targeti ng
process and appli cati on has been pi cked up by hi gher
educati on i nsti tuti on wi deni ng parti ci pati on teams, and
conti nues to be a focus of thei r work , followi ng the demi se of
the Ai mhi gher i ni ti ati ve.
The research meets thes e pragmati c ai ms to some extent,
concludi ng wi th recommendati ons for future practi ce. It does
not, nor was i t i ntended to, provi de defi ni ti ve statements ei ther
promoti ng or di smi ssi ng targeti ng, but helps to gai n a better
understandi ng, from a practi ti oner’ s perspecti ve, of the i ssues
and resulti ng i mpact o f those i ssues. The li terature revi ew i s
as i mportant to the research as the research fi ndi ngs
themselves, drawi ng heavi ly on soci ologi cal perspecti ves
provi di ng an i nsi ght for future i nvesti gati on i nto the i mpact of
targeti ng.

5. 5
1. Introduction
Unti l July 2011, Ai mhi gher, as a nati onal i ni ti ati ve, had been
joi ntly funded by the Hi gher Educati on Fundi ng C ounci l for
England (HEFC E) and the D epartment for Busi ness, Innovati on
and Ski lls (BIS), operati ng across 42 area partnershi ps
throughout England, the partnershi p s i ncludi ng hi gher
educati on i nsti tuti ons. Thi s i ni ti ati ve was preceded by
Ai mhi gher Excellence C hallenge, establi shed by the
D epartment for Educati on and Ski lls (D fES) i n 2001, wi th the
ai m of i ncreasi ng the number of young people from
di sadvantaged backgrounds who had the quali fi cati ons
necessary to enter hi gher educati on. Ai mhi gher Partnershi ps
for Progressi on, funded ori gi nally by the HEFC E and the
Learni ng and Ski lls C ounci l (LSC ), came i nto bei ng on 1
September 2003. The January 2003 Whi te Paper, The Future
of Hi gher Educati on, rai sed the i ntenti on of bri ngi ng the two
i ni ti ati ves together (D FES 2003. p.68) under the name of
Ai mhi gher, locally Ai mhi gher Notti nghamshi re. The two
programmes, Ai mhi gher Partnershi ps for Progressi on and
Excellence C hallenge, became i ntegrated i n August 2006. Thi s
hi story offers a perspecti ve agai nst whi ch the targeti ng agenda
was developed over a peri od of ti me. I started work wi th
Ai mhi gher on 1s t September 2003 and worked through many
operati onal changes unti l the fundi ng for Ai mhi gher ceased at
the end of July 2011.
A headli ne i ntroducti on to the purpose of Ai mhi gher could be
found i n the practi ti oner secti on of the Ai mhi gher websi te:

6. 6
Aimhigher is a national programme which aims to widen participation in
higher education (HE) by raising HE awareness, aspirations and
attainment among young people from under-represented groups.
(Aimhigher, Online, accessed 5 February 2011)
One of the most i mportant operati onal changes came i n the
form of targeti ng i ndi vi dual learners wi thi n secondary
educati on i n years 9, 10, and 11 (13 to 16 year old) . Indi vi dual
learners were targeted to rece i ve support from Ai mhi gher
Notti nghamshi re, hopefully to benefi t from acti vi ti es and
experi ences i ntended to fulfi l the above ai ms. Ai mhi gher
Notti nghamshi re had previ ously only targeted at i nsti tuti on
level, schools across Notti ngham and Notti nghamshi re had
been desi gnated Ai mhi gher schools, to recei ve fundi ng and
support from Ai mhi gher staff. The Ai mhi gher Excellence
C hallenge i ni ti ati ve had previ ously only focussed on
Notti ngham ci ty schools as an Excellence C hallenge Area
(Ai mhi gher Practi ti oner. Onli ne. Accessed 5 July 2011).
Indi vi dual learner targeti ng gradually gai ned i ncreasi ng
promi nence followi ng i ts launch by Bi ll Rammell, then Mi ni ster
of State for Li felong Learni ng, Further and Hi gher Educati on ,
i n 2007. Expressi ng concerns over the effecti veness of
wi deni ng parti ci pati on acti vi ti es previ ously deli vered by
Ai mhi gher partnershi ps he suggested:
I asked Aimhigher partnerships to prioritise those from lower socio-
economic groups in all of their activities, including their work with gifted
and talented pupils. In parallel, I asked HEFCE to establish a task group
to develop a set of practical recommendations on how better to target
outreach activities (HEFCE, 2007, p.3).

7. 7
The report conti nues to i denti fy previ ous Government
i nvestment i n wi deni ng parti ci pati on whi lst questi oni ng the
value for money of previ ous operati onal practi ce:
Such a position is not sustainable. Resources are limited and we must
focus our investment where it can achieve the greatest good (ibid).
Thi s research ai ms to explore the i mpact on wi deni ng
parti ci pati on to hi gher educati on of that targeti ng. The purpose
of thi s research stems from concern as a practi ti oner who
beli eves i n the equali ty of opportuni ty regardi ng access to
educati on and educati on p rogressi on, i n terms of both
personal sati sfacti on and the economi c and soci al benefi ts of
an educated populati on. The development of the targeti ng
agenda rai sed concerns amongst teachers and managers i n
educati on regardi ng the effect of the agenda upon the
developi ng work of Ai mhi gher, and the fai rness of opportuni ty
for learners wi thi n i ndi vi dual i nsti tuti ons. I had concerns, not
wi th the pri nci ple of targeti ng , but wi th the practi ce, di d i t
support the achi evement of i ts ai ms ? Was the practi ce of
i denti fyi ng learners from soci o -economi cally under-
represented groups i n hi gher educati on, and focussi ng
wi deni ng parti ci pati on work on those i ndi vi duals, good for the
practi ce of wi deni ng parti ci pati on and the equali ty of
opportuni ty to access the potenti al personal and career
advantages of hi gher educati on?
The li terature revi ew hopefully fulfi ls, i n part, the
recommendati ons offered by Pri ng (2004), di scussi ng the need
to phi losophi cally exami ne the research questi ons and the
related enqui ri es by maki ng clear the nature of what i s to be

