Progress on widening participation in HE

Summary
Introduction
Changing measures of participation
Young participation in higher education - 1994-2000
More recent participation rates and gender issues
Barriers to participation
Attempts to overcome the barriers
'Funding enhances stability of HE in England'
Study of evidence on barriers to entering higher education
References

Summary

Progress is, so far, mixed. Participation of those from poorer backgrounds has risen but not so fast as the participation of those from better off backgrounds. Additionally, participation from low participation neighbourhoods has barely risen. Women’s participation rate is greater than that for men and their lead is growing. Much of the change occurred before fees were introduced, leading some commentators to conclude that student debt is not a factor in participation rates.

Introduction

In 1999 Tony Blair announced his intention to see that 50% of all young people aged under 30 should take part in higher education by 2010. A particular aim was to increase the participation of those from poorer backgrounds and ethnic minorities.

In the Spring 2002 issue of Graduate Market Trends, the article Widening Participation in Higher Education described the extent of the problem, its probable causes and what might be needed to achieve the government’s aims. In this article, we look at some of the evidence and progress made in recent years.

According to a recent report from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the most advantaged 20% of young people were up to six times more likely to enter higher education than the most disadvantaged 20%. And this disparity barely shifted between 1994 and 2000 [1] . Further, those from poorer backgrounds who did enter university were much more likely to drop out.

Statistics, as ever, lag behind the changing facts and are not always available for all constituent countries of the UK.

But first of all, an update on how participation is measured.

Changing measures of participation

Initially, progress towards the 50% target was measured through the Initial Entry Rate (IER). This measured the percentages of students entering higher education for the first time at each age between 18 and 30, expressed as a proportion of the total population for each of those ages. The percentages were then summed up to give the total participation rate for age 18 to 30. (See Widening Participation in Higher Education).

More recently, the IER has been replaced by the Higher Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR). Unlike the IER which measured the number of young students starting a course, the HEIPR measures how many are still there after six months. The IER has been discontinued and its last calculated value was for 2001/02 [2].

Young participation in higher education - 1994-2000

According to the HEFCE, young participation (of 18 and 19 year olds) for the UK increased slightly from 27% for the 1994 cohort to 29% for the 2000 cohort. This is in contrast with the doubling of young participation over the preceding seven cohorts. Similar trends are seen for the constituent countries of the UK [3].

In England alone, the 2000 cohort of 18 and 19 year olds numbered 576,000 of whom 172,000 entered higher education, giving a participation rate in all types of institution (higher and further education) of 30%. The overwhelming majority, 19 out of 20, of these entrants studied in a higher education institution (HEI).

In Scotland there were 61,000 young people in the 2000 cohort of whom 24,000 entered higher education; a participation rate in all types of institution of 38%. The profile of participation in Scotland is different, with around one in three young entrants studying a higher education course in a further education institution (FEI). This route accounted for 12 percentage points of young participation in Scotland. The students in FEI are mainly studying Higher National Diplomas which are relatively more important in Scotland.

The participation rate for higher education courses in HEIs only was 29% for the UK 2000 cohort. This was similar for all the constituent countries of the UK: England (29%), Wales (30%), Scotland (27%) and Northern Ireland (32%).

More recent participation rates and gender issues

Figures from the government indicated that the provisional HEIPR for 17-30 year old English-domiciled first-time entrants to higher education courses for 2002/2003 was 44%. This represented a rise of one percentage point on the 2001/2002 figure of 43% [3].

There was, however, a large disparity between male and female participation. Initial participation for males was (provisionally) 40% in 2002/03, compared with 47% (provisionally) for females. Both figures represented no change from 2001/02. Initial participation has also been rising more quickly for females than for males from 1999/2000 to 2002/03. Female initial participation has risen by four percentage points over the period, whilst male initial participation has only risen by two percentage points.

Figures for 2004 entry from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) reveal that this trend of gender imbalance is set to continue [4]. The number of female acceptances increased by 1.9% on 2003 whereas male acceptances decreased by 0.3%. In total, there were 7% more women accepted in 2004 than men.

Barriers to participation

The widening socio-economic gap in UK higher education

Participation rates for those from state schools, social classes 4, 5, 6 & 7 and from low participation neighbourhoods can be found at the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). These statistics are for the participation of young people (defined as aged 18 and 19 on entry) in full-time undergraduate courses. They show that while 87.8% of young entrants were from state schools and colleges, the proportion from socio-economic sub-groups 4, 5, 6 and 7 was only 29.2% and from low-participation neighbourhoods was only 13.9%.

