92 / DEUDA EXTERNA

In the UK, the underrepresentation of individuals from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds is addressed in various ways at different universities. Methods include programmes, such as Foundation or graduate entry programmes, typically devised by HEIs to facilitate entry and accessibility to students by providing alternative routes into courses and particular academic domains (McHarg, Mattick, & Knight, 2007; Mathers & Parry, 2009; Hoare & Johnson, 2010; Byrom 2009). Though these programmes are viewed favourably, research suggests that they are limited in scope, as the number of WP students entering these courses are small, and subsequently they have not led to significant changes in socio-economic profiles of UK student populations (Deakin, 2011; Garlick & Brown, 2008; Mathers et al., 2011).

The main approaches to WP in terms of policy initiatives have been through individual universities’ outreach activities and interventions which target students at different stages of their educational trajectories (Byrom, 2009; Deakin, 2011; Hoare & Johnston, 2010; McHarg et al., 2007). Broadly, outreach activities aim to compensate for

perceived deficiencies associated with non-traditional students' backgrounds by raising aspirations, building study skills, and encouraging them to apply to HE (Lawler, 1999; Bowes et al., 2013). Such activities are not unique to the UK, and are carried out internationally to promote more equitable access to education to all individuals with academic potential regardless of background (Maras, 2007; Mooney, 2005). For example, outreach activities are used as a means of introducing the possibility of attending university to primary school pupils who may otherwise be unfamiliar with it. Compensatory interventions such as this are largely aimed at 'equalising playing fields' for students to realise their potential regardless of external circumstances (Bowes et al., 2013). Additionally, a number of universal interventions also exist which aim to address psychosocial factors that affect educational outcomes such as stereotyping; targeted interventions that consider the needs of specific student groups are necessary (HEFCE, 2015). However, concerns have been raised regarding the influence and nature of pre-university interventions (Byrom, 2009) and the capacity of these efforts to enable opportunity (Schmidt, 2007). In particular, the lack of empirical evidence used to guide interventions aimed at increasing participation of non- traditional students is problematic (Mathers & Parry, 2009; Mcharg et al., 2007).

According to Ball (2003), little attention has been paid to the defining moments in individuals' trajectories, even though this could influence the relative merits (success/failure) of WP interventions. Byrom (2009) highlighted the importance of this in a study that explored 16 students’ experiences of applying to university and their first term at university following their participation in a Sutton Trust Summer School. Byrom found that students were strongly influenced by their background contexts, the friendship groups they did or did not make and their interactions with educational systems. However, the extent to which the Sutton Trust intervention influenced students' educational trajectories and more specifically their decisions to attend university was considered questionable as these students had already decided to go to university by the time of the intervention.

According to HEFCE (2015) whole institution approaches require buy-in from professional services, students and academics. They highlight the ways that institutions differ regarding the extent to which staff and students are aware of differential outcomes, and discuss how institutional cultures influence the impact that interventions can have.

Bowes et al., (2013) corroborated this, depicting how a range of contextual factors (e.g. mission, geographical location, entry tariffs) shape and influence institutional priorities and approaches to WP. For example, 'inclusive' institutions, tending to have a large number of WP students, are more likely to focus their efforts on improving retention. In turn, 'selective' research-intensive institutions (such as the UoL), are known to have lower proportions of WP students than inclusive or smaller HEI’s and are more likely to focus their interventions and outreach activities on widening access. For such WP interventions to be effective, it is critical that they are informed by research on students’ educational trajectories and the key time points at which decisions are made. However, according to Ball et al. (2003) little attention has been paid to the defining moments in individuals' trajectories, even though this could influence the relative merits (success/failure) of such interventions. They argue that without tracking individuals throughout their educational trajectories and understanding their choices, it is difficult to evaluate the extent to which WP measures are working. This is also important as a means to identifying and addressing barriers that affect socio-economically disadvantaged students at the point of admissions to university, and within the system through which they are currently selected for Universities.