8. 8
researched, what makes i t stand out as an educati onal
practi ce (Pri ng, 2004). The li terature re vi ew i ncludes
researched opi ni ons to help understand the i mportance of the
termi nology that i s used throughout the professi onal practi ce
engaged wi th wi deni ng parti ci pati on, together wi th a bri ef look
at the recent hi story of the poli ti cal dri ve to engage
di sadvantaged learners from poorer soci o -economi c
backgrounds wi thi n hi gher educati on. C ri ti cal theory and soci al
capi tal theory are used to help understand the phi losophy
behi nd wi deni ng parti ci pati on and cohort targeti ng , poi nti ng
towards an understandi ng of ‘ fai rness’ wi thi n access to
educati on opportuni ti es.
An epi stemologi cally pragmati c methodology used a
questi onnai re approach deli ve red to 20 potenti al respondents
(Appendi x 1). The questi onnai re was devi sed to offer
quanti tati ve data for analysi s as well as more quali tati ve data
for i nterpretati on provi ded by open questi ons. Four
respondents were also i ntervi ewed usi ng semi -structured
i ntervi ews, the structure bei ng provi ded by the questi onnai re.
The respondents were chosen on the basi s of my worki ng
hi story wi th them and thei r experi ence and accumulated
knowledge of the topi c as an area of i nterest for them. D uri ng
the course of my work as the ‘ Hi gher Educati on C hampi on for
Notti ngham North’ , I had been part of many c onversati ons,
meeti ngs, phone calls, regardi ng the pros and cons of
Ai mhi gher cohort targeti ng wi th all of the respondents. Wi th
each i nteracti on came an i ncreasi ng professi onal desi re to
understand the i mpli cati ons of the Ai mhi gher cohort targeti ng
upon the practi ce and i ntenti on of wi deni ng parti ci pati on. The
research offe rs an opportuni ty to progress from ‘ soundi ng’

9. 9
conversati ons, to a structured academi c analyti cal approach
that i ncludes the vi ews of deli very staff and bui lds upon
previ ous experi ence .
The 19 parti ci pants taki ng part returned a questi onnai re that
asked thei r quanti tati ve opi ni ons regardi ng the i de nti fi cati on of
the target group; the accuracy of the target group
i denti fi cati on; and the awareness of those i ncluded, those not
i ncluded, and other staff wi thi n the i nsti tuti on, of the
Ai mhi gher group. Three further questi ons sought a more
quali tati ve response by aski ng for opi ni ons wi thout
quanti tati ve gui deli nes. Respondents were able to put i n thei r
own words what they thought posi ti ve a bout Ai mhi gher cohort
targeti ng, what they thought negati ve, and how management of
the process may be i mproved. The detai l of the 9 quanti tati ve
and 3 quali tati ve questi ons are attached as a blank
questi onnai re (Appendi x 2 ). The research questi ons were
desi gned to eli ci t responses that could result i n
recommendati ons for practi ce development.
The research sample i s small, I consi dered depth of study to
be more i mportant and reveali ng for the topi c than breadth,
however thi s small sample revealed a substant i al amount of
i nformati on. I purposely restri cted the parti ci pati on i n the
research to staff worki ng to the Ai mhi gher agenda i n schools,
academi es, and colleges that I had close worki ng relati onshi p s
wi th. Thi s offered an experi enced perspecti ve alongsi de the
research fi ndi ngs that compli ments the research wi thi n the
li terature revi ew.

10. 10
2. Literature R eview
The li terature revi ew i s i ntended as a genui ne support vehi cle
for the research. It i s i ntended to take the reader on a journey
through i mportant termi nology to understand the background to
wi deni ng parti ci pati on, through economi c and poli ti cal i ssues
of government poli cy, whi lst questi oni ng purpose , wi th
reference to cri ti cal theory and soci al capi tal theory. It wi ll
attempt to be factual, explai ni ng the gui deli nes for Ai mhi gher
targeti ng, as i mplemented by Ai mhi gher Notti nghamshi re,
whi lst placi ng the deli very of tar geti ng wi thi n di scussi ons of
management and lea dershi p wi thi n schools.
In recogni ti on that some termi nology, whi lst often presumed to
have a shared understandi ng, can upon closer i ns pecti on be
more controversi al, i t may help to revi ew some of the li terature
placi ng the term ‘ wi deni ng parti ci pati on’ i nto focus. Thi s wi ll
be i mportant for understandi ng the targeti ng agenda for
Ai mhi gher Notti nghamshi re, as targeti ng takes place to
support wi deni ng parti ci pati on.
Some confusi on for the term ‘ wi deni ng parti ci pati on’ ari ses i n
di sti ngui shi ng i t from ‘ i ncreasi ng parti ci pati on’ .
In contrast to the headli ne i ntroducti on to the purpose of
Ai mhi gher referred to i n the i ntroducti on, referenci ng both
terms:
Aimhigher is a national programme . . . designed to widen and to increase
participation in higher education by students from under-represented
groups who have the abilities and aspirations to benefit from it.
(McCraig and Bowers-Brown, 2007, Online, accessed 2 March 2011)

