House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Fifth Report

6. Fair access

112. The Government is unequivocal on the reasons why fair access to higher education matters:

"All those who have the potential to benefit from higher education should have the opportunity to do so. This is a fundamental principle which lies at the heart of building a more socially just society, because education is the best and most reliable route out of poverty and disadvantage."[145]

113. The White Paper puts forward a range of proposals to help achieve wider access:

"Raising participation and standards through our reforms of secondary and further education is critical to widening access.

But we must also raise the aspirations of schools and young people. A unified national AimHigher programme will build better links between schools, colleges and universities, including through summer schools and a pilot programme offering students the chance to support teachers in schools and colleges.
We will ensure that there are good-quality and accessible 'second-chance' routes into higher education for those who missed out when they were younger.
And we will work with universities to make sure that admissions procedures are professional, fair and transparent, and use the widest possible range of information about students when making decisions.
Institutions will be provided with better benchmark data on which to judge progress in widening access and we will continue to support the work being done to secure fair access to the most prestigious universities.
We will ask HEFCE to reform the access premium so that universities and colleges will be properly funded for the extra costs of attracting and retaining students from non-traditional backgrounds.
Universities with unacceptably high drop-out rates will be asked to plan improvements.
We will appoint a Higher Education Access Regulator, who will develop a framework for Access Agreements for each institution. Only institutions making satisfactory progress on access will be able to participate in the Graduate Contribution Scheme from 2006.
We will reintroduce grants for students from the lowest income families, to help overcome their financial worries and to underpin a raising of aspirations."[146]

Raising aspirations

114. There was substantial agreement amongst those we spoke to that raising participation, achievement and aspiration amongst under-represented groups in secondary and further education was crucial if their level of participation in higher education is to be increased, given that 90% of those who gain two A levels, whatever their social class, go on to higher education by the age of 21.[147] Margaret Hodge told us that

"we have always seen working towards that 50% target as being towards the latter end of the ten-year period because whether or not students go on to higher education depends on whether or not they get prior qualifications, and that depends on our reforms of secondary education".[148]

Sir Howard Newby said that students from poor backgrounds who have not traditionally aspired to higher education "need to be pulled through—if I can use that phrase—from the age of 13 or 14 onwards to see that higher education is a realistic alternative. We need to get the universities, the colleges, the schools, the school teachers, parents, all working together on this."[149]

115. Dr Knight from UCE told us that

"The identification of talent is important, it is a new initiative, we are getting support from HEFCE and I would be surprised if you found a single university that said that they were not signed up and committed to doing that. The difficulty is persuading some students from particular social backgrounds to participate in higher education and identifying those students in the 16 to 18 age group."[150]

Professor Eastwood from UEA echoed Sir Howard Newby's argument that it is important to reach students at younger ages:

"What is very interesting, if you look at the pattern of funding for initiatives to widen access and to increase participation, is that we are basically normally allowed to operate down to 16-plus, but we get no funding to send people out into schools to deal with people at Key Stage 2 or Key Stage 3 where there is quite a lot of evidence that that is the key point in determining the childrens ambitions. Now, my institution does it and we do it in lots of shortage areas. My mathematicians happen to be terrifically good at it, for example, but I think it is that kind of Balkanization of educational policy which says that HE comes come at the top end, and we are berated when we do not get the numbers right. The key is partnerships."[151]

116. Sir Richard Sykes talked about what Imperial College does to raise aspiration in mathematics and the sciences, operating one scheme with students going into schools to teach mathematics, and another for post-doctoral students who spend half their time in research and the other half teaching maths, physics, chemistry and biology in schools:

"Because that is what science and technology is all about, you have got to get people enthused, you have got to get them involved, and if you do not have the teaching, if you do not have the excitement, then they will never get involved in science. So it is our job to make sure that we go out into schools and help to create an environment where people do think, 'Maybe this is for me, maybe I should be doing this.'"[152]

Access premium

117. Students from non-traditional backgrounds need more support once they arrive in higher education to ensure that they find their feet and can make the best of their opportunities. There has been for a number of years some specific funding via the so-called postcode premium for students from areas where few participate in higher education, which has provided additional funding of around 5% per student to institutions to help towards those extra costs. This is to be increased to 20%, and the assessment of eligibility is to be made more sophisticated, taking account of family income, parental levels of education, and average results at the school a student attended.[153] Dr Allen of NATFHE welcomed this change:

"We are glad that it is going to be redefined. It is important that support for wider participation of students is not just seen as a welfare issue. It is about changing approaches to learning and teaching in general. It is also about having more staff. There is lots of evidence that the successful retention strategies, particularly in that critical first year for students, often involve a level of support and personal contact that a lot of universities are not able to provide at the moment. FE is very good at providing it and I think HE could learn quite a lot from FE in this regard."[154]