Applicants can be given additional consideration during the university admissions process to enable or encourage their participation in HE. This is referred to as positive action. For example, students may be given greater chances of being interviewed or their entry grade requirements could be lowered for certain programmes. Such concessions could be made when non-traditional applicants participate in access schemes or programmes affiliated with individual universities. Access programmes are typically offered to ‘disadvantaged’ students that fulfil relevant eligibility criteria at schools and colleges working with dedicated WP units at most HE institutions (Bowes et al., 2013). These access programmes typically comprise of a range of activities, both academic and social, aimed at preparing and exposing prospective students to the HE environment. Though these schemes and widening access activities are considered to be effective, they are limited in the number of students these reach and are often focussed exclusively on under- represented groups in the areas in close proximity to the institution (Bowes et al., 2013).

Concessions, in the form of reduced grades, or additional consideration may also be given to ‘non-traditional’ students, through the use of contextual data (BIS, 2014). As briefly explained in Chapter One, contextual data refers to data that help place academic attainment into the context of the circumstances in which the results were obtained, and includes both comparative school and socio-economic data (Bridger, et al., 2012; Moore et al., 2013). Given that the predictive validity of exam grades as indicators of degree performance has been found to be limited and inconsistent between all groups of students and degree subjects, the use of contextual data is increasingly endorsed (e.g. BIS, 2013). The implementation of contextual data in the university admission process, in which academic attainment is placed into the context in which it was obtained, could enable a more sophisticated interpretation of exam grades and thus help to increase fair access to HE (Mullen, 2011). Examples of contextual data include average school performance, school progression to HE, allowances such as Free School Meals (FSM), and postcode data (such as ACORN, or IMD).

Historically, the use of contextual data in admissions has been controversial, and has been associated with positive discrimination and social engineering (Henry, 2012; Smith, 2012). Critically, there are claims that giving lower entry requirements to socio- economically disadvantaged applicants is unfair, as it discriminates against students from affluent backgrounds, who have attended independent schools, and may ‘dumb down’ student bodies and result in reduced academic excellence for HE institutions (Trowler & Trowler, 2010; Hoare & Johnson, 2010). However, a powerful riposte to these claims is the evidence that students from comprehensive schools perform equally well in their degrees or can actually outperform their more affluent independent school counterparts once they reach university level (Hoare & Johnston, 2010; Sutton Trust, 2010b; Smith & Naylor, 2001; Smith & Naylor, 2004). Such findings highlight the limitations associated with school grades and are thus used as rationale to justify the implementation of contextual data in university admissions and offer students reduced grades based on their background characteristics. However, apart from the controversies surrounding the use of contextual data, there is a further challenge to offering students reduced grades using contextual data, in the tension between a policy to lift a cap on ABB+ students (in 2013/14) and WP objectives, as many

WP students do not typically achieve at this level (CFE, 2013; Bowes et al., 2013). Hence, whilst the use of contextual data in university admissions has been encouraged as part of a broader WP Policy agenda, the challenges and tensions surrounding the use of contextual information in admissions may deter institutions from adopting this (Bowes et al., 2013). Given these challenges, it is particularly critical that institutional policy in respect of contextual data is transparent and underpinned by firm empirical evidence (BIS, 2011; 2013; Cable & Willets, 2011, Croxford & Raffe, 2013; Milburn, 2009 Supporting Professionalism in Admissions [SPA], 2011).

It is the responsibility of individual HE institutions to attract WP students and ensure fair access to HE (BIS, 2014). This requires suitable methods of identifying prospective WP students during the application process, something that could help mitigate differences in levels of participation between groups. Institutions use different types of contextual information based on research identifying a range of background characteristics that influence educational disadvantage and differentiated performance (BIS, 2014). These include school effect, socio-economic background, and personal attributes. An increasing number of HE institutions already choose to use contextual information in their admissions processes to help them identify applicants academic potential and even as a tool to target outreach (BIS, 2014; Bridger et al., 2012; SPA, 2012). However, publicly available research examining the relationship between contextual background characteristics and achievement in general is highly limited (Bradshaw et al., 2007; Gorard, 2008; Bridger et al., 2012; Mullen, 2011; SPA, 2013; Zimdars, 2007). Addressing these issues is critical as it could help address inequalities persistent in UK HE participation (Sutton Trust, 2005; Stringer; 2008).