11. 11
Wi deni ng parti ci pati on i s about wi deni ng the appeal of hi gher
educati on to i nvolve learners from underrepresented groups
wi thi n the hi gher educati on experi ence. Thi s may als o be
i ncreasi ng parti ci pati on, but not all i ncreased parti ci pati on i s
wi deni ng parti ci pati on. Thi s i s a basi c but i mportant pri nci ple
when consi deri ng the targeti ng of underr epresented groups.
For parti ci pati on to be wi dened, resources and acti vi ti es need
to be targeted at those underrepresented wi thi n the current
system. Referri ng to a ti me pri or to a targeted approach, and
recogni si ng the di fference between ‘ wi deni ng’ and ‘ i ncreasi ng’
Allen makes the argument:
This led some to argue that widening participation had been a tool for the
‘massification’ of HE, increasing numbers of students rather than
narrowing the gap between rich and poor (Allen, 2010, p.139)
Parti ci pati on i n hi gher educa ti on has steadi ly i ncreased over
previ ous decades, but not necessari ly to the benefi t of
wi deni ng parti ci pati on, parti cularly amongst those
underrepresented by economi cal di sadvantaged. Parti ci pati on
i n hi gher educati on i ncreased from below one i n fi ve of the
eli gi ble populati on duri ng the 1960s to one i n three i n the
1990s, whi lst the numbers from poo rer backgrounds enteri ng
hi gher educati on decreased (Stuart, 2002) . In the lead up to
the early 1960s fi gures were more exclusi ve. Lord Robbi ns
1963 report, calli ng for the expansi on of hi gher educati on to
i nclude all who had the abi li ty and quali fi cati ons to enter, was
based upon a hi gher educati on parti ci pa ti on rate of just 6%
(Robbi ns, 1963). The poli cy dri ve to i ncrease parti ci pati on
conti nued i nto the new century, wi th the Labour Government i n
2003 setti ng a target of 50% of the populati on aged between
18 and 30 to have experi ence of hi gher educati on by 2010

12. 12
(D FES, 2003). That target was not achi eved , remai ni ng at 45%
(BIS , 2010, onli ne, accessed 11 March 2011 ). No such defi ni te
targets were set for wi deni ng p arti ci pati on. Ai mhi gher was to
contri bute to the i ncreased parti ci pati on ta rget by wi deni ng
parti ci pati on:
By 2011, Aimhigher partnerships will be able to demonstrate a distinct
contribution to narrowing the social class gap in learner attainment and
participation in higher education (HEFCE, 2008, p.7).
It was often acknowledged that an i ncreased parti ci pati on
target of 50% could only be achi eved through wi deni ng
parti ci pati on. Thi s was based on the si mple mathemati cal
pri nci ple:
People from lower socio-economic backgrounds make up around one half
of the population of England, but represent just 29 per cent of young, full-
time, first-time entrants to higher education (National Audit Office, 2008,
p.6)
Ai mhi gher Notti nghamshi re’ s work focussed on worki ng wi th
young people aged 14 to 19, the targeti ng agenda only
applyi ng to thi s ‘ young’ age group. In England young
parti ci pati on i n hi gher educati on had i ncreased from 30% i n
1994 to 36% i n 2009. In real numbers thi s represents an
esti mated 239,000 young people enteri ng hi gher educati on i n
2009, 77,000 more than the 1 62,000 enteri ng i n 1994. D uri ng
thi s peri od the overall young populati on i n England i ncreased
by 21% from 550,000 to 665,000, i ndi cati ng an i ncrease of
43,000 young people enteri ng hi gher educati on as a result of
i ncreased parti ci pati on rather than i ncreased demography
(HEFC E 2010).

13. 13
The ‘ i ncreased parti ci pati on’ fi gure masks the large
di fferences from area to area that would be i mportant to the
‘ wi deni ng parti ci pati on’ agenda . Irrespecti ve as to whether
‘ di sadvantaged nei ghbourhoods’ were i denti fi ed by lower
hi gher educati on parti ci pati on rates, or by low i ncome,
occupati on and parental educati on, by 2010 less than one i n
fi ve young people from the most di sadvantaged areas
progressed onto hi gher educati on, whi lst more than one i n two
from the most advantage d di d so (HEFC E, 2010 ). Later fi gures
di d contradi ct the hi stori cal perspecti ve provi ded above by
Stuart (2002), wi th evi dence of some i ncrease i n numbers from
poorer backgrounds enteri ng hi gher educati on. A 30% i ncrease
from 2005 to 2010, and a 50% i ncrease from 1995 , of young
entrants from the most di sadvantaged backgrounds onto hi gher
educati on i s reported by HEFC E (HEFC E, 2010 ).
The language of ‘ di sadvantage’ i s an i nteresti ng hermeneuti cal
concept that deserves menti oni ng , even wi thout full
di scussi on. Educati onal di sadvantage can be vi ewed as a term
necessary to secure fundi ng. The targeti ng of speci fi c groups
of people not parti ci pati ng i n hi gher educati on can be argued
to support fundi ng to i nsti tuti ons i n an effort to change the
vi ews of the underrepresented , i mplyi ng that i ndi vi duals need
changi ng rather than the system (Stuart, 2002). Thi s vi ew i s
taken up by Allen (2010) noti ng that acti on i s deemed
necessary to remedy the defi ci t model of the learner rather
than focus upon accessi bi li ty of i nsti tuti ons .
Offeri ng an alternati ve to learner defi ci t theori es, Penny Burke
provi des a useful further di sti ncti on of wi deni ng parti ci pati on

