PROGRESSION REPORT 2016
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
University
Too few young people from low income backgrounds go to university.
In 2015, the wealthiest fifth of pupils were over three times as likely to
enter higher education as those from the lowest income backgrounds.
In some parts of the UK, only one in seven 18-year-olds went to
university; in others, over half took this route.13
Closing this gap is a priority for Teach First, and
in 2012 we adopted five Fair Education Impact
Goals highlighting the changes needed to
address educational inequality. These included
an ambition to “narrow the gap in university
graduation, including from the 25% most
selective universities” by 2022.
higher education by 2020.15 This is an ambition
we support, but achieving it is challenging, and
present trends suggest it will not be met. The
recently increased remit of the Department for
Education to include higher education presents
an opportunity for a co-ordinated response to
this challenge.16
Our focus on graduation is deliberate – too many
young people from low income backgrounds who
start university courses do not complete them.
This focus is already reflected in the strategies of
the Office for Fair Access (OFFA), and we welcome
the fact that the proposed new Office for Students
(OfS) will have “a statutory duty to cover equality
of opportunity across the whole lifecycle for low
income students, not just access”.14
All young people need three things to access
university: strong attainment; awareness
of the opportunity; and assistance to turn
their aspiration into reality. The last of these
in particular is the focus of many widening
participation interventions, giving young
people information about practical topics such
as facilitating subjects; personal statements;
financial support; and the realities of living at
university. Lack of knowledge in these areas
acts as a key barrier for young people accessing
higher education.
But the first step to ensuring more young people
from low income backgrounds graduate from
university is to have more low income young
people getting good grades and progressing
into university in the first place.
Progress is being made, and the government
has laudable ambitions to achieve even more,
with an aim to double the proportion of young
people from low income backgrounds entering
28
These barriers are particularly steep for more
selective universities, and as a result the
participation gap is particularly stark at these
institutions. Behind the headline figures, the
wealthiest applicants are 2.3 times more likely
to enter a medium tariff university than those
from low income backgrounds. But for the
29
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
door shut for them by age 16. While over 60% of
non-FSM pupils achieve this benchmark, fewer
than one in three FSM pupils do the same.
The gap is even starker at the higher grades at
GCSE that indicate a level of attainment likely to
lead to the top A level grades required to access
the most selective universities. The odds against
averaging at least an A grade in English and
maths are over four times as high for pupils from
low income backgrounds, and over six times as
high for achieving A* in both English
and maths.19
highest tariff universities, that figure is 6.3.
And the odds against a child eligible for FSM at
secondary school being admitted to Oxbridge
are 2,000 to 1.17
It is these highest tariff universities, where the
gap is starkest, that also hold the key to entering
the upper echelons of society. The Sutton
Trust’s annual Leading People survey shows
that graduates from the top 30 universities,
and in particular Oxbridge, dominate the
upper echelons of almost every field, including
medicine, the civil service, politics, journalism
and law.18 The top end of such fields are almost
impossible to access via an apprenticeship.
What can we do to make sure more pupils from
low income backgrounds go on to university,
particularly selective universities?
Attainment
Supporting young people to achieve their full
potential is the core of Teach First’s founding
mission. But too many children from low income
backgrounds fail to reach the minimum standard
of five A*-C grades at GCSE, including English
and maths, and effectively find the university
30
With such a large attainment gap, it is no
surprise that only around 1,200 FSM pupils go
on to Russell Group universities each year.20 And
as the attainment gap has proven stubbornly
consistent, so has this access gap. Overall
numbers of students going to university have
increased significantly in the last 15 years,
and this includes students from low income
backgrounds. But while the wealthiest 20%
of young people were 6.4 times more likely to
enter the most selective universities in 1998-99
than those from low income backgrounds, by
2012 this figure had improved only to 6.3.21
Only around 1,200 FSM
pupils go on to Russell Group
universities each year
To understand the preparation that young
people undertake when thinking about
university, what support they receive to apply,
and the differences between students from low
income backgrounds and their wealthier peers,
Teach First commissioned ComRes to survey a
representative sample of UK undergraduates.
