Northern Ireland reviews its approach to widening participation

The Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland has launched its first major review of widening participation since the Access to Success strategy landed in 2012.

And it arrives under Economy Minister Caoimhe Archibald, a Sinn Féin MLA appointed in February 2025.

References to “the north” rather than “Northern Ireland” pepper the text, and the preferred comparator, referenced repeatedly and enthusiastically, is the Republic of Ireland’s National Access Plan 2022–2028 – described here as “learner-centred” and better suited to Northern Ireland’s “scale, geography, and educational landscape.”

The consultation identifies persistent gaps – school leavers not entitled to free school meals, for example, are twice as likely to progress directly to HE as those who are (45 per cent versus 22 per cent).

Set the politics aside and there is a genuine policy document here – one that identifies real problems and proposes responses that deserve scrutiny on their own terms. Close alignment with the South – at least in methodology – is the proposed solution.

What’s being proposed

The consultation is structured around a new vision (“every learner, regardless of background or circumstance, can access, succeed in, and benefit from higher education”) supported by six principles: equity, responsiveness, collaboration, learner-centred support, transparency and accountability, and alignment with economic and social inclusion.

That’s remarkably similar to the six goals in ROI’s National Access Plan – inclusivity, flexibility, clarity, coherence, sustainability, and evidence-driven.

Priority groups would be reorganised from a flat list into four thematic categories: socioeconomic and geographic disadvantage (including “males from disadvantaged backgrounds, in particular young Protestant males”); personal circumstance and care experience (care-experienced, carers, estranged learners); educational and learning needs (disabled learners, adult returners, gender imbalances in specific disciplines); and justice and economic disengagement (justice system contact, homelessness, NEET-adjacent youth).

This also mirrors ROI’s structure of overarching categories with subcategories, acknowledging intersectionality rather than treating groups as discrete.

There are to be no national targets. The consultation explicitly rejects Scotland’s 20 per cent SIMD20 approach in favour of “institutional targets linked to specific priority groups” with annual review cycles. A region-wide taxonomy would enable consistent reporting.

Noting that Queen’s operates a formal Pathway Opportunity Programme while Ulster has no formal contextual scheme, the consultation proposes a “consistent sector-wide framework” with transparent criteria and improved communication.

Governance would centre on a formalised WP Forum as “the central cross-sector body for oversight, implementation, and continuous improvement,” underpinned by a “WP Covenant or Memorandum of Understanding” setting out shared commitments. Institutional visits and peer review would “promote mutual accountability.” And a regional data plan with improved data-sharing protocols would support evidence-based decision-making – mirroring ROI’s Access Data Plan.

Borrowing from Dublin

The alignment with ROI’s National Access Plan goes beyond general principles. The priority group structure, the targets model, the “access, participation AND success” framing, the data infrastructure, the governance architecture – all are lifted more or less directly.

The specific priority groups overlap substantially: care-experienced, carers, estranged learners, criminal justice contact, homelessness, disabled learners, adult returners, domestic violence survivors. NI adds jurisdiction-specific groups (Protestant males, NEET-adjacent youth) while ROI includes Traveller and Roma communities as a standalone priority.

The consultation cites ROI’s approach approvingly throughout, describing it as offering:

a more balanced path for us, combining targeted ambition with system-wide coordination.

But what happens if providers don’t deliver? The answer appears to be – nothing.

The entire approach rests on goodwill, shared principles, peer pressure, and voluntary commitments. Providers will be “encouraged” to nominate WP champions. Mentoring programmes will be “reviewed and expansion considered.” Contextual admissions will be “embedded.” Institutional visits will “promote mutual accountability.”

Compare England, where Access and Participation Plans are conditions of OfS registration – whatever you think of OfS’s approach, it has teeth. Scotland sits between the two – Outcome Agreements with funding linked to delivery, a Commissioner for Fair Access providing scrutiny, a national target creating a benchmark. Still partnership-based, but with harder edges.

The consultation frames the absence of regulatory grip as a feature – warning that institutional targets:

…could incentivise competition rather than collaboration, potentially undermining cross-sector efforts.

Northern Ireland’s HE sector is small – two universities, several university colleges, six FE colleges delivering HE. Relationship-based governance may well work where England’s sprawling market couldn’t sustain it.

Where are the students?

I hate to be a stuck record (I don’t, really) but while the stakeholder list includes “Student and staff unions” as one category (presumably NUS-USI involvement), ROI’s National Access Plan included a dedicated Student Consultation Event, direct USI involvement, ISSU consulted, individual SU submissions, and students on the Steering Group. Over 250 individuals engaged, 120+ submissions, and student voice was explicitly centred.

What NI’s consultation expects of providers is worse. One line, buried in the governance section:

Governance structures will be strengthened to ensure meaningful learner voice and employer engagement, with representation from learners, community partners, and industry embedded in decision-making processes.

The word “student” appears throughout – but almost always as the object of policy. There’s a section on mentoring that frames students as deliverers of support to other students, but not partners in governance.

ROI’s plan even includes an explicit action for “HEIs to implement mechanisms to ensure the voice of students from priority groups is heard and acted upon.” It references NStEP and names USI as an implementation partner – but NI has nothing comparable. For a document invoking “learner-centred” principles on every other page, this is a notable gap.

What’s missing

Financial support, meanwhile, gets acknowledged as important then immediately punted to the wider Higher Education Funding Review. ROI’s plan dedicates substantial attention to student grants, disability funding, assistance funds, bursaries. NI waves vaguely at “effective, equitable, and sustainable” support without commitment – at least for now.

The consultation identifies real problems and proposes responses that make sense on paper. The thematic priority structure borrowed from ROI is more sophisticated than a flat list. And the emphasis on access, participation and success – the full journey, not just getting through the door – is welcome.

Whether we end up with another refresh identifying “persistent gaps” in another decade is another question. A 12-week consultation will close on 16 April 2026.