The Centre for the Economics of Education reported on the socio-economic gap in UK higher education participation [5]. The report assessed the period spanning the introduction of tuition fees, and asked whether the gap had widened. The study concluded that:

The gap between rich and poor, in terms of HE participation, has widened during the 1990s. But is the glass half empty or half full? Children from all socio-economic backgrounds are considerably more likely to go to university in 2001, as compared to 1994. In fact the growth in HE participation amongst poorer students has been remarkably high, mainly because they were starting from such a low base. Nonetheless our results suggests that children from poor neighbourhoods have become relatively less likely to participate in higher education since 1994/5, as compared to children from richer neighbourhoods. In fact the strength of the relationship between neighbourhood income levels and HE participation grew most rapidly in the early part of the period, rather than after the introduction of tuition fees. This would seem to imply that any income-driven inequality in HE is part of a longer-term trend, perhaps related to the gradual reduction in student support in HE and the big expansion of the university sector that occurred in the early 1990s.

The government’s aim of increasing participation among those from poorer backgrounds, therefore, seems far off.

Drop-out rates higher for poorer students

Studies have shown that students from poorer backgrounds were likely to attend different universities to the better off and that although average drop-out rates in the UK were 17% - around half that of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average - rates were much higher among those from poorer backgrounds [6].

The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) studied the drop-out rates at London Metropolitan University which was formed by a merger of the University of North London (UNL) and London Guildhall University (LGU). There was a big difference in the drop-out rates in the first year where UNL's rate was much higher than that for LGU. There was very little difference in drop-out rates in subsequent years. HEPI compared the characteristics of the two student bodies’ intakes and dropouts. UNL recruited a much higher proportion of students locally and a much higher proportion without formal qualifications - possible significant factors which resulted in a drop-out rate of more than twice the average. People from poorer backgrounds tend to achieve lower scores at GCSE which is the main determinant of later success at A-level and university. Bob Aylett, deputy vice-chancellor at London Metropolitan, quoted by the Guardian, said that universities were in an "impossible situation" when the government imposed penalties for not taking disadvantaged students and then punished universities for high drop-out rates [7] .

While the HEPI study is not a representative sample of all HEI, the report authors point out that it does contain lessons for institutions committed to widening participation and for those responsible for resourcing non-traditional students.

Grammar schools have highest entry rates to HE

Grammar school pupils were more successful than those from independent schools in England in getting into higher education, according to UCAS figures reported by BBC News [8].

The success rate of grammar school applicants to UCAS was found to be 89.1% in 2004, compared with 86.3% for independent schools, 84% for comprehensives, and 72.3% for students from HEIs and FEIs.

According to the Sutton Trust, which supports projects that provide educational opportunities for young people from non-privileged backgrounds, the government benchmarks for state school admissions have been helpful in spreading the message of widening participation. The Trust, however, has criticised the way the benchmarks are set.

Their report reveals that the 2002/03 performance indicators by HEFCE showed a sharp rise in the state school admissions benchmarks for the 'top 13 universities', from 75% in 2001/02 to 80% in 2003/04. In particular, Cambridge’s benchmark rose from 68% to 77%, while Oxford’s increased from 69% to 77%. According to the Sutton Trust's report, these rises - due to changes in the way the benchmarks are calculated, using UCAS tariff points rather than A-level grades - have been viewed by the leading universities as an unfair moving of the goalposts [9].

Attempts to overcome the barriers

Oxford's offer to poorer students

Oxford University has begun advertising its new bursary scheme, which it hopes will attract bright students from low-income families when higher education top-up fees are introduced next year [10].

The Oxford Opportunity Bursaries, worth up to £10,000 over three years or £13,000 over four years, will ensure that students from families with low incomes, who will also be receiving statutory Government grants, can meet their entire basic living costs during term-time.

Oxford’s vice-chancellor, Dr John Hood, said: ‘We know that there are many talented students across the UK who are put off applying because they think they can’t afford to study at Oxford, or that Oxford isn’t for people from their school or town. These are myths we are trying hard to set straight through our vigorous programme of outreach activity.'

Cambridge bursaries

UK undergraduates who study at the University of Cambridge after 2006 will be eligible for bursaries worth up to £9,000 over three years or £12,000 over four years, the University announced [11].