14. 14
that takes the descri pti on away from number counti ng towards
the experi ence , through a more cri ti cal perspecti ve :
(Widening education participation) is about developing a sustained
critique of current rhetoric, developing a distinctive social theory of
knowledge derived from a politically committed analysis and theory of
power which leads to a joint pedagogy that is concerned to democratise
knowledge making and learning, in ways that redefine the very
parameters of what counts as …education. (Burke, 2002, p.1)
C onti nui ng along a cri ti cal, perhaps Marxi st , soci al
epi stemology, the questi on of parti ci pati on i n hi gher educati on
of underrepresented groups, parti cularly those excluded by
economi c di sadvantage, should i nclude an apprai sal of
parti ci pati on wi thi n changi ng economi c and poli ti cal cli mates.
Thi s wi ll be i mportant i n di scussi ng the purpose of targeti ng
from a cri ti cal perspecti ve. It may be useful to i magi ne a
Hegeli an di alecti c to thi s di scussi on, that of thesi s, anti thesi s,
and synthesi s.
The case for wi deni ng parti ci pati on i s often made on the basi s
of i ndi vi dual eco nomi c benefi ts, wi th esti mates of i ncreased
average li fe earni ngs, through the graduate premi um or
graduate di vi dend , of £100,000 when compared agai nst an 18
year old GC E A level (or equi valent) school leaver (HEFC E,
2007 ). The case i n favour of wi deni ng parti ci pati on also
i ncludes the argument for wi der soci e tal advantages:
Social barriers to educational achievement and HE participation entail a
serious loss of talent in a modern economy. Widening participation is
therefore vital for economic competitiveness as well as social justice
(HEFCE, 2007, p.7)

15. 15
Mary Stuart si mi larly di scussed the i ndi vi dual benefi t of “the
educati on di vi dend ” (Stuart, 2002, p.4) whi st acknowledgi ng a
wi der soci o-economi c fulfi lment, set wi thi n hi stori cal economi c
struggles:
The education system was born out of a battle between those who
believed in learning equality and those who wanted to create a series of
exclusive learning systems designed to provide an appropriate workforce
required for nineteenth-century industrialisation. At the heart of the
current widening participation agenda is a similar set of battles in a new
economic era (Stuart, 2002, p.4)
Stuart saw one argument for wi deni ng parti ci pati on as
economi c, to develop a competi ti ve workforce, the contri buti on
to soci al cohesi on or an i nclusi ve soci ety i s seen as “an
obvi ous precursor to the requi rem ents of the econom y” (Stuart
2002, p.47). Burke made further soci o -economi c li nks, li nki ng
wi deni ng parti ci pati on as a key poli cy contri buti on to the
moderni sati on of the welfare state. Quoti ng Stuart, Burke
challenges the no ti on of the di versi ty of soci al justi ce, calli ng
for cri ti cal enqui ry to gi ve a voi ce to those not engaged i n
hi gher educati on, to help to redefi ne the educati on experi ence
for those previ ously excluded from i t (Burke, 2002). Thi s agai n
offers the alternati ve vi ew to i ndi vi dual defi ci t, looki ng at the
educati on experi ence rather than presumi ng the i ndi vi dual i s
lacki ng i n some way.
The i ssue of academi c achi evement li nked to broader
economi c benefi t i s rei nforced on an i nternati onal level i n
Belfi eld’ s Ameri can study. L i nki ng educati onal attai nment to
li fe chances of employment, i ncome, health and housi ng, and
the posi ti ve cost benefi t to the economy by tax return:

16. 16
A society that provides fairer access to opportunities, is more productive,
and has higher employment, better health, less crime, and is a better
society in itself. It is simply an added incentive that the attainment of such
a society is profoundly good economics (Belfield, 2007, p.16)
Belfi eld can be i nterpreted as i ndi cati ng an appreci ati on of
targeti ng resources i n terms of economi c and soci o -economi c
returns. A n earli er poi nt i s made i n the same work:
Unlike other attributes, such as family background and personal
characteristics, educational attainment can be chosen by the individual
and influenced by public policy (ibid, p.1).
The plethora of poli cy deli vered by the previ ous Labour
Government, duri ng the planni ng and deli very of Ai mhi gher,
and latterly the i mplementati on of Ai mhi gher targeti ng, carri ed
a strong message of learni ng for the economi c benefi t of the
country and fi nanci al reward for the i ndi vi dual. The
Government’ s 1998 competi ti veness whi te paper ‘ Bui ldi ng the
Knowledge D ri ven Economy’ (D TI, 1998) and the Lei tch Revi ew
of Ski lls: ‘ Prosperi ty for all i n the global econo my – world
class ski lls’ (HM Treasury, 2006), marked a di recti on for future
poli cy. The Government whi te paper ‘ New Opportuni ti es – fai r
chances for the future’ (C abi net Offi ce, 2009); The D epartment
for Busi ness, Enterpri se and Regulatory Reform strategy pape r
‘ New Industry New Jobs’ (2009); the C onfederati on of Bri ti sh
Industry report on hi gher educati on ‘ Stronger together:
Busi ness and uni versi ti es i n turbulent ti mes’ (C BI, 2009); Alan
Mi lburn’ s (2009) report, ‘ Unleashi ng Aspi rati ons: The Fi nal
report on Fai r Access to the Professi ons’ ; and the i nfluenti al,
D epartment for Busi ness Innovati on and Ski lls ‘ Hi gher
Ambi ti ons The future of uni ve rsi ti es i n a knowledge economy’
(2009); not only had a focus on the economi c benefi ts of
hi gher educati on, but also on supporti ng nati onal economi c

