Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
DEPARTMENT FOR
INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES
AND SKILLS
& HIGHER EDUCATION
FUNDING COUNCIL
FOR ENGLAND
29 OCTOBER 2007
Q120 Mr Dunne: What powers do you
have to try to change things within a University?
Professor Eastwood: We have the
power to work with the institution and the power to make certain
kinds of investment. As the Report makes clear, if, as a result
of low progression rates, an institution does not meet its contract
numbers, funding will be withdrawn pro rata.
Q121 Mr Davidson: In all of this,
we seem to have assumed that retention is a good thing, per
se, and that if anybody drops out that is an indication of
failure. Do we have any indication of how many people have decided
to leave university as a positive choice, perhaps because they
were badly advised in the first place and were under a misapprehension
about what it would be about and decided, afterwards, that it
was not for them? It is a question of the level of careers advice
that kids get at schools and schools wanting to boost their figures,
in respect of the numbers going to university, for their own internal
purposes. Therefore, in respect of some of the people leaving
university, that is an indication of the failure of advice, rather
than a failure either of the university system or the individual.
Do you have a feel for that at all, either of you?
Ruth Thompson: I think that you
are on to an important point. The Report makes it clear that there
are more reasons than failure for people leaving university or
college and higher education before they have achieved a qualification.
We do not have any comprehensive research into those people. I
am aware of research studies. For example, a project undertaken
by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is referenced in the
Report, looked at a particular group of students and suggested
that many of those who left before time had been poorly advised,
but others left before time for a multiplicity of reasons, as
set out in the Report. However, one in five of those who "dropped
out" returned to higher education at a subsequent stage.
Q122 Mr Davidson: So drop-outs and
returners are considered as drop-outs in the statistics that we
are considering.
Ruth Thompson: It will depend
on the duration of the absence.
Q123 Mr Davidson: The gap—right.
So if there were a drop-out due to pregnancy, which led to a return
subsequently, it would all depend on how long the person was away?
Ruth Thompson: Yes.
Q124 Mr Davidson: I see. So that
could distort it. We have no information about the extent to which
poor careers advice or schools or family pressuring have put people
into this situation, after which they then make a positive choice
to leave. We do not have any feel for that at all, except for
the fact that it happens. Is that so?
Ruth Thompson: I think that there
is nothing systematic that we can point to.
Q125 Mr Davidson: Okay.
The second area I want to touch on is dealt
with in table 9 on page 16, where we see that the Scottish figures
are far worse than everybody else's. Can I just clarify whether
we are comparing like with like there? I am not sure who would
help me with that. Is this a genuine comparison?
Angela Hands: We endeavoured to
make sure that it was like for like. They are all from one body.
Q126 Mr Davidson: So the percentage
of working class entrants and people from non-traditional backgrounds,
for example, is allowed for in these statistics.
Angela Hands: No. The figures
in that table are absolute figures, so they do not allow for that.
Q127 Mr Davidson: In that case, could
I ask, Chairman, that we get some figures that do allow for these
sorts of things? Looking at the table, I am not clear whether
the English system is doing much better than the Scottish system
or not. It would be helpful to know.
I have never heard the phrase, "premature
evaluation" before—I shall have to make sure I pronounce
that properly—but is it too early to consider issues relating
to student finance and the changes that have happened in Scotland
in terms of retention and so on? I can see how, potentially, they
could have attracted more people in and then led to a higher failure
rate, because there were those who were more marginal. Is it premature
to look at that?
Angela Hands: It is probably a
bit early.[7]
Q128 Mr Davidson: When you are looking
at this—I refer to the same table—is any account taken
of the fact that, traditionally, Scotland has a four-year degree
and England has a three-year degree? There is more time in Scotland
to drop out, and students attend from a younger age. I went at
17, but that would not be the normal pattern in England and Wales.
Do the figures allow for that?
Angela Hands: These figures do
not.
Q129 Mr Davidson: Could you incorporate
that as well, and, once we have the figures, could you could tell
us whether there is anything that you think is identifiable as
good practice, whether there are discrepancies, and whether the
English model is successful in particular areas but not in others?
