John Denham’s speech to the HEFCE Annual Conference 

Widening Participation 

8 April 2008 

Good afternoon. I'd like give my welcome to Tim Melville-Ross at his first annual conference. I told the Council some months ago that Ministers are grateful to such a high calibre group of people for giving their time to HEFCE. With only 265 staff, you distribute £7.5 billion annually to 131 universities and HE colleges, and 128 directly-funded FE colleges. You free ministers from both the need and the temptation to become involved in numerous detailed decisions, and your role in sustaining our world-class university system is essential. 

In February I set out my ambition to develop, with universities, a 10 to 15 year framework to ensure the UK’s higher education system remains world-class.  I said that one indicator of a world-class higher education system is its ability to develop our home-grown talent to the greatest extent through a high standard teaching and the ability to reach all of those who can benefit. To succeed in the increasingly competitive global economy, we must unlock the talents of all our people. Other countries better overcome barriers to reach talented students. We are wasting too much talent.  

Today I want to look, in particular, at young people’s access to higher education. Of course, access by older people, often studying part-time, will make up an ever-increasing proportion of the home student population over the next decade. It’s only for reasons of time that I am not going into detail on the work of Lifelong Learning Networks, and how the curriculum, qualifications, delivery and educational support need to evolve to meet the needs of these students.  Bill Rammell will say more about this and I have asked Christine King, VC of Staffordshire University, to produce a report for me on these issues – adding to those from the sector that I have asked to advise.  

Widening participation and the 50% target 

It’s important to restate our commitment to enabling more young people to go to university. Particularly when this ambition is so clearly not shared by the main opposition party. But it’s a long time since the 50% target was first established. It’s all too easy to remember the target but to forget what it represents. 

Firstly, it reflects the public belief that a university education is a great way to get on.  Well over 50% of young people from all social classes aspire to go to university, and this figure has increased in every social class over the past eight years. The rate of increase has been fastest in the lower socio-economic groups. And parents know that studying at university opens up a world of opportunities for their kids. A recent survey suggested that 91% of parents and grandparents wanted their offspring to go to university. It’s why so many hard-working parents are prepared to support their children at university. That’s why they are so proud when their children get into university. And so concerned that their kids get a fair deal. 

Secondly, though young graduates alone cannot meet the needs of the economy, greater participation in higher education is the only way of keeping us internationally competitive in the years to come. Sandy Leitch’s target of a 40% graduate working-age population is already looking under- rather than over-ambitious if we are to remain internationally competitive. One reason so many older people will come into higher education for the first time is that they didn’t have the chance first time round. We must not make that mistake for the rising generation. 

But finally, over 45% of young women already go to HE. It is young men who don’t. Those who suggest that there aren’t enough able young people to send half to university presumably believe that the number of young women students should be reduced! Progress to 50% is a measure of real, valuable and achievable aims. Of how well we respond to the families who want the best for their kids. Of how well we are securing our future prosperity. Of how well we are tackling the educational under-performance of young men.  

We have made progress 

We have made progress since 1997.  There are almost 30,000 more students under 30 entering higher education now than there were nine years ago. We’ve maintained the funding per student as numbers rise; after the 36% real-terms cut in funding per student in the years up to ‘97. Financial worries should not stop anyone from going to university. That’s why we have reintroduced grants, and from September made them more generous.  

For the first time, we will recognise the importance of those parents who encourage their children to go to university. But although it's the right thing to do, it can be tough. Next year, one third of eligible students will receive a full grant, and a further third will get a partial grant. That will be 50,000 more on full grant and another 50,000 on a partial grant.  We will also guarantee support for students who receive Education Maintenance Allowances so they know what support they will get at university.
 

We have created the Office for Fair Access to oversee the access agreements funded by variable fees. Every year, around 400,000 students from low income backgrounds are expected to benefit from bursaries or other financial incentives. We have continued to invest substantially in the Aimhigher Programme. Last month we launched the new "University Challenge", which will see 20 new higher education centres established across the country. These will provide places for up to 10,000 students. And Steve Smith's recent survey for the National Council for Educational Excellence shows the sheer volume of effort by higher education to reach schools and colleges. I would like to thank Steve and his colleagues for their work, which I am sure will add significantly to the agenda I’m setting out today. 

