Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Higher Education Funding Council for England
BENCHMARKS
Question 24 (Mr Richard Bacon): Benchmarks
1. When the Performance Indicators Steering
Group (PISG) was set up in 1998, its brief was to take forward
the recommendations made in the Dearing Report for developing
performance indicators for the higher education sector. One of
those recommendations was to develop both indicators and benchmarks
in various areas. PISG discussed this requirement, and the resulting
adjusted sector benchmarks have been published alongside the indicators
since their inception. The First Report of the Performance Indicators
Steering Group (HEFCE publication 99/11) provides more details
of the reason for these benchmarks.
2. The simplest comparison an institution
could make would be between the continuation rate for the institution
and the average continuation rate for the whole sector. This would
be rather crude, because it would not take account of any of the
factors known to be strongly associated with continuation rates.
An alternative would be to take a specific group of students,
say young students with two As and a B at A-level studying chemistry,
and just make a comparison between these students at the institution
with the average for the sector for students with the same characteristics.
The problem with this is that we would need hundreds of measures
for each institution. The idea of the "adjusted sector benchmark"
is to summarise all rates specific to particular students to give
a single comparative figure.
3. There are many factors that affect non-continuation,
but three are of particular importance and are included in the
benchmarks. They are students' entry qualifications, their subjects
of study, and their age on entry to HE. The categories used, and
the indicator values in each category, are provided in supplementary
tables to the performance indicators, for example the non-continuation
rates for young entrants to full-time first degree courses for
the benchmark categories can be found in table SN1 at http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/588/141/.
4. Because the adjusted sector benchmark
is an average value, some institutions will be above their benchmark
and others will be below it. In addition, as an average it is
liable to change slightly year on year. In general, therefore,
the benchmarks should not be viewed as targets, though a particular
institution that had higher non-continuation rates than its benchmark
might elect to make that value a target.
5. More details of the calculations of the
benchmarks, and how they should be used, can be found on the HESA
web site at http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/587/141/.
Example:
6. The following simple example of the calculations
involved, and the interpretation of the results, was given in
the First Report. (See annex C, paragraph 5, at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/1999/99_11.htm)
7. The University of X and the University
of Y constitute a sector of two institutions. We classify the
qualifications of students on entry to higher education into just
two categories: high and low. There are just two subjects of study:
A and B, so giving four groups of students in all (those with
high entry qualifications and studying subject A; those with high
entry qualifications and subject B; low entry qualifications and
subject A; low entry qualifications and subject B).
8. Table 1 below shows the number of young
entrants (aged under 21 on entry to the institution) to full-time
first degree courses and the numbers not continuing into their
second year for universities X and Y, and the sector as a whole.
Table 1
NON-CONTINUATION OF YOUNG FULL-TIME DEGREE
ENTRANTS
| University of X
| University of Y
| Whole sector
|
| Subject—entry qualifications |
Number of entrants | Number not continuing
| Number of entrants | Number not continuing
| Number of entrants | Number not continuing
|
| A—high | 490 | 9
| 0 | 0 | 490 |
9 |
| A—low | 10 | 2
| 450 | 93 | 460
| 95 |
| B—high | 490 | 10
| 100 | 13 | 590
| 23 |
| B—low | 10 | 2
| 450 | 93 | 460
| 95 |
| Total | 1,000 | 23
| 1,000 | 199 | 2,000
| 222 |
9. The indicator for university X, for example, is the
number of entrants not continuing as a percentage of the total
number of entrants, ie 23/1000 = 2.3%. Similarly for university
Y the indicator is 199/1000 = 19.9%.
10. For the sector as a whole, the percentage of entrants
not continuing can be calculated for each of the entry qualification/subject
groups as in table 2.
Table 2
SECTOR RATES OF NON-CONTINUATION
| Subject—entry qualifications |
Number of entrants | Number not continuing
| Percent not continuing |
| A—high | 490 | 9
| 9/490 = 1.8% |
| A—low | 460 | 95
| 95/460 = 20.7% |
| B—high | 590 | 23
| 23/590 = 3.9% |
| B—low | 460 | 95
| 95/460 = 20.7% |
| Total | 2,000 | 222
| 222/2,000 = 11.1% |
11. The calculation for the benchmark needs these sector
group values, and also the proportion of the institution's students
in each of the four groups (the weight). For institution X, for
example, the weights are 490/1000 = 0.49; 10/1000 = 0.01; 490/1000
= 0.49; 10/1000 = 0.01. Note that the weights for the four groups
add up to 1. The benchmark is then calculated by multiplying the
sector group value by the institutional weight, and adding the
four results together. The calculations are set out in table 3.