118. We have, however, received a considerable amount of critical comment about the increased access premium, as it has been funded from within existing budgets rather than being new money. Professor David Wallace of Loughborough University told us:

"the funding for [the increased premium] has been created by cuts in the core teaching grant. For Loughborough, the core funding for teaching this year is £31.7 million. For next year, before allowing for inflation, this has been cut by £1.78 million (5.6%). This is equivalent to more than 40 lectureships."[155]

119. Professor John Tarrant from the University of Huddersfield told us that the widening participation and retention budget for the sector had only increased from £264.4 million for 2002-03 to £265 for 2003-04, and that his university, "a successful widening participation university" will receive extra funding only 50% higher than the previous year, effectively a premium of 7.5% rather than the 20% announced by the Government.[156] We received comments on similar lines from Goldsmiths College, the Royal Academy of Music and the University of Southampton.[157]

Student retention and drop-out rates

120. The issue of retention of students is one on which the Government has made some strong statements. The White Paper cautions against the new access premium being used as an incentive to recruit students for whom higher education, or a particular course, is not suitable.[158] It says "we must make sure that institutions are not exploiting their most vulnerable students by making up the numbers with students who cannot cope; and we must also make sure that institutions support those who do have the potential for higher education, but need extra help to realise it."[159]

121. In evidence on this point, Margaret Hodge told us:

"On the whole, as a nation, we do well on drop-out rates. We have one of the lowest drop-out rates and the best completion rates among the OECD comparable countries, but in some universities it is just too high. The last figures I saw for the University of North London had a drop-out rate of 45%; University of East London and Central Lancashire had drop-out rates of 33%. That is too high."[160]

122. Other witnesses suggested that this was too simplistic an approach. Tom Wilson of NATFHE said:

"The figures are very misleading because a large proportion of the alleged drop-out are moving on to higher education somewhere else, not necessarily in that year, but if you look at the figures in any sort of detail you will see that is quite different from the drop-out rate of a standard, traditional university student who decides that university is not for them".[161]

He added that that "the kinds of courses which have been laid on in the first year for many of these students are diagnostic in the sense that they are to see whether the students welcome HE. For many of them, the fact that they do it for a year or even less than a year, go away and decide it is not for them at that point and maybe come back many years later is not such a bad thing. It is not a waste of money in any sense at all. It is a perfectly valid, proper reason for a university course to exist."[162]

123. Harinder Lawley, Head of Access Development at London Metropolitan University, gave us examples of reasons why students leave courses early:

"Late applicants to HE often find it a struggle to sort out student support arrangements in the first term. They are also likely to be the most vulnerable to withdrawal lacking the cultural and social capital to negotiate the system. Some commitment to fast tracking late applications would ameliorate the difficulties this group currently faces…

Age, point of application and entry to the course are significant factors. Many younger students who come through Clearing often accept places at the last minute knowing they will try to negotiate entry to another preferred option once they are in the system. This may involve transferring to another course or another institution.

Older students are likely to have researched their choices more thoroughly, are clearer about what they want to achieve, have had to set up other arrangements and are often less mobile. However they are also more likely to have to review their finances (see above) on a regular basis and many have to intermit, switch modes or withdraw early due to financial hardship or a change in personal circumstances…

Many students cannot manage lump sum payments, have to start working and then can't deal with the pressures of coursework deadlines.

With a mass HE system, many students struggle with understanding and dealing with the concept of being an 'independent learner', particularly if they are used to being coached by teachers or alternatively if they have had poor educational experiences in the past.

Lacking confidence in own academic and intellectual abilities is frequently cited as a reason for withdrawal."[163]

Sir Howard Newby told us that "the highest correlation over drop-out rates in higher education [is] prior educational attainment. So, those institutions which admit large numbers of students with lower educational attainment at school and FE level tend to have the higher drop-out rates and that in turn is correlated with socio-economic background."[164]

Mature, disabled and part-time students

124. The Open University expressed its concern that the White Paper concentrated on full time, younger students:

"There is scant reference to mature learners who now make up more than 50% of the sector—or to part-time provision, which will be essential to an economy based on lifelong learning. In a paper entitled The Future of Higher Education, this is a serious shortcoming."[165]

In a similar vein, the NUS raised concerns that the interests of disabled students where not sufficiently addressed by the White Paper.[166]

125. Dr Copland also noted that the White Paper concentrates on full time students:

"There is of course a very thriving mixed economy provision for part-time students… One of the things…which we do need to think through is how we might use more effectively credit accumulation transfer systems in order to build qualifications to bring people in, whether they are studying full time or part time, to enable them to have the opportunity to start higher education and then build a qualification through that."