This work is undoubtedly having a positive effect. Between 2002/03 and 2005/06, the gap in participation for young people from higher and lower socio -economic classes closed by 3.5 percentage points. In 2006/07, the participation rate dipped for reasons we all understand; next year it will be up again.  It’s never been more important to make the argument for widening participation, and the expansion of higher education.  It will be one of the big dividing lines at the next election.  David Cameron has personally rejected the 50% target. Higher education seems to be one area where Tory spokesmen are wary of making explicit commitments to match current planned spending or ambitions.  

Widening Participation is a majority issue 

But those of us who do want to widen participation can’t take the argument for granted. Too often, widening participation is presented at best as a diversion from the national interest – why not more plumbers? At worst it’s a conspiracy to rig the system against hard-working, able and deserving children in favour of the less able.  

I’ve restated the economic case. But we need to restate the social and educational case for widening participation and for fair access. Too many people think that WP and fair access are about someone else’s kids. Not their own children or the people they know. I’ve asked a few journalists who they think of when we talk about widening participation. Most, in one way or other, conjure up a similar image – social housing, dysfunctional or at least non-traditional family structure, sink school. 

But, while reaching out to the able child from the most challenged background must always be part of widening participation, we sell our case short if we let the impression stick that this is all it is about. Look at the families covered by our widening participation measures. 42% of our young people come from these families. They are the people who keep this country going.  They go to work every day. They pay their taxes. Most own their own homes. The hotel managers, the skilled tradesmen, the self-employed, the driving instructors, the class room assistants, the domestic engineers.  They probably didn’t get the chance to go to university. They may not be quite sure what universities offer, but they certainly want the best for their kids. 

Widening participation is simply about making sure their children have that opportunity. And no reasonable person should want anything different. Widening participation is not all about kids we don’t and will never know. If it's not about our own kids, it's certainly about the children of our friends neighbours and fellow parents.  Widening participation is an issue for the majority, not the minority. 

Fair access 

That’s even more true of fair access. It’s often assumed that fair access is about the young person who overcomes the greatest challenges – not just to go to university at all, but to one of the most selective. That certainly happens and we should celebrate it. But it is not the whole picture.  

Most of those with the aptitude to succeed at a highly selective university, but who don’t get in, do go another university. We don’t find those students just amongst the target widening participation groups. We know that children from the majority of state maintained schools are under-represented in the most selective universities.  Those who miss out on the most suitable university for them are likely to be young people from all backgrounds not attending the minority of selective private and state schools. 

Concern for fair access touches almost every parent who wants to know their child will get a fair opportunity.  In saying that, let me stress one qualification. Higher education is familiar with the inseparable twins of widening participation and fair access.  But our language is a problem. Fair access is about the chance of getting the best.  But best can only mean best for the individual.  And any one of our universities can be the best place for the right student.  Let’s not forget that the real aim of the exercise is unlocking the talent of each student. There is no monopoly on the best way of doing that. 

What role for the university sector? 

I’ve restated the case for widening and deepening participation. But for this audience, the real challenge is to identify what we can reasonably expect universities themselves to do. We cannot hold universities responsible for all the inequalities of wider society, nor all the challenges of the school system.  

But there’s broad agreement that universities can play an influential role in the lives and aspirations of young people. We’ll be looking to Steve Smith’s report to show what works best in practice. But everything we do really boils down to two things. Raising the aspirations for the young people who don’t think university is for them.  And equipping young people – through both formal qualifications and personal skills – to succeed at university. Our universities can make a unique contribution to both. 

Structural links with schools 

The emerging consensus is that it is the consistency of the relationship between the university, the school, the teachers and the students that really makes the difference.  That’s not surprising if we remember that the aim of the exercise is not just to touch the lives of a handful of students from time to time, but to ensure that schools themselves are better equipped to spot and nurture talent. And that universities understand better the students available to them. This is one reason why we’ve given such encouragement to structural links between universities and schools.