Table 3
CALCULATION OF ADJUSTED SECTOR RATE FOR UNIVERSITY OF
X
| Sector rate for group
| Weight for X | Weight x Sector rate
| Weight for Y | Weight x Sector rate
|
| A—high | 1.8% | 0.49
| 0.9% | 0.00 | 0.0%
|
| A—low | 20.7% | 0.01
| 0.2% | 0.45 | 9.3%
|
| B—high | 3.9% | 0.49
| 1.9% | 0.10 | 0.4%
|
| B—low | 20.7% | 0.01
| 0.2% | 0.45 | 9.3%
|
| Total | 11.1% | 1.00
| 3.2% | 1.00 | 19.0%
|
12. The adjusted sector benchmarks are therefore 3.2%
for University X and 19.0% for University Y, compared with their
actual values of 2.3% and 19.9% respectively. So both institutions
are close to their benchmarks, in spite of the large difference
between their indicators. University X mainly takes in people
with high entry qualifications and has a low non-continuation
rate as would be expected; while University Y mainly admits students
with low entry qualifications and shows a level of non-continuation
just slightly higher than expected.
Question 59 (Mr Austin Mitchell): Overseas non-continuation
rates
1. The non-continuation rates from first year for EU
and overseas students were slightly higher than those for home
students, for entrants in 2004-05. Part of the reason for the
difference was due to the age profile—the proportion of
entrants under 21, who have lower non-continuation rates, is greater
for home students than for EU or overseas students. However, for
later years there appear to be similar rates for all groups, so
that the percentage projected to obtain a degree eventually is
very similar for home and overseas students.
2. Table 1 following shows the non-continuation rates
for overseas students entering full-time first degree courses
at English institutions in 2004-05, split by age.
3. One of the reasons non-continuation rates for overseas
students are not published is because of the difficulties in distinguishing
sufficiently well between the learning intentions of those students
coming to study for their whole course in this country ("diploma
mobility") and those coming to study for a shorter period
("credit mobility"). The figures in the table below
exclude students on formal exchange programmes, but it is possible
that some of those not continuing in this country may have returned
home to continue their studies there.
Table 1
NON-CONTINUATION RATES FOR STUDENTS ENTERING FULL-TIME
FIRST DEGREE COURSES AT ENGLISH INSTITUTIONS IN 2004-05, BY AGE
AND DOMICILE
| Home
| EU
| Overseas
|
| Number of entrants
| Non- continuation rate
| Number of entrants
| Non- continuation rate
| Number of entrants
| Non- continuation rate
|
| Young entrants | 198,180 |
6.8 | 7,690 | 8.5 |
16,300 | 9.4 |
| Mature entrants | 57,590 |
14.0 | 6,350 | 11.8
| 11,390 | 15.4 |
| All entrants | 255,810 | 8.4
| 14,040 | 10.0 | 27,720
| 11.9 |
4. Note that it is not possible to produce benchmarks
for overseas students, as the information available about their
entry qualifications is not as complete as that for home students.
5. We have also looked at the projected completion rates
for overseas students, and these are given in Table 2. This is
based on sector projected outcomes, currently unpublished, which
differ from the figures given in the report in that students transferring
to another institution are assumed to continue there until they
qualify or leave. This increases both the percentage projected
to qualify and the percentage projected to leave with no qualification.
Although these figures are not published, similar figures for
home students were produced until 2003, and the intention is to
include the home student figure in future publications.
Table 2
PROJECTED OUTCOMES FOR HOME AND OVERSEAS STUDENTS
| Number of starters
| Qualify with degree (%) | Leave without qualification (%)
|
| Home students | 303,511 |
82.0 | 15.3 |
| EU students | 17,710 | 83.3
| 14.6 |
| Overseas students | 31,055 |
81.1 | 17.0 |
Question 112-117 (Mr Philip Dunne): Non-continuation in
subsequent years
1. The question that arises here is what are the non-continuation
rates year on year after the first year for full-time students
starting first degree courses in 2004-05.
2. Although these are not published, rates similar to
the first year non-continuation rates are produced in order to
calculate the projected outcome figures given in Table T5. A summary
of these is published as supplementary table SN4 (transition matrix)
at http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option= com_content&task=view&id=588&Itemid=141.
3. These rates are slightly different from the first
year non-continuation rates. They relate to the whole of the UK,
and to students of all ages. From the transition matrix, two sets
of figures are useful. The first is the proportion who do not
continue in an HEI in the year immediately following their first
year, second year and third year; the second is the proportion
who do not continue in an HEI for two years following their first
year, second year, third year. The first figure, in the second
column in the table below, is taken directly from the published
transition matrix, the second column is computed from an expanded
version of the matrix which is used in the actual calculations.
| Moving from: | Not in HE in the following year
| Not in HE for the two following years
|
| Year 1 | 9.5% | 7.4%
|
| Year 2 | 6.6% | 3.6%
|
| Year 3 | 5.1% | 2.5%
|
4. The figure of an extra 13.5%, quoted at the PAC hearing,
comes from the published table T5.
Table T5
PROJECTED LEARNING OUTCOMES: FULL-TIME STUDENTS STARTING
FIRST DEGREE COURSES 2004-05
| Number of starters |
Projected Degree | Projected no award or transfer
| Projected other award Projected transfer
| Projected other | |
| Total UK | 319,105 | 77.6
| 14.2 | 2.3 | 5.8
| 0.2 |
5. The figure of 77.6%, which was quoted in the NAO report,
is the percentage projected to obtain a degree qualification.
The remaining 22.4% are not all projected to leave HE, as the
figures above show. 8.3% are projected to either obtain a qualification
below degree level or to transfer to another institution. Only
14.2% are projected to leave.
| 
