280 likes | 465 Views
Widening Participation in Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis. Institute of Education Institute for Fiscal Studies Centre for Economic Performance. Background and Motivation. Expansion of HE 43% of 17-30 year olds participate in higher education
E N D
Widening Participation in Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis Institute of Education Institute for Fiscal Studies Centre for Economic Performance
Background and Motivation • Expansion of HE • 43% of 17-30 year olds participate in higher education • Widening participation still cause for concern • gap in the HE participation rate between richer and poorer students actually widened in the mid and late 1990s
Background and Motivation • Concerns about who is accessing HE increased following the introduction of tuition fees • another barrier to HE participation by poorer students (Callender, 2003) • Introduction of fees in 1998 not associated with any sustained overall fall in the number of students • Recent policy developments may, however, affect future participation. • 2004 Higher Education Act with higher and variable tuition fees • increased support for students
Research Questions • How does the likelihood of HE participation vary by ethnicity and socio-economic background? • How much of this is explained by prior achievement? • When do differences by socio-economic background and ethnicity emerge? • How does the type of HE participation vary across these socio-economic and ethnic groups?
New longitudinal admin data • Linked individual-level school administrative records, FE records and HE data • Data on participants AND non-participants • Data for one cohort: • In Year 11 in 2001/02 • Potential age 18 HE entry in 2004/05 or age 19 HE entry in 2005/06
Data • Socio-economic background • Free school meals • Neighbourhood based measures • Combined to create a “deprivation index” (split into 5 equally sized groups) • Ethnicity • Measures of prior attainment i.e. all Key Stage results through to KS5
Methodology • Linear probability regression model. • Two models: • HE participation (at age 18/19) • HE participation in a “high status” institution • Dependent variables are binary, taking a value of one if the person participates and zero otherwise. • The regression model is estimated using Ordinary Least Squares
Participation by deprivation status • Very large raw differences in HE participation rates by deprivation status • Controlling for individual characteristics approximately halves the gap • Disparity all but disappears once we add in controls for prior attainment • 1ppt for males • 2.1ppts for females
Participation by ethnicity • Most ethnic minority groups are more likely to participate in HE than White British students • Except Black Caribbean and Other Black students • But these groups tend to go to worse schools and are more likely to be deprived • Gap turns positive when we include controls • Including KS2 results also increases gap • But declines once we add in KS3-5 results • Ethnic minority students improve performance more than White British students during secondary school
Type of Participation • Also consider type of HE participation, because: • Students at less prestigious institutions more likely to drop out and/or achieve lower degree classification • Graduates from more prestigious institutions earn higher returns in the labour market • Define “high status” university as: • Russell Group university (20 in total) • Any UK university with an average 2001 RAE score greater than lowest found amongst Russell Group • Adds Bath, Durham, Lancaster, York, etc (21 in total)
“High status” participation by deprivation status and gender
“High status” participation by deprivation status • Students from deprived backgrounds are less likely to attend a high status university than less deprived students • Although gap smaller than for participation • Prior attainment is key to widening participation in “high status” institutions amongst more deprived students • Gap disappears amongst students with same Key Stage 4 results
“High status” participation by ethnicity • Many ethnic minority participants are less likely to attend a “high status” institution than White British participants • Once we add controls for prior attainment, all ethnic minority groups are at least as likely to attend a “high status” institution as White British students
Conclusions • Widening participation in HE to students from deprived backgrounds is largely about tackling low prior achievement • The gap is evident as early as age 11 • Focusing policy interventions on KS5 phase is unlikely to have a serious impact on reducing the raw socio-economic gap in HE participation. • Does not remove the onus on universities
Limitations • Young participants only • But other work looks at mature students • Excludes private school students • But work-in-progress suggests that participation rates amongst private school students may not be much higher than amongst state school students