17. 17
recovery, as the fi nanci al recessi on began to threaten publi c
spendi ng. ‘ Hi gher Ambi ti ons’ (BIS, 2009) arguably conti nued
along a progressi ve trend of emphasi zi ng wi d eni ng
parti ci pati on i n neo-li beral uti li tari an terms, hi ghli ghti ng
proposals wi th a strong economi c i mperati ve . However,
perhaps the most convi nci ng quote to emphasi se the move
away from learni ng as personal fulfi lment to an economi c
i mportance can be found i n reference to the then educati on
secretary i n 2003, C harles C larke, descri bi ng the pursui t of
learni ng for i ts own sak e as “a bi t dodgy” (Ball and Exley
2010, p.153). How much of thi s poli cy development was ai med
at changi ng the status quo of educati on opportuni ty, and how
much i s ‘ poli ti cal spi n’ i s open to debate whi ch i s not the remi t
of thi s research. However, bri ef awareness of the i ssue helps
to refocus cri ti cally, and place poli cy i nfluence on wi deni ng
parti ci pati on i n a cri ti cal li ght. Poli ti cal spi n can be thought of
as:
The term spin is conventionally used to refer to the process and products
of purposively managing information in order to present institutions,
individuals, policies, practices and/or ideas in a favourable light and
thereby mobilize support for them (Gerwitz, Dickson and Power 2004,
p.321).
Perti nent to a cri ti cal perspecti ve of the wordi ng and emphasi s
of the poli ci es menti oned above, Gerwi tz et al i denti fy the
preferences of ‘ spi n’ related to Bri ti sh party poli ti cs:
Thus, those on ‘the left’ are encouraged to believe that spin is necessary
to render traditional Labour policies underpinned by commitments to
redistribution and social justice palatable to ‘middle England’ by dressing
them up as being business-friendly. In contrast, the rational for spin
constructed to appeal to those on the right is that business-friendly
policies need to be cloaked in a language of social justice in order to
secure the support of ‘the left’ (Ibid, p.327).

18. 18
The poli ti cal emphasi s on educati on for Bourdi eu focuses upon
the poli ti ci ans’ lack of di recti on:
Politicians make an issue out of education because they have no project.
They think that education is too important to be left to young people. In
fact, the young remind us that we don’t know what we want; that we don’t
know what we want to make them into (Bourdieu, 2008, p.171).
Referri ng to Torres, Popkewi tz notes the lack of abi li ty of
poli cy to make a li nk between what happens i n educati on and
what happens i n soci ety i n terms of the dynami c processes of
capi tal accumulati on and of poli ti cal legi ti mi zati on (Popkewitz
and Fendler, 1999). Seei ng wi der access to hi gher educati on
as part of a fai li ng sys tem, C allewaert refers to the fai lure of
the educati onal meri tocrati c model as a route to upward soci al
and economi c mobi li ty, a rgui ng that whi lst an i nclusi ve
educati on system can gi ve the i mpressi on of changi ng li fe -
chances, i t serves the establi shed system by i ncludi ng new
learners i n a system changi ng around them, to the benefi t of
the soci al eli te. Thi s i s succi nctly summed up as “The
newcom ers are escal ati ng steps on a l ad der goi ng down ”
(C allewaert, 1999, p.142).
Wi deni ng parti ci pati on carri es no clear agreement for
i mprovi ng the long-term opportuni ti es offered to those i t tri es
to target. Ball makes the poi nt that i ncreasi ng educati on
opportuni ty has a tendency to i ncrease i nequali ty wi thi n
soci ety on the basi s of the ski lled approaches and tacti cs of
the “m i ddl e-cl ass”, who are qui ck to sei ze on such
opportuni ti es (Ball, 2006, p.175). That opi ni on can also be
taken as an argument for a targe ted approach to wi deni ng

19. 19
parti ci pati on, to ensure that those further removed from the
opportuni ty by di sadvantage may have access by posi ti ve
di scri mi nati on.
The theory (‘ thesi s’ for the Hegeli an compari son) of soci al and
economi c barri ers to parti ci pati on i n hi gher educati on resulti ng
i n a loss of talent, poorer economi c competi ti veness, and
reduced soci al justi ce (HEFC E, 2007), fi nds wi de poli cy
support. There i s further support outsi de of the poli cy fi eld,
recogni zi ng the potenti al for Ai mhi gher as a ‘m echani sm ’ for
soci al justi ce, achi evable by challengi ng i nequali ti es i n access
to hi gher educati on (McC rai g and Bowers -Brown, 2007, Onli ne,
accessed 2 March 2011). The ‘ anti thesi s’ of an alternati ve
cri ti cal theory, questi oni ng the si nceri ty of the benefi ts and
appli cati on of i ncreased and wi deni ng parti ci p ati on, i s a
counteracti ng force to thi s . The ‘ synthesi s’ of the i nteracti on
can be argued through reference to the soci ologi cal wri ti ngs of
Bourdi eu. Stuart (2002 ), di scussi ng i nclusi on i n educati on and
soci ety, refers to:
. . . collectivist theories that influence the dialectical concepts of
inclusion/exclusion, in particular the notion of social capital” (Stuart, 2002,
P.20).
The noti on of ‘ soci al capi tal’ li nks to Bourdi eu, offeri ng i nsi ght
i nto targeti ng as part of a soci al sci ence of educati on.
Bourdi eu, i n Pol i ti cal Interventi ons , (2008) envi sages school to
be a soci ally rei nforci ng factor, mai ntai ni ng i nequali ty of
genui ne opportuni ty by confi rmi ng that lack of achi evement i s
down to lack of an educati onal gi ft or talent. There i s an
i nherent i rony wi thi n thi s proposi ti on, that the school devalues