ComRes interviewed 1,002 undergraduate
Case Study
The Access Project and the
“excellence gap”
In 2014, only 4% of young people from low
income backgrounds averaged an A or better
in both English and maths GCSEs, compared to
15% of their wealthier peers. Over the last five
years, the number of students from low income
backgrounds achieving the A grade A levels
needed for selective universities has flatlined.
Tackling this “excellence gap” is something The
Access Project, which mostly works in schools
with over 30% of pupils registered for FSM,
sees as fundamental to enabling more young
people from low income backgrounds to reach
selective universities. That’s why as well as
providing practical application support, it also
provides each student with an academic tutor (a
volunteer with a relevant degree) from Years 10
to 13, to help them get the top GCSE and A level
grades required by selective universities.
students attending university in the UK between
10 and 16 May 2016. Data were weighted by
age, gender, and university group.22
This research shows that achievable entry
grades is one of the top three most influential
factors for young people when making their
university application, influencing almost two
in three (64%) of those surveyed. While this is
true for roughly the same proportion of students
regardless of their background, it is much
more likely to be true of students at post-1992
institutions (those former polytechnics that
became fully fledged universities in that year)
Addressing the excellence gap requires
intensive and sustained support, which is why
The Access Project provides tuition for an hour
a week, every week, on a one-to-one basis.
This is the kind of tuition that young people
from wealthier backgrounds often get from a
parent or private tutor – 48% of young people
in London receive private tutoring at an average
cost of £29 per hour. As a result, students
working with the Access Project make twothirds of a grade more progress than their peers
– equivalent to six months.
Together, improved results and practical
university application support mean 57% of
The Access Project’s students go on to study at
a selective university, compared to 18% of state
school children generally.
(71%) than those at Russell Group universities
(57%), a gap of 14 percentage points.
Fundamentally, widening participation work
will hit a ceiling unless the pool of young people
with the academic attainment needed to go to
university and thrive is widened.
Previous research suggests that multi-year
interventions and tutoring are among the more
successful widening participation schemes,
and so it is no surprise that organisations such
as The Access Project are having success with a
programme that combines those two things23.
31
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
Awareness
More than a third of undergraduate students
(37%) in our research say that they have
“always known” that they would consider
university as an option after school. This figure
varies dramatically depending on the student’s
background. Almost half of students from
the wealthiest backgrounds said this (47%)
compared to barely a quarter of those from low
income backgrounds (28%). Similarly, almost
double the proportion of students from the
wealthiest backgrounds said they have “always
known” that they would definitely apply to
university (28%), compared to those from the
lowest income backgrounds (15%).
47% 28%
Almost half of students
from the wealthiest
backgrounds said
they knew they would
consider university.
32
Barely a quarter of
those from low income
backgrounds said
they knew they would
consider university.
1/3
More than a third of
undergraduate students
say that they have “always
known” that they would
consider university.
28% 15%
Almost double the proportion of students
from the wealthiest backgrounds said they have
“always known” that they would definitely
apply to university.
Given this split, and the fact students from
low income backgrounds are significantly
outnumbered at the most selective universities
by their wealthier peers, there is also a
difference between the answers of students at
different types of institution. Only one in ten of
those at Russell Group universities report first
considering university after their GCSEs (9%),
but three times as many students at
post-1992 institutions said the same (27%).
By contrast, there is a 12% point gap between
the proportions of Russell Group students who
said they always knew they would definitely
apply to university (28%), compared to peers at
post-1992 institutions (16%).
9% 27%
9% at Russell Group
universities first
considered university
after their GCSEs.
27% at post-1992
institutions
(former polytechnics)
said the same.
1/10
Only one in ten of
those at Russell Group
universities first
considered university
after their GCSEs.
28% 16%
There is a 12% point gap between the Russell Group
students who said they always knew they would
definitely apply to university, compared to peers
at post-1992 institutions.
