HE participation and outcomes: differences
by SES and secondary school characteristics
Claire Crawford
University of Warwick and Institute for Fiscal Studies
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Motivation
• Education a key driver of social mobility, yet large socio-economic
gaps remain in HE participation and degree outcomes
• Much work to “widen” participation focuses on those sitting Alevels; but previous work suggests earlier attainment is important
• Key questions of interest:
– When is the most productive period to intervene to improve HE
participation amongst those from disadvantaged backgrounds?
– What role can and do schools play in shaping HE participation decisions
and subsequent performance? Can think of two routes:
• Indirect: via attainment
• Direct: e.g. via careers advice, application assistance, non-cognitive skills, etc
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Plan for today
• Document differences in HE participation and outcomes on the basis
of socio-economic status and secondary school performance
• Explore the extent to which these differences can be explained by:
•
Selection into schools (background characteristics and KS2 results)
•
Differential performance at Key Stage 4
•
Differential performance at Key Stage 5
•
For degree outcomes: university attended and subject studied
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Data
• Linked NPD-ILR-HESA data
• National Pupil Database (NPD)
– Census of pupils taking GCSEs in England: 2001-02 to 2007-08 here
– Key Stage test results at ages 11, 16 and 18 for those who sat them
– Key Stage 4 school identifiers for all pupils
– Plus limited background characteristics for state school pupils
• e.g. gender, ethnicity, FSM eligibility, local area characteristics based on home postcode
• NISVQ and ILR data
– Census of those taking qualifications in FE colleges; but only limited info
• Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data
– Census of students attending UK universities: 2004-05 to 2011-12 here
– Includes information on institution attended, qualification and subject
studied, and qualification outcomes, e.g. completion and degree class
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Data
→
Linked NPD-ILR-HESA data enables us to:
• Follow the population of secondary school pupils in England from
age 11 through to potential HE participation at age 18 or 19
• Follow the population of UK university participants who went to
school in England from HE entry to degree completion
→
Compared to HESA data alone it gives us:
• Richer information about earlier measures of attainment, enabling us
to investigate the “critical periods” for potential intervention
• e.g. at Key Stage 4:
– Grades in English and Maths
– No. of GCSEs in EBacc and other subjects at particular grades
– Summary measures of overall performance (including equivalents)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Key covariates of interest
• Socio-economic status
– Combine FSM eligibility at age 16 with measures of local area
deprivation based on pupils’ home postcode at age 16
– Split state school population into quintile groups based on this index
– Add private school students to top quintile group
• School performance:
– % of pupils in school achieving at least 5 A*-C grades at GCSE
– Pupils split into quintile groups on the basis of this measure
– Accompanying report also considers school type, school value-added,
whether school has a sixth form and % of pupils eligible for FSM
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
HE participation
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Outcomes: HE participation
• Participation at any UK university for the first time at age 18 or 19
• Participation at a “high status” institution, where high status is:
– Russell Group institutions (20 in total pre-2012)
– Plus any UK university with a 2001 average RAE score higher than the
lowest amongst the Russell Group (an extra 21 institutions)
• Focus on cohorts first eligible to participate 2004-05 to 2010-11
– 34.7% participated for the first time at age 18 or 19
– 12.0% attended a high status institution (34.7% of participants)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
HE participation:
differences by socio-economic status
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
HE participation overall and at high status institutions for
state school pupils first eligible to go in 2010-11, by SES
% pupils going to university at age 18/19: highest SES
quintile group including state school pupils only
70%
60%
56%
50%
43%
40%
36.8ppts
34%
30%
26%
21.5%
19%
20%
10%
2.9%
4.8%
7.7%
18.6ppts
12.2%
0%
-10%
Lowest SES
quintile group
2nd
HE participation overall
3rd
4th
Highest SES
quintile group
HE participation at a high status institution
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked schools and universities administrative data for the cohort first eligible
to start university in2010-11 (who sat their GCSEs in 2007-08)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Difference
(highest lowest)
HE participation overall and at high status institutions for
all pupils first eligible to go in 2010-11, by SES
% pupils going to university at age 18/19: highest SES
quintile group including state and private school pupils
70%
61%
60%
50%
43%
40%
34%
30%
20%
42.0ppts
28.2%
26%
25.3ppts
19%
10%
2.9%
4.8%
7.7%
12.2%
0%
Lowest SES
quintile group
2nd
HE participation overall
3rd
4th
Highest SES
quintile group
HE participation at a high status institution
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked schools and universities administrative data for the cohort first eligible
to start university in2010-11 (who sat their GCSEs in 2007-08)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Difference
(highest lowest)
What explains differences in HE participation between
pupils from most and least deprived backgrounds?
45.0
42ppts
Percentage point difference
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.3ppts
25.0
19.2ppts
20.0
15.0
10.0
7.8ppts
3.7ppts
5.0
1.8ppts
2.9ppts
1.3ppts
0.0
Raw
Plus individual and Plus Key Stage 4 and Plus Key Stage 5 and
school characteristics equivalent results
equivalent results
and KS2 results
HE participation overall
Participation at high status institutions
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked schools and universities administrative data for the cohort first eligible
to start university in2010-11 (who sat their GCSEs in 2007-08)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
HE participation:
differences by school performance
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
HE participation at age 18/19, by school performance
70%
62%
60%
50%
45.5ppts
40%
40%
33%
32%
30%
20%
29.7ppts
25%
17%
13%
10%
3%
5%
8%
0%
Lowest quintile
of school
performance
2nd
HE participation overall
3rd
4th
Highest
quintile of
school
performance
Participation at high status institutions
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked schools and universities administrative data for the cohorts first eligible
to start university between 2004-05 and 2010-11 (who sat their GCSEs between 2001-02 and 2007-08 respectively)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Difference
(highest lowest)
What explains differences in HE participation between
pupils attending highest and lowest performing schools?