20. 20
i ts contri buti on to learni ng development by focussi ng on
attri butes gai ned outsi de of school as mai n determi nants of
success. In fai li ng to recogni se the di fferent starti ng poi nts
due to fami ly experi ence of educati on, and for Bourdi eu
i nevi tably soci al class and soci al capi tal, the school fai ls to
recogni se i ts own potenti al as a force for change:
In other, words by treating all students, however much they differ, as
equal in rights and duties, the education system actually gives its
sanction to the initial inequality in relation to culture (Bourdieu, 2008,
p.36).
Ai mhi gher targeti ng can be argued to offer a methodology to
counter thi s sancti on. By taki ng acco unt of soci al depri vati on
as cri teri a for targeti ng schools and i ndi vi dual learners, the
targeted cohort are i denti fi ed as havi ng a di fferent starti ng
poi nt i n educati o n to those wi th more soci al advantage. Indeed
Bourdi eu calls for the need for poli ti ci ans to stop thi nki ng i n
terms of rules appli ed to everyone and focus upon the
i ndi vi dual wi th “knowl edge of the general l aws of operati on of
the vari ous worl ds i nvol ved ” (Bourdi eu, 2008, p.155).
The targeti ng process for Ai mhi gher Notti nghamshi re i nvolved
three layers (HEFC E, 2007), the thi rd layer relati ng to
moni tori ng and revi ew. The fi rst layer, an area focus,
i denti fi ed 41 targeted secondary schools across Notti ngham
and Notti nghamshi re. Thi s process i nvolved the use of
avai lable data from the Index of Multi ple D epri vati on (IMD ),
the Income D epri vati on Affecti ng C hi ldren Index (ID AC I), and
Parti ci pati on of Local Area (POLAR) data. These measures are
used as proxy i n recogni ti on that i ndi vi dual data on student’ s
ci rcumstances i s not avai lable from schools and colleges

21. 21
(HEFC E, 2007; Harri son and Hatt 2010). A di ffi culty wi th the
proxy data was that of the often referred to ‘ wrong si de of the
street’ or ‘ post-code lottery’ i ssue. Thi s recogni ses the
someti mes arbi trary li nes i denti fyi ng borders around areas of
depri vati on, can li terally result i n homes on one si de of a
street i denti fi ed as bei ng depri ved, whi lst the opposi te house
i sn’ t by means of postcode di fference (Bli charski , 2000; Allen
2010). Si mi larly, POLAR data i s arguably i neffecti ve, unable to
recogni se small pockets of lower soci o -economi cally grouped
households i n otherwi se less-depri ved areas (Harri son and
Hart, 2010).
IMD , publi shed by the D epartment for C ommuni ti es and Local
Government (2007), provi des a comparati ve score representi ng
the relati ve depri vati on of an area across a range of factors
i ncludi ng i ncome, employment, educati on, cri me and health.
ID AC I produces a si mi lar scale but wi th a focus on i ndi cators
affecti ng young people (D FE, 2010). POLAR data was
developed by the Analyti cal Servi ces Group wi thi n HEFC E to
show parti ci pati on of young people i n hi gher educati on by
local area, down to ward level (HEFC E POLAR, 2007). The
second layer of targeti ng , the focus of thi s research, the more
“com pl ex and chal l engi ng ” (Harley and Thomas, 2011, p.2),
was to i denti fy i ndi vi duals that would form the Ai mhi gher
cohort wi thi n targeted schools. Thi s reli es, i n part, upon the
same data sets as used to i denti fy schools, wi th an addi ti onal
i ndi vi dual targeti ng cri teri a fo r learners to have at least 50%
chance of attai ni ng at least 5 GC SEs at grade A* to C . Thi s
cri teri a, provi ded by Fi scher Fami ly Trust (FFT) data, was a
prerequi si te for all cohort targeti ng, the ai m bei ng to ensure
those targeted had the potenti al to progress onto hi gher
educati on. Targeted students should also ei ther be i n recei pt

22. 22
of free school meals or resi de i n the 20% most depri ved area
nati onally accordi ng to IMD 2007 data. For students not
meeti ng the latter two cri teri a, i nclusi on i n the Ai mhi gher
cohort was through resi di ng i n the 40% most depri ved area
accordi ng to IMD 2007 and resi di ng i n a low hi gher educati on
parti ci pati on rate area (POLAR data). The FFT data i s very
clearly descri bed as an esti mate, based upon the
achi evements of previ ous, si mi lar, students , di stanci ng i tself
from any clai m as a predi cti on (FFT, 2007). There i s also an
acknowledgement that the accuracy of esti mates can vary and
gui dance offered that:
Teachers should never use FFT estimates to lower targets set by school.
If they ‘disagree’ with the estimate, and think the pupil can do better, then
they should be confident to set a higher target (Fischer Family Trust,
2007, accessed on-line 3 June 2011).
The use of FFT data could be open to cri ti ci sm. Referenci ng
the developmental theori es of Pi aget, Kolberg and Gi lli an,
Fendler questi ons the assumpti on of patterns and stages of
educati onal growth associ ated only wi th age. Reflecti ng
i ndi vi dual experi ences agai nst the theory of deve lopmentali sm,
Fendler warns agai nst evaluati ng chi ldren agai nst norms
establi shed by such pri nci ples ( Fendler, 1999). Thi s reflects
my own experi enced concern regardi ng the questi ons asked of
FFT data. If we are aski ng the data to clari fy potenti al to
progress onto hi gher educati on by provi di ng a current
snapshot of achi evement, we should be clear i n acknowledgi ng
that we are only wi deni ng parti ci pati on for entry to hi gher
educati on at age 18/19. The data doesn’ t account for later
gradual educati onal development that could be a result of
early educati on experi ences i n soci ally depri ved setti ngs and

