1 / 24

Widening Participation: an institutional view from King’s College London

This article discusses King's College London's approach to widening participation in higher education, considering factors such as student ethnicity, regional domicile, and financial snapshot. It explores the policy context, the role of institutions in social justice, and the various initiatives implemented by King's to promote access and success for underrepresented groups.

tonylewis
Download Presentation

Widening Participation: an institutional view from King’s College London

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Widening Participation: an institutional view from King’s College London Forum on HE & social inclusionMelbourne, 16 July Ian Creagh Head of Administration & College Secretary

  2. King’s students: ethnicity

  3. King’s students: regional domicile

  4. Financial snapshot 2006-07

  5. Location • Four Thames-side Campuses • King’s Denmark Hill Campus, south London • Joint Services Command Staff College, Shrivenham

  6. King’s local socio-economic context • London Development Agency, 2008

  7. WP: background mood music • Current policy context and sub-text substantially created by the 1997 Dearing Review • “…the post-Robbins story has to be seen as a failed thrust towards mass higher education.”(AH Halsey, 1995, in Dearing) • The expansion of HE over the previous 40 years…. ”a cultural transformation within British society.”(T Edwards, 1997, in Dearing) • The expansion of HE…. “confirmed that there was far more talent in the country than we had guessed or were willing, out of class-and-culture meanness, to recognise.”(R Hoggart, 1996 in Dearing)

  8. WP: early policy choreography • A “New Labour” Government – back from the political wilderness with a “modernising” social democratic agenda • Workforce productivity/efficiency has become an important preoccupation of WP effectiveness, but • Political rhetoric and policy motivations rooted in attacking the corrosive effects of social class inequality • “Education must be a force for opportunity and social justice, not for the entrenchment of privilege…”(The Future of HE White paper, 2003)

  9. The ebb and flow of the WP debate. The Russell Group • Russell Group accused of elitism in terms of admissions of under-represented groups • We have revealed for the first time “….the extent of the imbalance in admissions not just to Oxbridge, but to our leading universities.”(The Sutton Trust, 2002) • “Quite honestly, if I'm an admissions tutor, and I have an Etonian sitting opposite me and he's charming, he's been well-taught, I'd say I'd love to have that guy. He's not going to give me any trouble for three years. Whereas if I've got this one with an earring from a comprehensive grunting away, I’d think: oh, my God.”(Peter Lampl, The Sutton Trust, Tuesday March 27, 2007, the Guardian)

  10. Lower SES participation: by institution type • National Audit Office, 2008

  11. WP KPI’s: King’s and other London RG institutions

  12. WP meaning & purpose, an institutional view from King’s • “In service of society…” Living the mission • Demonstrating commitment to local communities • Not standing apart from the society that helps sustain us, and its problems • Partnering with other education providers, employers and community organisations • Providing leadership where appropriate, but… • Focussing on student success….and not lowering standards

  13. From policy to action: the breadth and depth of King’s WP activities • Taster days and visits • Summer schools • Mentoring • Masterclasses • Student Ambassador programmes • Access Bursaries • Partnerships: Aimhigher, Aspire and City Academy partnerships • Alternative admissions to high demand programmes • LLL local cross-sectoral partnerships

  14. Flagship initiatives -- Aimhigher • Aimhigher Central London Partnerships • Aimhigher: involves the 4 Central London Boroughs of Islington, Camden, Westminster, & Kensington and Chelsea; partner universities, schools and colleges • Funds the “Focus” programme training student ambassadors to work in CLP schools and colleges • Runs the thematic Health partnership “Advice Clinic”….19 HEIs involved in Health education and training

  15. Flagship initiatives – Aspire --in South East London • SE London Aspire – 5 universities, 80 secondary schools, 6 local authorities; very early intervention • Runs taster days, homework classes, UCAS application workshops, parents’ evenings, study skills workshops, masterclasses • Programmes are delivered jointly and individually by partner institutions • Aspiration raising in the most general sense; not just about coming to King’s

  16. Alternative admissions – Access to Medicine Programme • Encourages students from local boroughs to study medicine, pursue bio-medical careers • Early awareness intervention in schools, work experience placements in NHS trusts • Alternative entry – aptitude and attitude • Offers an extended programme – 6 years rather than 5 • First students graduating. Over 200 students now enrolled in the programme • Considering extension to Access to Law through a Foundation year/programme

  17. Aspire Lifelong Learning Network • Partnership of 4 Universities and 6 Further Education Colleges • Employers, Learning and Skills Council, Local Authorities’ representatives and community organisations • Focussed on development of credit and progression agreements, network-wide information and guidance, accreditation with employers, some curriculum development

  18. City Academies – Absolute Return for Kids/King’sAlliance • ARK – an education charity founded by a Hedge Fund of the same name • Funding City Academies in deprived Boroughs, many of which are founded on previously failing schools • King’s is its HE partner in a handful of schools, including primary schools • King’s engaged in several ways: from assisting with school governance through to full panoply of WP programmes

  19. Institutional cultural responses • All points on the spectrum ranging from: • Outstanding senior academic leadership and advocacy • To theoretical support – especially if it is someone else’s problem • To complaints that universities cannot be expected to compensate for failing secondary schools and other factors over which they have little control • To genuine concerns about enabling students to succeed rather than fail, and to find a way forward • To concerns about the costs and incentives/disincentives of WP activity • To senior management commitment in most shcools

  20. King’s WP funding in context

  21. Perverse disincentives: tensions with league table measures • King’s medical school – largest in Europe and one of the most popular • Have won 6 MRC centres – no parallel in other UK institutions in recent times • Access to medicine programme – large and successful, BUT • Alternative admissions lowers average entry tariff by 20 points

  22. League table tensions….. • Lower tariff scores associated with WP in other subjects compensated by the value added measure, which relates entry scores to class of degree awarded • Not possible for Medicine and Dentistry -- degrees not classified • Problem exacerbated by increasing the weighting for entry scores from 17% to 25%; and value added + career prospects weighting with value redistributed over the other measures • Has cost King’s at least an estimated 4 places in the medicine league table

  23. Top up fees and access bursaries • Like many institutions, King’s overestimated the amount of fee income needed to cover bursary costs • Perceived complexity of arrangements was undoubtedly a factor • Evidence that third party channels of communication lacked sufficient knowledge • Evidence that eligible students did not apply – highlights problems of accurate advice and encouragement to aspire to study at King’s and other RG institutions

  24. In conclusion and the future….. • Looks messy, feels messy but appears to be getting traction • Genuinely rich partnerships developing between institutions across sectors • Disincentives won’t disappear quickly particularly as idiosyncratic league tables become pervasive • City academies offer interesting scope for innovation • Access to Medicine style programmes…they work…but are extraordinarily intensive…and costly • Access Bursaries may become more effective as programme arrangements settle down

More Related