Widening participation: how far have we come?

Widening participation has long been on the HE sector's agenda, but change hasn't come easily. How much progress has really been made?

Governments in the home countries of the United Kingdom have raised many concerns about the levels of stratification existent in the student body of first-time undergraduates in higher education.1 Therefore, recognising that pupils from less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds are under-represented in higher education institutions, especially the most selective ones, there have been a number of attempts to ‘widen participation’ for those currently under-represented.2

Nonetheless, patterns of unequal access have been resistant to change, with the most advantaged pupils still being 1.7 times as likely to enter higher education than their most disadvantaged counterparts and 2.8 times as likely to be accepted into one of the UK’s higher tariff providers.3

Levels of participation by POLAR quintiles

Recently, the department for education (DfE) published detailed statistics on young peoples’ participation in HE in England. These include rates of participation by student characteristics such as their eligibility for free school meals, gender, ethnicity, special educational need status and first language.4

Polar 4 quintiles ,
Q1,31.7
Q2,39.8
Q3,46.8
Q4,53.3
Q5,62.1

There has been little success in closing the gaps in rates of progression between pupils from the least and most advantaged groups within England. Despite a significant expansion of university places over the years , the data suggests that young people from neighbourhoods in England’s most advantaged quintile (based on POLAR4) are still twice as likely to progress to higher education as those from the least advantaged quintile at 62.1%, compared to 31.7%.5

With that, the gap in rates of participation between these two groups has closed by just 2.9 percentage points (pp) between 2009/10 and 2022/23. Meanwhile, the gap for those entering higher tariff providers has actually widened by 2.4pp over the same period.

Free School Meal eligibility

Similarly, when considering Free School Meal (FSM) eligibility, a relatively accurate measure of socioeconomic status, it is clear that more work must be done. Although the rate of progression by pupils who received FSM at age 15, and entered higher education by age 19, has increased by 14.8pp since 2005/06 - up from 14.2%. The gap between those who received FSM and those who did not has also increased by 0.4pp.

In addition to this, just 6.1% of pupils eligible for FSM at age 15 progressed to a higher tariff provider by 19 in 2022/23, compared to 2.9% in 2009/10. Which is disappointing given the ability that England’s elite institutions have to facilitate social mobility.

Region,Progression to Higher Education,Progression to high tarrif Higher Education
North East ,21.8,3.7
North West ,26.1,4.9
Yorkshire and the Humber,25.2,4.2
East Midlands ,21.7,3.6
West Midlands,29.5,7.5
East of England,24.3,4.2
London ,48.6,12.1
Inner London ,51.3,13.6
Outer London,46,10.7
South East ,21.7,4.2
South West,18.8,3.8

Progression to higher education tends to vary quite significantly by region. While just 18.8% of pupils from the South West who were eligible for FSM at the age of 15 progressed to higher education by the age of 19, 51.3% of such pupils from Inner London done so. We can also see an identical trend if we turn our attention to higher tariff institutions with pupils eligible for FSM at age 15 from Inner London (13.6%) being more likely than others to progress to a higher tariff institution by the age of 19. Two trends which, to a significant extent, owe to the strong performance of London schools at GCSE level; as access to higher education tends to be largely predicated on an individual’s prior attainment.6 However, with social mobility high on the political agenda, higher education providers have been encouraged to employ contextual admissions practices as economically disadvantaged pupils face challenges to succeed that their more advantaged counterparts do not.

Rates of progression for those eligible for FSM also vary quite significantly by ethnicity with Chinese pupils eligible for FSM at age 15 (72.3%) being the most likely to progress to higher education by the age of 19; followed by Asian (55.2%), Black (51.3%), Mixed (34.3%) and White (19.0%) pupils.

When disaggregated though, the data shows that there has been very little progress for certain groups in England. For instance, those who identify as ‘Gypsy/Roma’ (11.9%) or ‘Travellers of Irish Heritage’ (9.1%) are the least likely of all groups eligible for FSM at age 15 to progress to higher education.

Moreover, progression rates are particularly low for White British pupils who were eligible for FSM at 15, with just 17.9% of pupils in this group progressing to higher education by age 19. However, this does not mean that that they are particularly underrepresented when compared to other groups. As an example, although a larger proportion of Black Caribbean pupils receiving FSM progress to higher education than their White British counterparts - 33.8% compared to 17.9%. DfE data shows that 16,452 Black Caribbean pupils attending secondary school were eligible for FSM in 2023/24 compared to 504,087 White British pupils , suggesting that White British pupils who received FSM at age 15 do actually attend university in much higher numbers than others.

School type (Key Stage 5)

Category,2010/11,2011/12,2012/13,2013/14,2014/15,2015/16,2016/17,2017/18,2018/19,2019/20,2020/21,2021/22,2022/23
HE progression rate (Independent),84.0,84.1,82.4,82.1,82.8,83.1,83.1,86.2,86.1,86.8,87.3,88.7,88.5
HE progression rate (State),79.3,77.7,77.2,75.7,77.8,79.0,79.4,76.9,76.9,77.9,79.7,82.3,82

The progression rate by age 19 for state school A-level students has also increased slightly from 79.3% in 2010/11 to 82.0% in 2022/23. Yet, at 6.5pp, the gap between the progression rates of state and independent school pupils has actually widened since then. Likewise, the gap has increased slightly for pupils progressing to higher tariff providers since 2010/11 at 33.6pp - up from 33.0pp in 2010/11.

OfS widening participation objectives

The Office for Students - England's independent regulator of higher education - has set new and ambitious long-term targets for both themselves and the wider HE sector. The foremost target is to eliminate the gap in entry rates between the most and least represented groups.7 Encouraging providers to set their own access to participation plans, the OfS plan to achieve their targets using a combination of support and regulatory powers - holding providers to account for the delivery of their targets.

These plans demonstrate providers' commitment to reducing the gaps between under-represented students and their peers. To be approved, the OfS requires that the measures proposed to deliver against the targets they set must be 'ambitious, evidence-informed and credible, and would result in continuous improvement in outcomes for pupils'.8 Some writers have even pointed to the opportunities for widening participation that may arise in a post-COVID world, suggesting that there are constructive ways forward which would allow young people the access to information they need about HE.9

Notes

1. Which are the most suitable contextual indicators for use in widening participation to HE?, Gorard et al, 2019.
2. Ibid.
3. Contextualised Admissions briefing - Triangulation of contextual data: building a clearer picture of the individual applicant, UCAS, 2019.
4. Widening participation in higher education, DfE, 2022.
5. Universities pledge to reduce equality gaps dramatically within five years, OfS, 2020.
6. What is the current state of debate around the use of contextualised admissions for undergraduate admissions? A review of the current stakeholder perspective, Mountford-Zimdars et al, 2019.
7. Our approach to access and participation, OfS, 2020.
8. Transforming opportunity in higher education, OfS, 2020.
9. Why and how the post-Covid world could offer more opportunities for widening participation in England, OfS, 2020.

Written by

Micha-Shannon Smith

Assistant information analyst

Prospects