23. 23
reduced cultural capi ta l. Bourdi eu, di scussi ng possessi on of
cultural capi tal, questi ons the context of:
. . . the efforts produced by the mere existence of an education system
offering (very unequally) the possibility of learning by institutionalized
stages in accordance with standardized levels and syllabuses (Bourdieu,
1984, p.328).
The reli ance on FFT data as an i ndi cator of potenti al
achi evement pays li ttle attenti on to the value added wi thi n
school, and agai n focuses on a defi ci t model of the student
rather than teachi ng and learni ng.
From The D eari ng Report (NC IHE, 1977) to current day, hi gher
educati on i nsti tuti on wi deni ng parti ci pati on has focused on
soci o-economi c di sadvantage as a barri er to i nclusi on. For
D eari ng these were defi ned belongi ng to soci o-economi c
groups 3 to 5 , now defi ned by the Nati onal Stati sti cs Soci o -
Economi c C lassi fi cati on (NS -SEC ) groups 4 to 7 (See
Appendi x 3). There i s some confusi on around the i nclusi on of
NS-SEC 8 group, those who are classed as “Long-term
unem pl oyed / never worked”, (HEFC E, 2007, p.14). Hi gher
educati on i nsti tuti ons record parti ci pati on of groups 4 t o 7
(Harley and Thomas, 2011; Thomas and Rawson, 2011) whi lst
Ai mhi gher partnershi ps are charged wi th focussi ng on NS-SEC
groups 4 to 8 as the locati on of the majori ty of
underrepresented learners (HEFC E, 2007). Thomas and
Rawson note that wi deni ng parti ci pati on target i denti fi cati on
vari es across and wi thi n hi gher educati o n i nsti tuti ons (Thomas
and Rawson, 2011).

24. 24
C ri ti cal reflecti on on the classi fi cati on of soci o-economi c
groups can be found returni ng to Bourdi eu, questi oni ng
classi fi cati on cri teri a and the i ssue of self-percepti on:
“peopl e’s i m age of the cl as si fi cati on i s a functi on of thei r
posi ti on wi thi n i t” (Bourdi eu, 1984 , p. 476). Bourdi eu
repeatedly argues the poi nt that successful educati on
parti ci pati on has a close relati onshi p wi th the economi c and
cultural posi ti on of the fami ly, and that those posi ti ons are
unequally di stri buted throughout soci ety:
. . . . their occupation, their income, their social rank – is due to their lack
of natural gifts, and in this way contributes to preventing them from
discovering that their individual destiny is a particular case of a collective
one, as statistics of access to higher education reveal (Bourdieu, 2008,
p.38)
A theme Bourdi eu develops throughout Pol i ti cal Interventi ons
(2008) i s that of ali enati on from cultural capi tal, and those
affected not recogni si ng thei r ali enati on. Thi s reflects thoughts
from earli er work i n D i sti ncti on (1984), where the poi nt i s
made of a “sense of one’s pl ace ” (Bourdi eu, 1984, p. 473)
leadi ng to self-exclusi on from the very thi ngs that soci al
posi ti on attempts to exclude the i ndi vi dual from. Thi s may be
i mportant for targeti ng Ai mhi gher resources . Would those
excluded by targeti ng from resources and acti vi ti es be aware
of thei r exclusi on? How i nfluenti al would that awareness be , i n
thei r experi ence of educati on? Bourdi eu calls for school and
uni versi ty students to “dem and the m eans, al l the m eans, for
com peti ng on an equal basi s ” (Bourdi eu, 2008, p.172), gi vi ng
the example a worker’ s son i deally bei ng able to progress onto
study through personal choi ce , be that “phi l osophy, ci nem a, or
fi ne arts” (i bi d). Thi s di ffers from the UK poli cy thrust referred

25. 25
to above that, whi lst recogni si ng personal development, had a
focus on hi gher educati on benefi ti ng the nati onal economy:
This process of knowledge generation and stewardship is a public trust
and important in its own right. However it is vital that universities use it to
contribute to economic growth (Higher Ambitions, 2009, p.12).
Recent UK research di sti ngui shed between soci al backgrounds
i n relati on to percei ved personal benefi t of hi gher study:
Those from higher socio-economic backgrounds were also more likely to
identify social and personal development benefits (Institute for
Employment Studies, 2009, p.1).
Revi ewi ng the li terature there i s a danger of falli ng i nto a
polemi c debate, underrepresented and overrepresented;
engaged i n hi gher educati on and not engaged; hi gher and
lower soci o-economi c background and advantage. Recogni si ng
the poi nt made by Bourdi eu above regardi ng i ndi vi dual sense
of place and fai lure to percei ve ali e nati on, formi ng part of hi s
concept of habi tus that:
. . . encapsulates the way in which a person’s beliefs, ideas and
preferences are individually subjective but also influenced by the
objective social networks and cultural traditions in which that person lives
(Hodkinson 1995, p.6).
It i s worth consi deri ng the i ndi vi dual target and those doi ng
the targeti ng. Kerri gan and C hurch (Ai mhi gher i n the East
Mi dlands, 2011) note that the learners Ai mhi gher should be
tryi ng to target would often be the ones least li kely to
volunteer to take part, stressi ng the i mportance i n the
targeti ng process of “proacti ve face -to-face contact between
event organi zers and students i n school ” (Ibi d, p.15). They
stress that the i ni ti al targeti ng provi des a starti ng poi nt , wi th