The access regulator

126. One of the main proposals on equity of access is the establishment of an access regulator. The White Paper says:

"Those institutions that wish to charge variable fees will be required to have Access Agreements in place which set out the action they will take in order to safeguard and promote access, and the targets they will set for themselves. These will be determined by an independent Access Regulator, working with HEFCE and making use of their information and systems. The Regulator will ensure that the Agreements are robust and challenging. They will be monitored, and the Regulator will have the power to withdraw approval for variable fees, or impose financial penalties, if the Agreements are not fulfilled."[167]

The Secretary of State told us that "The goal of the Government is to say that everybody, whatever their background, whatever their circumstances, ought to be able to go to the best university in the country based on their merit and potential….A central goal of our Access Regulator is to try and ensure that people do apply to the best university, to the elite universities as well as all the other universities, on the basis of understanding they have prospects of going there."[168]

127. The proposal for an access regulator was greeted with some scepticism by a number of witnesses. Professor Floud said:

"we all agree that there is a great deal more to be done and we are very happy to work further with anybody, the schools, the colleges, the foundations and, if necessary, with the access regulator to spread best practice. However, I think we would be hostile to a bureaucratic system on the grounds that we cannot really see what its added value might be. If we can be convinced that it does have added value, then of course we will work happily with it."[169]

Dr Brown of SCOP was particularly trenchant:

"I think the access regulator has just not been thought through at all. It is bound to involve a layer of bureaucracy. The regulator is bound to want to get involved in things that are not any of its business because that is the way you get on. Admissions is an area that has hitherto not been externally regulated—it is one of the few areas of higher education that is not externally regulated closely by the funding council. It is now going to be part of the funding council, so you are back to the state agency. I think it is a terrible mish-mash, quite honestly. I do not have anything very positive to say about it, I am afraid."[170]

Dr Knight of UCE said that there had been conflicting statements from the Government about how the regulator was to operate, which had not helped in coming to a judgement:

"At one stage this is an important and essential component of the White Paper and if you do not satisfy the access regulator, you will not be able to charge the fees, so it looks important. On the other hand, statements are made by ministers and the Secretary of State currently that you do not need to worry about this, it will all be straightforward, HEFCE will look after it and it is not an issue. Well, either it is an issue or it is not an issue."[171]

128. Professor Eastwood of UEA also argued that the way in which the regulator is to operate is crucial:

"I think we have got experience of what you might describe as beneficial relationships between the university, the funding council and regulation and I would cite human resource strategies for the universities over the last two or three years where HEFCEs insistence that universities have strategies and that was a condition of the release of some funding has undoubtedly meant that universities have moved forward on a range of issues, including equal opportunities. If that is the model, the encouragement of good practice, a relatively light touch and dealing firmly with institutions which do not have appropriate policies or approaches, that seems to me to be something which is acceptable and may indeed add a certain amount."[172]

129. Professor Leslie Wagner of Leeds Metropolitan University suggested that "almost everything the White Paper wants the 'regulator' to do could be done through existing funding council mechanisms".[173] University of Wales College, Newport, argued that it had an excellent track record on widening participation, that it had appropriate strategies in place which were extensively monitored and that the access regulator was not necessary.[174]

Dr Thrower of the Mixed Economy Group of Colleges was the most positive of our witnesses about the access regulator, seeing it as a way of assisting further education colleges in the development of their higher education role:

"From our point of view, I think that having an access regulator who starts to recognise the role that our type of institutions play and can, if you like, quantify those resources that we do need to undertake that work would be an excellent move forward".[175]

130. Since we took oral evidence, the Government has produced its detailed proposals, and the scope of the regulator appears to be narrower than envisaged in the White Paper:

"Universities which wish to increase their fees above the current (£1,100) level will need to draw up an access agreement. An agreement, which will last for five years, will need to set out:

the fee levels the institution wishes to charge (up to a maximum of £3,000);
the courses to which the higher fees will apply;
the outreach work to be undertaken by the institution with schools and colleges to help raise the level of attainment, aspirations and applications;
the bursaries and other financial support the university will make available along with advice on financial issues; and
the milestones and indicators which a university will decide itself and against which it can measure progress towards its own ambitions of widening participation.

An individual university's admission policies and procedures will be outside the remit of the access agreement and OFFA [Office for Fair Access]."[176]

131. The paper says that OFFA will be an independent body, separate from but supported by HEFCE, and that it will:

" consider and approve universities' access agreements;
receive and, where necessary, comment on the brief annual report which universities will submit;
consider whether any changes are needed to an access agreement if a university wants to change significantly its levels of tuition fees of the number and range of courses to which higher fees will apply; and
review a university's overall effort and progress implementing its access agreement as it comes up for renewal." [177]

Conclusions and recommendations

132. The basis for any discussion about widening participation and ensuring fair access must be that access should depend on academic ability. We welcome the strenuous efforts already made by many universities, supported by HEFCE, to widen participation and improve the fairness and effectiveness of their admissions policies and procedures. In seeking to identify applicants with the strongest potential, admissions tutors are required to make complex judgements about an individual's previous achievement and motivation within the context of their broader educational and social background

