Tom Wilson: Don't slam the door, just open the system to scrutiny

Last week Charles Clarke made a dramatic entrance into the row over Bristol University's admissions policy. Appearing to bow to pressure from the press, and, allegedly, Downing Street, he rejected the targets set by the Government's own agency, the Higher Education Council (Hefce), for getting more disadvantaged students into higher education. This happened barely hours after their publication and despite the fact that officials had known about them for weeks beforehand.

The funding council's setting of benchmarks for the percentage of students from poorer backgrounds that each university should have means that those in compliance attract extra funding. But that money is only to meet some of the added costs of disadvantaged students. Far from accepting government bribes, as some newspapers are suggesting, universities such as Bristol are incurring extra costs.

But the campaigning newspapers have a point. Bristol's policy is not exactly transparent. Nor is the rationale behind the benchmarks. Nor is Clarke's repudiation of targets when the whole thrust of government policy, loyally carried out by Hefce, has been to hit the Prime Minister's 50 per cent participation rate and to widen access. In short, the policy of assessing potential not achievement and redoubling efforts to include able but disadvantaged students is creaking under the glare of public scrutiny. When it looks as though parents who have paid for their children's education are being penalised, a backlash is predictable. It could have been avoided.

First, we should introduce the SAT American aptitude test, which is a reasonably good and independent test of potential. Used alongside A-levels and other qualifications, the SAT would help universities such as Bristol to justify choosing bright working-class students.

Second, we need a post-qualification entry system so that students apply after their results. Yes, that might mean some changes to higher education timetables, but since these are still arranged around medieval harvests, change is perhaps overdue. There would still be 10 independent school applicants with straight As for every place in some subjects. Sceptics are more likely to accept the need to judge potential if it is based on actual achievement. Bristol should also do more to explain exactly how judgements on potential are made.

Third, the funding council should publish the rationale for each institution's benchmark. They vary according to subject mix, history, location and other factors. Bristol's problem is that it is more popular among independent schools than other leading universities. That makes hitting its benchmark harder. Maybe that should be reflected in the figure that Bristol is given.

Fourth, Hefce should explain access funding, no longer based on postcode but on school, parental status and attainment. Yes, that means wearily explaining yet again to certain newspapers that it is not a bribe. But the explanation will be more convincing if it includes a robust defence of why access costs more and why meeting those extra costs helps all students.

Fifth, universities should remind parents that students have a better education in a wider social mix. Access is not being foisted on the sector by a government hell bent on social engineering. It is welcomed by academe because bright working-class students can be a joy to teach – they have much to offer more privileged students and vice versa. Academics also care about fairness. Students rejected by Bristol will find places at other leading universities. A greater injustice is denying good disadvantaged students any place.

Sixth, the funding for widening participation has been sliced out of teaching funding, causing a blazing row between those universities that have suffered (including Bristol) and Hefce. Yet the money had to be found. The White Paper is full of laudable sentiments about valuing teaching and access. Those unfunded sentiments have left the funding council facing the flak.

The Bristol row offers a salutary lesson in the need vigorously to defend, explain, strengthen and fund government policy. Appearing to concede just compounds the confusion.

The writer is head of the universities department at the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education

education@independent.co.uk