Memorandum 4
Supplementary evidence from the Department
for Innovation, Universities and Skills following the oral evidence
session on 29 October 2008
Note on Q170-174, in particular the assertion
that on page 69 of the Departmental Annual Report (DAR) that:
"The gap between 2002-03 and 2005-06 in participation among
young people from higher and lower socio-economic classes grows
(sic) by 3.5 percentage points" and its relationship to Table
1 which "shows the proportion of young, UK domiciled entrants
from state schools and disadvantaged groups to full-time first
degree courses at universities in England". The claim seems
at odds with UCAS data—see table below
The first point to make is that the DAR does
not say, as quoted in the Committee transcript: "The gap
between 2002-03 and 2005-06 in participation among young people
from higher and lower socio-economic classes grows (emphasis added)
by 3.5 percentage points"—it says "The gap | closes"
(again, emphasise added). Although later in the transcript reference
is made to the gap closing. The (accurate) claim that "between
2002-03 and 2005-06, the gap in participation among young people
from higher and lower socio-economic classes closed by 3.5 percentage
points" is based on the Full-time Young Participation by
Socio-Economic Class (FYPSEC) measure. This is Indicator 6 for
the DCSF-led PSA 11 on narrowing the gap: "The gap between
the initial participation in full-time higher education rates
for young people aged 18, 19 and 20 from the top three and bottom
four socio-economic classes".
FYPSEC provides three figures for each year:
— The proportion of English-domiciled
18, 19 and 20 year olds from the top three socio-economic classes,
who participate for the first time in full-time higher education
courses at UK higher education institutions and English, Scottish
and Welsh further education colleges.
— The proportion of English-domiciled
18, 19 and 20 year olds from the bottom four socio-economic classes,
who participate for the first time in full-time higher education
courses at UK higher education institutions and English, Scottish
and Welsh further education colleges.
— The gap between these two participation
rates.
At the time of publication of the Departmental
Annual Report, FYPSEC figures were available for 2002/03—2005/06
as follows:
| 2002 | 2003
| 2004 | 2005 |
Participation rate for NS-SECs 1, 2, 3
| 44.6% | 41.5% | 41.5%
| 43.3% |
| Participation rate for NS-SECs 4, 5, 6, 7 |
17.6% | 17.9% | 17.7%
| 19.9% |
| Difference | 27.0% | 23.6%
| 23.8% | 23.4% |
| (Total drop in gap: 3.5 percentage points)
| | |
Source: DIUS response to Parliamentary Question 208354
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080605/text/80605w0020.htm
Since the Departmental Annual Report was published, FYPSEC
has been revised according to changes in underlying datasets (including
revisions to the population estimates and the Labour Force Survey
by the ONS) and updated to 2006-07 as follows:
| 2002 | 2003
| 2004 | 2005 |
2006 |
| Participation rate for NS-SECs 1, 2, 3 | 44.1%
| 40.9% | 41.2% | 42.8%
| 39.5% |
| Participation rate for NS-SECs 4, 5, 6, 7 |
17.5% | 17.8% | 17.4%
| 19.8% | 19.0% |
| Difference | 26.5% | 23.1%
| 23.7% | 22.9% | 20.5%
|
| (Total drop in gap: 6.1 percentage points)
| | | |
Source: "Full-time Young Participation by Socio-Economic
Class (FYPSEC) 2008 Update", DIUS (2008)
Note that the figures suggest a narrowing of the gap of 6.0
percentage points rather than 6.1 percentage points. This is due
to rounding and the correct figure is 6.1 percentage points.
Table 1 in the Departmental Annual Report showed the proportion
of young, UK domiciled entrants from state schools and disadvantaged
groups to full-time first degree courses at universities in England.
These figures are published by the Higher Education Statistics
Agency in the annual Performance Indicators in Higher Education
publication.
The performance indicators in Table 1 were not intended as
evidence for the 3.5 percentage points claim, but as supplementary
evidence of progress in widening participation.
The key difference between FYPSEC and the Performance Indicators
is as follows:
— FYPSEC provides the proportion of the English
young upper/lower socio-economic class populations who participate
in higher education: ie a population basis. This allows the measure
to account for changes to the socio-economic breakdown of the
underlying population of England.
— The Performance Indicators show the proportion
of UK-domiciled young full-time first degree entrants who are
from lower socio-economic classes, ie a student basis. This takes
no account of the socio-economic breakdown of the underlying population,
nor any year-on-year changes to this.
UCAS figures provide a different perspective again, looking
at the socio-economic breakdown of the higher education applicant
group. But again, this does not take account of changing size
of socio-economic groups.
No single background type (eg socio-economic class, home
area, school type, income) can comprehensively convey that somebody
is from a deprived background. Differences in coverage of higher
education data sources have led to the production of a number
of different measures and indicators of progress with widening
participation, each focusing on a particular background type (eg
socio-economic class) and a particular group of students (eg young
full-time). Therefore using a basket of measures/indicators gives
us more confidence in the overall story being told.
Note on Q178 that "there were more black Caribbean students
in one university than the whole of the Russell Group. Does that
worry you and would it be possible for us to have a brief note
from you as to how in fact you are dealing with that issue of
ethnic minority students in the Russell Group universities?
HESA data tell us that, in 2006-07, there were 1,850 UK-domiciled
Black Caribbean students enrolled in London Metropolitan University.
This compares to 1,820 in the Russell Group institutions.
Looking at all UK-domiciled Black students (ie including
African and "Other"), there were 6,125 Black students
in London Metropolitan University, compared to 7,775 in the Russell
Group institutions.
The Government is committed to increasing and widening participation
in HE, so that people from all backgrounds are able and willing
to apply successfully to the university or course—including
where competition for places is fiercest—that best fits
their talent, potential and ambitions. The best university or
course means the best for the individual, and any university can
be the best place for the right student.
The Government continues to support interventions such as
the Aimhigher Programme, which supports local partnerships of
schools, colleges and universities which co-design and deliver
a range of attainment and aspiration-raising activities which
seek to attract young people from disadvantaged backgrounds into
HE. Local Aimhigher Partnerships tailor their provision to local
needs, so where there is a concentration of ethnic minority groups
then targeted events can be delivered appropriately.
David Lammy recently launched a new publication by National
Black Boys Can Assocation, called "Black Boys Can Make It|".
The book demonstrates how Black boys can overcome obstacles to
attending university, and some of the challenges that remain.
Several universities, including some of the most selective, have
been involved with the Assocation in order to improve the educational
opportunities available to Black boys.
Prior attainment is a key determinant of HE participation
patterns, so interventions earlier in the education system are
highly influential. Raising the academic achievement of minority
ethnic background pupils is a key priority for the Department
for Children, Schools and Families. Following the "Aiming
High" (not to be confused with Aimhigher, which is a widening
participation in HE initiative) consultation of 2003, the then
Department for Education and Skills introduced targeted initiatives
aimed at addressing specific areas of minority ethnic underachievement
and to enhance mainstream and specialist provision in schools.
One such initiative was the Black Children's Achievement
Programme (BCAP) is a national programme aimed at raising the
attainment of Black pupils in the Foundation Stage, KS1 and KS2
in primary schools. BCAP is delivered through the National Strategies.
The programme started as a test-based pilot, involving five Local
Authorities and around 15 schools in January 2005. From September
2006 the pilot was rolled out more widely to 20 Local Authorities
and approximately 100 schools.
November 2008
| 