33
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
Quite apart from deciding whether to apply
to university or not, there are similar stark
differences between low income students and
their peers when it came to seriously planning
their application. While nearly a quarter of
students from wealthy backgrounds say they
began to seriously plan their application during
their GCSE years (23%), only one in eight
students from a low income background said
the same (13%). As before, this divide is also
reflected at selective universities, with 21% of
students at Russell Group universities reporting
having done so, compared to 13% of students
at post-1992 institutions.
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
In many respects this is unsurprising. Young
people from wealthier backgrounds are more
likely to have graduate family members to act
as role models, and professional parents with
high aspirations. Addressing young people’s
disadvantage in this respect means starting
early, the same as addressing the attainment
gap. Organisations such as The Brilliant Club
combine these two themes to target widening
participation work from primary school.
1/8
Only one in eight students from
a low income background say
they began to seriously plan their
application during their GCSE years.
It is also vitally important for young people
to choose the right course options at 14 and
16 to access the most selective universities,
particularly A levels in facilitating subjects. A
recent survey by Which? found that three in ten
university applicants wished they had chosen
different A level subjects, and four in ten wished
they had thought more about what subjects
might help them get into university.24 This
gives us a clear indication of the ages at which
widening participation work can best support
low income pupils.
Our view is that universities should continue to
drive the majority of this work, using their existing
widening participation budgets. University
access agreements already encourage a focus on
“raising the aspiration and attainment of pupils
from primary age upwards”.25 The majority of
universities should be able to work with primary
age pupils, and the Director of Fair Access (and
the successor post at the proposed OfS) should
hold universities to account for delivering this.
Case Study
The Brilliant Club starting young
Over the last few years, there’s been an increasing
amount of widening participation work taking
place with younger pupils, including primary
age pupils. Indeed, OFFA now asks for evidence of
long-term outreach with younger age groups as
part of access agreements.
34
23% 13%
21% 13%
Almost a quarter of
Only one in eight of those
students from the
23% of students from lower
wealthiest backgrounds income backgrounds said
said they began seriously they began seriously
planning their application
planning their
during GCSEs.
application during GCSEs.
Overall a much higher proportion of students
at Russell Group universities compared with those
at post-1992 institutions report that they started
planning their applications at GCSE.
The Brilliant Club is at the forefront of this work,
with a programme that aims to increase the
number of low income students represented at
selective universities. The Scholars Programme
delivers six small group tutorials to groups of
four to six, as well as a university visit, a final
assignment, and a graduation-style event.
The Brilliant Club starts its work at age ten,
with a number of standardised, cross-curricular
courses that can be taught in Key Stages 2
and 3, inside a rigorous assessment framework
designed to assess the development of
academic skills, such as correct use
of terminology.
In 2014/15, 43% of pupils The Brilliant Club
worked with were eligible for FSM. Based on
pupils’ self-evaluation, after a year working
with The Brilliant Club 92% of children aged
10-16 reported “knowing what I need to do
if I want to go on and study at university”. In
terms of attainment, 66% of pupils aged 11-14
performed at either a good or excellent standard
on their final assignment, which is assessed to
one key stage above their current age.
35
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
Recommendation 7
Widening participation work should
begin at primary school, with a particular
increase around age 14. The Director of Fair
Access should ensure guidance on access
agreements reflects a default expectation
that institutions will work with primary
schools in some capacity.
Finally, a warning. Students from wealthier
backgrounds were 22 percentage points
more likely to be influenced when making a
university application by the reputation of
the university compared to students from low
income backgrounds (83% vs 61%). Conversely,
there was a 15% points gap on financial issues.
While almost half of students from low income
backgrounds were influenced by finances
(46%), such as the cost of living (and 42%
picked universities close to home, presumably
often for this reason); just 31% of students from
wealthier backgrounds said the same. The issue
36
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
of finances is a thorny one, but our evidence
suggests that it is an important factor for young
people from low income backgrounds planning
a university application.
