Search results

Widening access to higher education with the aim of creating more social equality (or at least equal opportunities for everyone) is a long-term goal in the higher education policy of the Federal Republic of Germany. Several reforms starting in the 1960s have tried to achieve this aim by establishing new universities and funding regimes, for example introducing a student loan system (‘BAföG’) for students from families with low income or the abolition of tuition fees. As a result, we can speak about a ‘Bildungsexpansion’ (education expansion), because there are more young people in higher education in Germany than ever before. The number of the graduates has also reached record highs. Despite these achievements, access to higher education still reflects social inequalities: There are still 3.3 times more students in higher education who are children of academics than students from a non-academic background (BMBF, 2013). This chapter asks whether German widening access policies have led to greater social equality? The answer: The education expansion has mainly benefited socially advantaged groups from a middle-class background, especially women. Therefore, especially for young men from disadvantaged migrant families with a low income, access to higher education is still very difficult to attain. The experiences of the German reforms clearly show that widening access to higher education has the potential to increase social mobility and to create more social equality, but to achieve this goal there are far more policy measures needed especially policies for direct support (like ‘BAföG’) and encouragement of socially disadvantaged groups.

This chapter considers how far political devolution has enabled the government in Wales to develop a distinctive approach to student funding. It examines in particular claims that policy choices in Wales on student funding reflect a commitment to ‘progressive universalism’, a term sometimes used by policy-makers in Wales and elsewhere to describe combining means-tested and non-means-tested benefits. The chapter also explores the growing use of income-contingent loans, arguing that such loans complicate debates about targeting and universalism.

In this chapter we provide a brief history of student fees in Australian higher education (HE), particularly from 1974 when fees were abolished but more substantially from 1989 when they were re-introduced. Of particular interest is the impact of student fees on the equity of access in HE: what has become known in Australia as the proportional representation of ‘equity’ groups (i.e. groups defined by gender, socioeconomic status, disability, indigeneity, rurality or language background; see Martin, L. (1994). Equity and general performance indicators in higher education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.), although latterly the focus has been on socioeconomic status (SES). Our analysis is of Australian Government policy, framed by a ‘quality of mind’ that C. W. Mills (1959, p. 14) refers to as the ‘sociological imagination’. That is, we draw attention to the absence of this imagination in much government policy, which falsely separates the personal troubles of individuals (e.g. in financing access to HE) from the public issues of societies (e.g. in universalising HE), with a tendency to ascribe responsibility for student fees to the former over the latter. In these terms, we characterise the history of access to Australian HE — specifically the role that student fees have played in this — as fluctuating from personal trouble to public issue and back again.

This chapter describes the nature of higher education funding and student support in the Republic of Ireland. Ireland represents an interesting case-study because of the abolition of student fees in the mid-1990s and the way in which the current crisis in higher education (HE) funding has prompted debate about the appropriate way to fund the sector. The chapter begins by providing a brief outline of the structure of Irish HE and the funding regime before examining HE admissions processes and the kinds of supports available to students. The chapter concludes by looking at trends in participation and the current debate about the future direction of funding.

This chapter reviews the overall structure of the US financial aid system and the way in which students from underrepresented groups deal with the cost of participating in higher education. Case studies of students from underrepresented groups are used to illustrate the type of problems experienced, including financial loan guilt, economic divisions amongst undergraduates and balancing employment with full-time undergraduate study. It is noted that financial aid only factors in tuition and housing costs, but does not take account of the need to participate in the ‘student experience’. Restricted finances mean that some students are unable to take part fully in social activities or purchase books, all of which are thought to be part of the typical undergraduate experience. Thus, despite efforts to widen participation, the concept of ‘college for all’ can be considered an illusion (Glass & Nygreen, 2011) because universities fail to acknowledge the class and racial hierarchies that shape the culture, an aspect that financial aid alone cannot remove.

This chapter traces the shift of many progressive educators from a general faith in special education to the more recent push for democratic and ethical inclusive education. This chapter examines the critical scholarship that propelled many educators away from systems of special education and into the inclusive education movement. Two phases in the development of inclusive education are described, an initial failed attempt often described by researchers as “integration,” and the current social movement building toward a more genuine social transformation of classrooms and schools.