Given the enormous disparities to be found in the educational and social background of applicants for degree places, the key area for reform is in secondary education. It is right that the higher education sector should be involved in schemes to improve access, but with 90% of those qualified to enter higher education doing so, there is a limit to what it can do. The need to do more at younger ages is graphically illustrated by Ofsted's recent report suggesting that 20% of 16 year olds do not go on to further schooling or other education, or even into employment.[178]

134. The priority for widening participation must be action in schools. At least from age 14, and preferably earlier, considerable effort is required to raise the aspiration and achievement of pupils from poorer backgrounds. It is only by doing this that the proportion of those from the lower socio-economic groups entering higher education is likely to increase.

135. We had previously recommended an increase in the access premium, and we welcome the announcement of an increase from 5% to 20% above unit funding. We are very concerned to discover that the increase in the access premium is not new funding but represents a redistribution of resources within the teaching budget. This is not what we had anticipated when we made our recommendation, nor is it what the White Paper appeared to be proposing. The additional funds for the access premium should have been new money, and we expect the Government to provide that new money as soon as possible.

136. The Government says it intends to bear down on drop-out rates, and much has been made of 'Mickey Mouse' courses and other stereotypes. The Government even implies in the White Paper that institutions exploit students by making up numbers on courses with those who cannot cope,[179] although it provides no evidence. These public pronouncements are unhelpful, not least because courses which are vilified in this way often prove to provide good employment prospects.[180] Our evidence suggests that there are many reasons for students not completing their courses, and that the most effective way of improving retention is giving increased support and personal attention to students in their first year. It is for this reason that we are so concerned about the access premium, which underpins this support.

137. One disappointing aspect of the White Paper is its lack of detailed engagement with issues concerning part-time, mature and disabled students. In the future it can be expected that more people will come into higher education later in life, and that there will be many more part-time students. We note the plans for the modernisation of Access Courses[181]and look forward to seeing what the QAA proposes. The White Paper is principally concerned with young, full-time students. The needs of those who fall outside that category must be properly taken into account if the higher education sector is to provide truly improved access.

138. Concerns were expressed during the inquiry that the access regulator, or the Office for Fair Access as it now is, would interfere with universities' admissions arrangements in an intrusive way. When the detailed proposal was published, it proved to be much less significant than we had expected. The functions of OFFA all relate to issues that HEFCE appeared to have in hand; all institutions have strategies for widening access, and everyone we spoke to expressed their support for the enterprise.

139. Despite understandable concerns that that the higher socio-economic groups are disproportionately represented in higher education, considerable progress has been made in increasing participation from other groups over recent years. As Bahram Bekhradnia of the Higher Education Policy Institute told us:

"…in 1970 the higher social groups were more than six times more likely to participate in higher education than the lower groups, and this ratio had reduced to just less than three times by 2000".[182]

He also argued that the imbalance has effectively decreased further because "the number of people in those groups defined as lower social groups has declined very considerably over the years. As recently as 1970, nearly 90% of the population was defined as being in those groups, but that has now declined to about 40% As a consequence, the scale of the problem is very much smaller than it was previously."[183]

140. Widening participation throughout higher education and ensuring fair access to the leading research universities remain important objectives of Government policy which we fully support. The access regulator, however, is seen by many in the sector as a piece of unnecessary micro-management by the Government. The evidence of the need for this initiative is slim at best. The proposal for the Office for Fair Access appears to be driven by political considerations rather than having a practical purpose. We therefore recommend that the Government does not proceed with the introduction of the Office for Fair Access, and leaves responsibility for monitoring universities' policies on access with HEFCE.

141. Barham Bekhradnia set out why fair access matters:

"There is a clear perception of a hierarchy of universities…This hierarchy is well known both to students and to employers among others, and the institution attended makes a difference to your life chances. That is why the Government is right to be concerned with which university poorer students go to (fair access) as well as ensuring that they go to university at all (widening participation)."[184]

We should recognise that for many students from non-traditional backgrounds access to higher education will mean access to local institutions. However, it is important that access to the 'elite' institutions is seen as fair and equitable and is based on students' attainment and abilities, not their background. It is therefore not whether there is a need for monitoring of access arrangements that we question, but whether it requires a body separate from HEFCE to do it.

145 The Future of Higher Education, para 6.1 Back

146 ibid, pp 67-8. Back

147 ibid, para 6.3. Back

148 Q 7 Back

149 Q 513 Back

150 Q 564 Back

151 Q 567 Back

152 Q 684 Back

153 The Future of Higher Education, para 6.24. Back

154 Q 253 Back

155 Ev 235 Back

156 Ev 252, para iv. Back