26. 26
the schools havi ng the knowledge requi red to i denti fy the most
appropri ate students for wi deni ng parti ci pati on, ensuri ng the
i ni ti al targeti ng process doesn’ t exclude those who most
benefi t, or waste resources on those who would progre ss
wi thout addi ti onal help (Ai mhi gher i n the East Mi d lands, 2011).
Thi s i s rei nforced i n ‘Good Practi ce: Gui dance for Ai m hi gher
partnershi ps and hi gher educati on provi ders ’ (HEFCE, 2007) wi th
an addi ti onal caveat of the need for teachers to understand
the cri teri a and the purpose of both targeti ng and wi deni ng
parti ci pati on. There i s opi ni on i denti fyi ng a tendency for
schools to be unwi lli ng to target learners from lower soci o -
economi c groups (Harley, 2011). Thi s could be a reflecti on of
the teacher’ s own experi ences and habi tus:
Social psychologists have observed that any division of a population into
two groups, however arbitrary, induces discriminatory behaviour
favourable to members of the agent’s own group and hostile to members
of the other group (Bourdieu, 1984, p.481)
The key noti on of Bourdi eu’ s ‘ habi tus’ faces some cri ti que i n
Bennett et al, referenci ng Lahi re to questi on Bourdi eu’ s
“uni tary nature of habi tus” (Bennett et al, 2009, p.15),
favouri ng a vi ew that an i ndi vi dual’ s culture straddles the
fi elds referred to b y Bourdi eu. My own questi on would be i n
consi deri ng the relevance of the French poli ti cal/educati onal
perspecti ve appli ed to the Engli sh educati onal fi eld and a
culture of targeti ng. Bennett et al refer to Bourdi eu as
reduci ng “patterns of cul tural taste i n France to di fferences of
cl ass habi tus” (i bi d, p.251), reflecti ng that such a si ngle
theory would not apply to modern Bri tai n. I use Bourdi eu here
as a lens wi th whi ch to vi ew the synthesi s of opi ni ons, where

27. 27
the conti nental aspect may provi de a di storted lens, i t sti ll
proves useful as a focus:
It is logically impossible to understand any reasonably complex situation
– including almost any policy process – without some theoretical lens
(‘theory’, ‘paradigm’, or ‘conceptual framework’) distinguishing between
the set of potentially important variables and causal relationships and
those that can be safely ignored (Maddison and Denniss 2009, p90).
Those classi fyi ng groups i nto targets for servi ce deli very
should also consi der the poi nt made by Adorno, “Al l rei fi cati on
i s a forgetti ng ” (Fendler, 1999, p.169). It could be argued that
to engage i n targeti ng i n the hope of better practi ce we have
to forget, or i gnore, much that could di stract and confuse.
The i mportance placed upon teachers and schoo ls to
parti ci pate i n the targeti ng process: ‘ The i m portance of co -
operati on between H E provi ders, teachers and others cannot
be overesti m ated’ (HEFC E, 2007, p.12), leads onto the fi nal
consi derati on wi thi n the li terary revi ew, that of the
management and leade rshi p of targeti ng wi thi n schools.
Accepti ng the range of argument i denti fyi ng di fferent attri butes
of ‘ leadershi p’ and ‘ management’ , and other arguments noti ng
the blurri ng of the concepts (Bush, 2008; Tomli nson, 2004;
Alli x and Gronn, 2005), I look towards Fullan’ s C omplex
C hange Lessons (Fullan, 1993, pp.21 -22; Fullan, 1999, p.18),
provi ded i n Appendi x 4, to gai n understandi ng , not only
because of the di rect li nk to educati on change but also
because of the leani ng towards the moral purpose of chang i ng
di sadvantage:

28. 28
At the micro level, moral purpose in education means making a difference
in the life-chances of all students – more of a difference for the
disadvantaged because they have further to go (Fullan, 1999, p.1).
These wi ll be used wi thi n the analysi s of the fi ndi ngs from the
research i n relati on to the leadershi p and management of
targeti ng wi thi n schools.
Followi ng poi nts rai sed wi thi n the li terature revi ew, the
questi ons posed by the research wi ll seek to help understand
how aware and i nvolved teachers and other educati on staff
have been wi thi n the targeti ng process. It wi ll also explore
percepti on of the accuracy of targeti ng to i nclude groups
wi thi n Ai mhi gher acti vi ti es promoti ng wi deni ng parti ci pati on.
Reflecti ng on thoughts of ali ena ti on from cultural capi tal and
the recogni ti on of ali enati on, questi ons wi ll also look at staff
percepti ons of awareness of those belongi ng to, and excluded
from, the group, along wi th percepti ons of i nvolvement of other
staff i n educati on.