Assistance
Our research also revealed some important
differences between the support that young
people from low income backgrounds receive,
compared to their wealthier peers.
There are four things that significant majorities
of students, over three-quarters, do to make a
strong university application: online research
into universities/courses (84%); reading a
prospectus (80%); visiting a university (76%);
and getting personal statement advice from
teachers (80%). A student’s background does
not significantly affect how likely they are to
do these things, reflecting the fact they are a
core part of making a university application for
almost everyone.
However, stark differences emerge when
looking at a series of potentially value-adding
activities that prospective undergraduates
could undertake to strengthen their application.
Students from wealthier backgrounds were
twice as likely to receive advice from their
parents when writing a personal statement as
their peers from low income backgrounds (59%
compared to 27%). There is also a 15% point
gap between the number saying they took part
in non-academic extracurricular activities,
like drama and sports, to strengthen their
application (48% compared to 33%).
And they are nearly twice as likely to report
taking part in relevant work experience
(41% compared to 23% of students from lower
income backgrounds.)
59% 27%
Students from wealthier backgrounds were twice as likely to
receive advice from parents when writing a personal statement.
48% 33%
41% 23%
There is a 15 percentage point gap between students from
lower income and the wealthiest backgrounds saying they
took part in non-academic extracurricular activities.
There is an 18 percentage point gap between
students from lower income and the wealthiest
backgrounds taking part in relevant work experience.
37
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
Advice from parents isn’t correlated with what
type of university students studied at. But while
half of Russell Group students report having
undertaken non-academic extracurricular
activities, such as drama and sports, to support
their university application, barely a quarter
(27%) of students at post-1992 institutions
report doing the same. Similarly, 40% of Russell
Group students report undertaking relevant
work experience, compared to just 27% of
students at post-1992 institutions. Also, Russell
Group students were twice as likely to say they
have undertaken academic extracurricular
activities, compared to students at post-1992
institutions (39% compared to 21%).
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
And while advice from parents wasn’t correlated
with what type of university a student ended up
at, students at Russell Group universities valued
it more than peers at a post-1992 institution,
with 62% describing it as influential in their
decision-making (including 27% describing it
as the most influential factor) compared to 50%
(18%) at post-1992 universities.
50% 27%
Students from wealthier backgrounds were
almost twice as likely to support their application
with extracurricular activities.
38
40% 27%
39% 21%
Many more Russell Group students
report undertaking relevant work experience.
Russell Group students were twice as likely to say they have
undertaken academic extracurricular activities.
These correlations are not in and of themselves
causations. But these issues have long been
considered important by the independent
schools that have a strong track record of
sending the most students to the most highly
selective universities. And it seems highly
unlikely that relevant work experience and
extracurricular activities have no bearing on
a student’s chances of getting a university
place, especially for courses such as medicine,
dentistry and veterinary science.
Our view is that more widening participation
work, regardless of how it is funded and who
initiates it, should focus on closing these gaps,
because evidence shows that university access
is about more than just grades. The Director
for Fair Access (and the successor post at the
proposed OfS), should continue to set the lead
for the sector by encouraging increased focus
on these priorities, and should ensure funding is
directed to delivering them.
Recommendation 8
More widening participation work should
focus on addressing the areas where
students from low income backgrounds
are most disadvantaged compared to their
wealthier peers: extracurricular activities and
work experience. These should be increased
priorities for the Director of Fair Access, and
increased funding should be directed to
addressing them.
Our research also highlighted why supporting
young people to apply to university is so
important. Thirty percent of students found
applying to university difficult, 40% report
receiving little support from their school in
planning their application, and 38% say they
felt intimidated when applying for university.
Of course, these figures reflect the views of
students who made it to university. Many
more young people, particularly young
people from low income backgrounds, don’t
make it to university due to these factors.
Students who don’t make it to university are
disproportionately likely to come from low
income backgrounds.
39
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
PROGRESSION REPORT 2016: UNIVERSITY
Case Study
Durham University:
Laura’s story
Laura grew up in Sedgefield, a mining town in the
North East. While just ten miles from the famous
university city of Durham, the idea of university
felt like a world away.
