|
|
|
|
Callender, Claire
- Professor
- London South Bank University
- Department of Social Policy
- United Kingdom
|
|
Claire Callender (BSc, PhD) is Professor of Social Policy at London South Bank University. She is part of the University’s Economic and Social Research Council Research Group on the Family and Social Capital and heads up the Employment and Education research team. Whilst at London South Bank, Claire was seconded to the Cabinet Office where she was Head of Research in the Women's Equality Unit. Prior to joining London South Bank, she worked at the Policy Studies Institute in London, and the Institute of Employment Studies at Sussex University, and taught at the Universities of Leeds, Bradford and Cardiff.
Claire has been conducting applied social research for over 25 years. This has focused on two main areas: women’s labour market participation, and educational policy in higher and further education, especially in the area of student financial support and participation. Most of her studies are quantitative and now concentrate on student funding, involving large-scale national surveys of undergraduate students. Through her research, she has contributed to some of the most significant UK inquires into student funding.
Select Publications
- Callender, C. (2006) Access To Higher Education In Britain: The Impact Of Tuition Fees And Financial Assistance in Teixeira, P.N.; Johnstone, D.B.; Rosa, M.J.; Vossensteyn, H. (Eds.) Cost-sharing and Accessibility in Higher Education: A Fairer Deal? Springer, Dordrecht pp 104-132
- Callender, C. Wilkinson D, and Mackinon K (2006) Part-time students and part-time study in higher education in the UK: A survey of students’ attitudes and experiences of part-time study and its costs 2005/06, Universities UK/Guild HE, London 88 pp
- Callender, C. and Jackson, J. (2005) Does Fear of Debt Deter Students from Higher Education? Journal of Social Policy, Vol 34/4, pp 509-540
|
|
Providing Greater Access to Higher Education: A Comparative Study of the Role of International Aid in the US & UK
The focus of my proposed study is access and equity in England’s changing student funding and financial support regimes. This is a critical time for England’s emerging funding policies and practice. Following the introduction of the 2004 Higher Education Act, for the first time since World War II, both full-time undergraduates’ tuition fees have been deregulated and all students, irrespective of their family’s income, have to pay tuition fees of up to £3,000, repaid on graduation. Universities charging the maximum tuition fee are obliged to give low-income students bursaries to supplement government grants and student maintenance loans. On top of the statutory minimum, the government has encouraged universities to provide additional discretionary aid, again for the first time in post-war Britain.
The 2004 Act symbolizes a further move towards the notion of HE as a private good – developments witnessed elsewhere in mature economies. Whilst tuition fee levels currently remain largely undifferentiated in England, a competitive market between universities has emerged in institutional aid with stark differences in the nature and scope of the support being offered. This research, therefore, will explore some of the short term effects of these reforms on access and equity, and student behavior. It will call upon experience in the US that has a long history of both deregulated tuition fees and institutional grant giving, and thus potentially offer some insights into the policy effects.
This proposed research falls within the NCS’s third theme “Resources and Policies that Provide Greater Access to Higher Education”, concentrating on the role of institutional aid. This comparative study of institutional aid in the US and England will and attempts to assess the equity effects and the efficacy, of particular bursary systems. It will try to identify those regimes that promote the greatest access for disadvantaged students and how these approaches might be incorporated within England’s developing institutional aid policies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|