50.0
46.6ppts
Percentage point difference
40.0
30.0
24.3ppts
20.5ppts
20.0
10.0
7.1ppts
-0.4ppts 0.4ppts
0.0
Raw (accounting
for cohort)
-10.0
Plus individual
characteristics and
Key Stage 2 results
HE participation overall
0.4ppts 0.5ppts
Plus Key Stage 4 and Plus Key Stage 5 and
equivalent results
equivalent results
Participation at high status institutions
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked schools and universities administrative data for the cohorts first eligible
to start university between 2004-05 and 2010-11 (who sat their GCSEs between 2001-02 and 2007-08 respectively)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Summary
• Large differences in HE participation overall and at high status
institutions on the basis of SES and school performance
– Interestingly slightly larger by school performance
• But these gaps can largely be explained by differences in prior
attainment between pupils from different backgrounds and schools
– Especially participation at high status institutions
• Particularly emphasise the substantial explanatory power of KS4
– Gaps by SES much reduced and by school performance virtually eliminated
– Addition of Key Stage 5 controls adds little to this picture
• Suggests that, to the extent that schools affect their pupils’ chances of
going to university, it comes mainly via increasing KS4 attainment
• Further suggests that secondary school is a potentially vital period for
interventions to “widen” participation in HE
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Drop-out, degree completion and degree class
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Outcomes: drop-out
• Drop-out in first or second year:
– Defined only for those who went to university at age 18 or 19
– Focus on those who leave the sector completely; anyone who transfers
to another university is included in the zeroes
• Need to be able to observe three years of data to define measure
– Means focus on those first eligible to go 2004-05 to 2008-09
• 11.5% drop-out on our measure
• Slightly lower (9.7%) if we focus on full-time first degree entrants
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Outcomes: degree completion and degree class
• For both outcomes, focus on those completing within 5 years
– Means need to be able to observe 5 years of data to define measure
– Hence focus on those first eligible to go in 2004-05 to 2006-07
• Degree completion:
– Defined for those who went to university at age 18 or 19 to study fulltime for a first degree in a non-medical subject
– 78.2% complete their degree within 5 years on our definition
• Graduate with a 1st or a 2:1:
– Sample as above but additionally restricted to those who complete their
degree within 5 years
– 64.6% of degree completers graduate with a 1st or a 2:1 on our definition
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
HE outcomes, by quintile of school performance
90%
80%
75%
71%
77%
70%
60%
52%
70%
65%
62%
58%
81%
79%
50%
40%
30%
20%
16%
14%
13%
11%
10%
17.8ppts
10.2ppts
9%
-6.6ppts
0%
-10%
-20%
Lowest
quintile of
school
performance
2nd
3rd
Dropout within 2 years
Graduate with a first or 2:1
4th
Highest
quintile of
school
performance
Complete degree within 5 years
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked NPD-HESA data for the cohorts first eligible to start university between
2004-05 and 2008-09 for drop-out, and between 2004-05 and 2006-07 for degree completion and degree class
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Difference
(highest
- lowest)
What explains differences in HE participation between
pupils attending highest and lowest performing schools?
20.0
17.5ppts
Percentage point difference
15.0
10.0
9.8ppts
3ppts
2.7ppts
5.0
2ppts
1.8ppts
1.8ppts
0.0
Raw (accounting
for cohort)
-5.0
Plus individual Plus Key Stage 4 and Plus Key Stage 5 and
characteristics and equivalent results equivalent results
Key Stage 2 results
-2.6ppts
-2.3ppts
-6.3ppts
-2.7ppts
-7.3ppts
-2.9ppts
-7.4ppts
-10.0
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked NPD-HESA data for the cohorts first eligible to start university between
2004-05 and 2008-09 for drop-out, and between 2004-05 and 2006-07 for degree completion and degree class
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Plus university
attended and
subject studied
-7.8ppts
Summary
• Differences in HE outcomes smaller, on average, than participation,
and in expected direction (but amongst selected sample)
• Relationships reverse once we account for attainment at KS4
– Pupils from high-performing schools more likely to drop out, less likely to
complete degree and less likely to get first or 2:1 than pupils with similar
characteristics and attainment from low-performing schools
• Cannot be certain what drives it, but suggests that pupils from low
performing schools with the same attainment as those from high
performing schools have, on average, higher “potential”
– May be something universities want to account for in making entry offers
– There is some evidence consistent with differential offers by SES
• Those from the most deprived backgrounds who make it to high status institutions have
lower attainment, on average, than those from less deprived backgrounds
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Relevant published work
•
Chowdry, H., C. Crawford, L. Dearden, A. Goodman and A. Vignoles
(2013), Widening participation in higher education: analysis using linked
administrative data, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A,
Vol. 176, pp. 431-457.
•
Crawford, C. (2012), Socio-economic gaps in HE participation: how have
they changed over time?, IFS Briefing Note BN133.
•
Crawford, C. (2014), The link between secondary school characteristics
and HE participation and outcomes, CAYT Research Report
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/secondary-schoolcharacteristics-and-university-participation).
•
Crawford, C., L. Macmillan and A. Vignoles (2014), Progress made by
high-attaining children from disadvantaged backgrounds, CAYT
Research Report (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highattaining-children-from-disadvantaged-backgrounds).
© Institute for Fiscal Studies