Having achieved outstanding GCSE results,
she was encouraged by her college to attend
an assembly hosted by Durham University.
The assembly broke down the misconceptions
and stereotypes around the “typical” Durham
student. They also introduced Supported
Progression, Durham University’s support
programme for talented young people with
university potential.
The programme gave Laura and her parents,
who had no first-hand university experience,
Widening participation
in practice
Universities and colleges spend over £700
million a year under their access agreements,
equivalent to £90 for every pupil in every school
in England. This vast sum of money, if spent
well, has the potential to change lives.
However, over half of this funding is spent
on financial support such as bursaries,
scholarships and fee waivers for students from
low income backgrounds.26 This is despite the
fact that research from OFFA has generally
shown that financial support is not the most
significant factor affecting young people’s
40
lots of helpful information. It also included a
residential event giving Laura her first experience
of student life. Durham continued to support
Laura with her UCAS application and provide
information to help her prepare for university life.
Laura was subsequently accepted onto Durham
University’s music degree course.
Laura has just graduated with a first class
honours degree and is excited to be starting
a retail graduate scheme. She’s clear that
visiting university and experiencing student life
was key to her success. She believes that the
sooner young people can experience different
opportunities the better. Her own experience has
paved the way for her brother and sister who are
both starting university in September.
choice of whether to enter higher education
(or not), and has no noticeable effect on
continuation rates. Universities should heed
OFFA’s guidance that this funding should be
re-profiled unless there is an evidenced
rationale, and we look forward to hearing more
on this topic from OFFA’s ongoing research.
The other big area of pre-entry widening
participation spending is outreach. There are
many different types of outreach programme,
from summer schools to day trips to mentoring.
Teach First’s Futures programme combines
a range of these elements. Over Years 12 and
13, pupils on the programme are supported
to make decisions about what subject to
study, and where, as well as how to make a
high quality application. The programme,
which is supported by Deloitte, Prudential plc,
the Wolfson Foundation, the City of London
Corporation, and the University of Cambridge,
includes university visits, structured activities
for pupils to complete, a 14-month mentoring
relationship, and a week-long residential school
at either the University of Oxford or Cambridge.
We plan to expand Futures, thanks to the
generous support of our principal partner
Credit Suisse EMEA Foundation; and we aim
to reach more pupils in areas of greatest need,
where we are increasingly trying to focus our
efforts. Yet this is just one programme among
many. Despite collaborative working being well
established in places, there is a need to ensure
outreach work, particularly by more selective
universities, is systematically co-ordinated so
that it reaches all parts of the country. London
is home to several Russell Group universities,
but many of the areas of greatest need are
much further away. It is 60 miles or more from
Hastings to London, from Great Yarmouth to
Cambridge, and from Carlisle to Newcastle.
The announcement by the Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE) of a
national outreach programme is a welcome step
in the right direction, although we would urge
that such schemes also explicitly target primary
aged pupils (the HEFCE scheme is aimed at
Years 9 to 13).27 In addition, this HEFCE funding
is only available to consortia led by higher
education providers. While higher education
providers are a key part of the solution, it is
perfectly possible for widening participation
to be delivered by charities and others with the
support of the higher education sector, rather
than vice versa. Funding should be available
to all effective providers. National outreach
charities have the opportunity to use funding
to support pupils across the country, whereas
funding given to a particular institution often
only benefits pupils within that region.
The proposed Director of Fair Access and
Participation at the OfS should look to expand
co-ordinated work of this nature, in line with the
government’s expectation that the new role,
and the proposed OfS, will pick up on OFFA’s
work and support the development of “better
focused expertise and a co-ordinated approach
to making the most of the expenditure”.28
Recommendation 9
The Director of Fair Access and Participation
should ensure widening participation work
is better co-ordinated to ensure best value
for money, and that all areas of greatest
need are reached. Funding streams should
be available to all quality schemes, not just
those that are higher education led.
41