Last autumn, Andrew Adonis and I launched a prospectus on university involvement with academies and trusts. We have been delighted by the response and I know that UUK are hosting a conference on this theme in a few weeks.  26 universities have already signed up to Academy projects and there are another 30 in discussions. 59 universities are listed by Trust schools as working with them or planning to do so. 14 of these are named as legally partners of a Trust. The interest and participation has been from all parts of the country and all parts of the sector.  I do recognise that this is a significant commitment for universities. And not something to be taken on lightly.  

In looking for resources, I will echo what Martin Harris has said about bursary funds. Of course the first priority is to ensure that everyone receives the money to which they are entitled. Government has a role here too – to encourage young people not to tick the confidentiality box on their student loan that prevents universities from approaching them about entitlement. 

But Martin has also said he believes the greatest benefit will come to universities from radical engagement in transforming schools, and that this approach will pay dividends for universities as a whole. He has also said – and I welcome this – that he believes every university should consider directing a larger proportion of its outreach funding to hands-on engagement with schools, and that OFFA will look warmly on institutions which decide to invest more of their outreach and access funding in this way.  

FE Colleges The problem with talking about schools and universities, as I just have – and the media always does – is that we ignore one of the main routes to university for young people: FE colleges. Around one third of A-level students study in the FE sector – and over a third of these are in general FE colleges. But, even when prior attainment is taken into account, students studying in FE colleges are less likely to go on to HE in general, or to the most selective universities, than those who go to state maintained schools.  

Over five years from 2002 to 2006, Sutton Trust research reveals that the average application rates to Russell Group universities from general further education colleges is significantly lower than for other types of schools and colleges – given similar average attainment of pupils.
 

For example, a student in an FE college will, on average, make one less application to a Russell Group university than a student in a comprehensive school with a similar average A-level point score. The figures probably deserve close scrutiny to make sure we are comparing students like-for-like. But there’s enough to suggest that we take a closer look at the progression of young people from FE colleges to universities. I’m pleased to say that UUK and the AoC have agreed to work together on this and produce recommendations for the sectors and for government – taking account, of course, of the work that Steve Smith is doing.  

STEM The formation of DIUS has challenged us to see the connections between areas of policy that have previously been apart. One part of my department wants more STEM graduates. Another part wants to widen participation. We are beginning to see some of the links more clearly. Those with three separate sciences at GCSE are more likely to progress to HE, more likely to go to the most selective institutions, and they more likely to study a STEM subject, than those with the double science award. 

The ability to study science in depth at GCSE is also likely to determine A-level choices and eligibility for pure science degrees at many institutions.  In 2005, only 27% of maintained schools offered triple science at GCSE. Their students were effectively excluded from many STEM choices. We’ve made good progress since then. Around 32% of maintained schools offered triple science in 2007. That is why DCSF has developed a new entitlement, so that every pupil who has reached level 6 at Key Stage 3 in science has the opportunity to study three sciences at GCSE. But there is still some way to go. I’ve asked my statisticians to take a closer look, but I’d be surprised if we don’t find an overlap between the schools that have the weakest science offer, and those with the highest proportion of widening participation students. If so, we can see a new possibility for university-school links. That by helping to strengthen school science, universities could contribute to widening participation. 

I don’t think this is straightforward. The qualities that mark a world-class research department are not necessarily suited for the immediate needs of a class of 14-year-olds. But I’m sure that some of the expertise, the facilities or even (and perhaps especially) the sheer excitement of good science may be. Which is why I’m very pleased that John Coyne, whose Derby University already offers Further Maths A-level to Derby schools, and Julia Goodfellow, Kent VC and past Chief Executive of the BBSRC, have agreed to explore how volunteer universities could work directly with schools to raise attainment in the key STEM subjects. 

Aimhigher Associates 

On Friday, I announced a further strand of Aimhigher activity: 5,500 Aimhigher Associates to support over 20,000 students in schools and colleges up and down the country. We know that aspirations are formed, and important decisions are taken, at a young age. Mentors will provide support for young people from the age of 14, right up to when they start university.  

So, as far as possible, mentors will come from a similar background to the pupils they are advising, and may have had experience of the Aimhigher scheme.  It’s not just students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and the most challenged schools who can benefit. So Aimhigher Associates will work in schools and colleges where students achieve good results, but are less likely to go on university. 