Similarly, if you could do that for Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland, it would be helpful.
Sir John Bourn: We will do that.
Q130 Mr Davidson: Thank you very
much.
The next question is about table 11, "Change
in institutions' continuation rates". I see that the continuation
rates for some institutions have worsened. Am I right in thinking
that that could actually be a sign of success, inasmuch as they
have expanded their intake to include more working class and non-traditional
students who have a disproportionate likelihood of dropping out,
and that therefore the figure could be masking quite an expansion?
Is it reasonable to refer to a tension between retention and the
expansion into other areas that have not really had a fair crack
of the whip until now? How do you manage that tension?
Professor Eastwood: As far as
the graph is concerned—and the table that sits behind it—some
institutions on the left side are notably widening participation,
so they fall into the category that you outline, but some similar
institutions would be elsewhere on the spectrum. We identify institutions
that are having a significant detrimental shift in their continuation
rate and work with them. The institutions that are the major outliers
identified in the graph and in the table that sits behind it are
institutions that we are working with around precisely those issues.
Q131 Mr Davidson: Would I be right
to assume that if an institution were expanding the number of
working class students and students from non-traditional areas,
it is likely that it would have a higher degree of drop-out because
those groups are statistically most likely to drop out?
Professor Eastwood: That is indubitably
correct. If you reach out to students from backgrounds that do
not have a long family or school tradition of participation in
higher education, there is a higher likelihood of drop-out, but
we try to capture that in the benchmark, so we try to normalise
for that.
Q132 Mr Davidson: I wanted to touch
on the question of working class intake. If I remember correctly,
on page 43, in chart 30, "Personal characteristics of entrants
to full-time, first-degree courses", working class participation
has gone up from 29.5% to 30.7% in four years. That is only 1.2%.
Surely that is a failure by the Department and the universities.
Ruth Thompson: We are ever pushing
for more progress on this measure—
Q133 Mr Davidson: Is that a yes,
then?
Ruth Thompson: We are for ever
pushing for more progress on this measure, but the end of my sentence
is important. You also need to bear in mind that socioeconomic
groups 4 to 7, which are the ones measured in the chart, are actually
declining as an absolute proportion of the whole population, as
I am sure you know. You would have to run very fast to stand still
on this measure.
Q134 Mr Davidson: Okay, that is interesting.
Tell me, then, how much you think the working class has declined
over that four-year period.
Ruth Thompson: I do not have the
figure.[8]
Q135 Mr Davidson: In percentage terms—do
you have any idea? If the absolute figure has gone up by 1.2%
and the social class has gone down by 10 or 20%, that would be
quite a good result. However, if it has gone down by 1% and over
four years the absolute figure has only gone up by 1.2%, that
is obfuscation, is it not?
Ruth Thompson: I understand your
point. I do not have the precise figure, but it is not as high
as 10% or as low as 1%.
Q136 Mr Davidson: Perhaps we could
have that figure, if possible. The point had not occurred to me,
and it is not indicated in the statistics. You did not draw it
to the attention of the NAO when you were commenting on the Report,
did you?
Ruth Thompson: I am sure that
it would have cropped up in discussion, but I think the Report
is accurate because it gives the data.
Q137 Mr Davidson: It is not inaccurate
because of the point that you have made, which might have been
better made in the Report. What about the question of low participation
neighbourhoods? Have they similarly declined and therefore is
it unfair to judge you?
Ruth Thompson: No, my understanding
is that that remains constant.
Q138 Mr Davidson: Right. So you have
only had a 1.5% increase over four years and this has been one
of the main thrusts of the Government policy, as I understand
it. That is a pretty poor result, is it not?
Ruth Thompson: As I said earlier,
we are constantly pushing to do better.
Q139 Mr Davidson: I know that. That
was not what I asked you. It is a pretty poor result, is it not?
Ruth Thompson: I think we are
making progress.
7 Ev 35-38 Back
8
Ev 21 Back
| 