Mature students will be eligible for support totalling £15,000 for a three-year course or £20,000 for a four-year course. The higher tier of awards reflects the higher costs for these students who have to remain in Cambridge throughout the year.

The scheme has been designed to ensure that students from less affluent backgrounds can cover all of their living costs, and that no student should have to take a paid job during term-time. One in five undergraduates at Cambridge are expected to be eligible for a bursary, with one in ten getting full support - enough to meet full living costs without the need for a maintenance loan. The new scheme will also enable more support to be offered to students with exceptional need, such as the disabled, or those with dependent children. There will be no limit to how many students can receive this support.

There are, however, concerns that the Cambridge scheme will rapidly become unaffordable if access to students from poorer backgrounds improves. According to a study from Varsity, Cambridge University's student newspaper, the university's figures assume that the undergraduate body's make-up remains as it is at present, where only 10% of students' parents earn less than £15,000, the lowest proportion of any university in the country except London [12].

In contrast, figures from the Department for Education and Skills show that the proportion of such students across UK universities is 30%. The scheme will provide assistance to students with parental incomes of up to £35,000 - a group who make up a third of Cambridge students but two-thirds of undergraduates nationally. Varisity research revealed that if Cambridge's intake became representative of the national student population, the bursaries would cost the university more than £17m per year - virtually all of the extra funding that top-up fees were meant to provide.

'Funding enhances stability of HE in England'

The HEFCE announced on 10 March 2005 the distribution of £6,332 million in recurrent funding for 2005-06 to universities and colleges in England [13].

The total grant, which represents an overall cash increase of 5.6% compared with 2004-05, provides an above-inflation increase for teaching, £120 million more for research and an extra 26,000 student places. £282 million has also been earmarked to support the widening participation of students from under-represented groups.

Critics, however, decried the funding as insufficient to pay adequate salaries and fund the expected increase in applications due to the imminent introduction of top up fees and increase in the number of 18-year olds. Post 1992 institutions were also unhappy with their funding per student [14].

Study of evidence on barriers to entering higher education

Evidence suggests that the government still has some way to go to achieve its 50% young entry target and widening participation.

In October last year, the HEFCE published its widening participation and fair access research strategy, focusing on four areas: costs of widening participation, evaluation of Aimhigher, barriers to participation in higher education and widening participation research facility [15]. Furthermore, a review commissioned by the HEFCE will look at why some people who have the ability to benefit from higher education do not go to university or college. The research will be used to develop future activities funded and promoted by HEFCE, to encourage a wider range of people to participate in higher education. Outcomes will be published in summer 2005 [16].

References

1. Young Participation in Higher Education, Higher Education Funding Council for England, January 2005.

2. For more information, see Review of the Initial Entry Rate into Higher Education, NSQR series report no. 24, Department for Education and Skills, 17 November 2003.

3. Participation rates in higher education for the academic years 1999/2000-2002/2003, Department for Education and Skills first release, 14 April 2004.

4. UCAS releases final figures for 2004 entry to UK higher education, UCAS news release, 27 January 2005.

5. The Widening Socio-economic Gap in UK Higher Education, Fernando Galindo-Rueda, Oscar Marcenaro-Gutierrez and Anna Vignoles, Centre for the Economics of Education, June 2004.

6. Non-completion at the University of North London and London Guildhall University: a case study, Libby Aston and Bahram Bekhradnia, Higher Education Policy Institute, January 2005.

7. 'Open access' universities policy backfires, Polly Curtis, The Guardian, 17 January 2005.

8. Grammars head students access, BBC news, 28 January 2005.

9. State School Admissions to our Leading Universities, the Sutton Trust, October 2004.

10. Chancellor launches Oxford Opportunity Bursaries campaign, University of Oxford news, 7 March 2005.

11. University of Cambridge launches the Cambridge Bursary Scheme, University of Cambridge news, 7 March 2005.

12. Cambridge would have to remain elitist to afford bursary scheme, Tim Moreton, 16 January 2004.

13. Funding of over £6 billion enhances the stability of higher education in England, HEFCE news, 10 March 2005.

14. Not playing ball with the underdogs, Donald MacLeod, EducationGuardian.co.uk, 10 March 2005.

15. HEFCE widening participation and fair access research strategy, HEFCE, October 2004.

16. Study calls for evidence on barriers to entering higher education, HEFCE news, 8 November 2004.