IAG 

One surprise from our student listening programme has been the strength of feeling about information, advice and guidance in schools and colleges.  Too many young people are told university is “not for people like them”.  Too many young people don’t have access to information about all the institutions at which they may thrive.  Too many young people are unable to study their first choice of course because they unknowingly chose the “wrong” GCSEs or A-levels a few years earlier.  

When young people are prevented from developing their talents to their full potential because of poor information, advice and guidance, the system is just not giving them a fair deal. The Aimhigher Associates will help of course. But we know that we need to look again at information, advice and guidance in schools.  We’ll be working closely with DCSF on this. From pathfinder projects exploring the effect of early thinking about careers in raising aspirations in primary schools, to the taster sessions and work placements targeted at non-traditional HE groups in secondary schools. Universities, of course, can make a unique contribution. I’ve asked Universities UK and the national student forum to contribute explicitly to the HE content of the IAG at Key Stage 3 and in the Key Stage 2 pilots. 

Transparent admissions 

Everything I’ve talked about concerns what happens before people get to university, and the contribution universities can make.  It is clear to every informed commentator that university admissions procedures are only part of a whole series of decisions which lead an individual to their final university place. Yet media discussion about fair access is usually dominated by the admissions process. And it can be a pretty poisonous debate. 

On the one hand, universities that try to take a student’s individual background – the challenges they have faced – into account are liable to be accused of political correctness and social engineering. On the other, there are people prepared to take the fact of a disproportionate number of students from more privileged backgrounds at a particular university as prima facie evidence of snobbery and social bias on the part of admissions staff. 

Much of this speech today has been designed to cut through both simplistic criticisms – to identify what universities can and cannot be expected to do. But the public debate continues, and while there is no evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with most admissions, ultimately the debate is corrosive of public confidence in the system. Ultimately it feeds the view that “my child is going to lose out no matter how hard they work” – whether that child comes from a disadvantaged background or a privileged one. 

So I think we have to look for confidence building measures. Measures that will reassure the public, but measures too which are based on the fundamental principle that universities decide whom they should admit.  The answer lies, surely – as it so often does – in openness, transparency and accountability. It lies in each university having a published admissions policy; in each university being able to show that it has measures in hand to equip all those involved in admissions to implement the policy accurately and fairly; and in each university being able to assure itself that this is being done.                                

So I have asked David Eastwood and Martin Harris to look at how each university could adopt their own open and accountable admissions system. In those discussions, David and Martin have suggested – and I’ve agreed – that the time is right to bring together HEIs widening participation and fair access policies, including transparent admissions system, into a single document. 

Some universities are already taking steps to publicise their admissions processes and policies. The purpose is very simple. It is not to impose a new burden without reason. The prize is to take some of the heat out of the recurrent controversy over admissions. To address the issue of public confidence. To provide students and families alike with more assurance that aspiration, effort, achievement and potential are being weighed up and count for something. 

We need, of course, to be sensitive to the weight of any new measures on universities. It is in this light that we will approach the review of PQA in 2010/11.  I don’t think there is any serious debate that, in an ideal world, both students and universities would prefer to consider applications in the light of real exam results. Many changes to the applications process are already in place, with more being introduced this year and next, and we will all be interested to see what evidence we gain about the potential demand for a rethink from candidates who do better than expected. 

The pool of candidates with low aspirations and better-than-predicted results may be a relatively small proportion of the 300,000 students per year. But, of course, every child matters, and when we measure progress in widening participation in half percentages, we cannot afford to be slapdash. But if we succeed in our other activities, this group should diminish, as their aspirations rise and schools become better at spotting talent. So I am aware that we will have to strike a careful balance between the costs and gains of further change.  

Conclusion 

A couple of years ago I met a group of mothers in my Southampton constituency. They or their partners were all in work – and mostly both of them. They were heavily involved in the primary school where we met, but from an area where relatively few children went to university.  I asked the leading light what all their kids would do when they grew up. She said “Oooh, lawyers and doctors.” And then she laughed. They all laughed.  The children of graduates, of course, grow up in a world where becoming a doctor or a lawyer is just one option.  

Is the real gap in ability or talent in our country as wide as the gap in achievement or aspiration makes it seem? Of course it isn’t.  And that is why success on widening participation and achieving fair access is so important to all our futures. 

Ends