Spatial inequalities in access to
university, jobs and 'good' schools
Danny Dorling, Department of Geography,
University of Sheffield
Keynote on “Exploring Inequality and its Consequences:
Education, Labour Markets, and Communities”, 5th July,
2010, adapted from 20th April Talk given within Sheffield
University concerning Widening Participation so I will start
with that.
2034, 2024, 2014, 2012, never?
“The danger that has settled in upon us
since the shock administered by the
events of the last year is that the
clamouring throng who find the gates of
higher education barred against them may
turn against the social order by which they
feel themselves condemned”
•
Young, M. (1958 (1961)). The Rise of the Meritocracy 1870-2033: An essay on
education and equality. London, Thames and Hudson. (page 13, on 2034).
Educational norms change
The way we currently allocate university
places will, in a few decades time, come
to appear as perverse and haphazard as
entry to elementary education prior to the
1880s now appears and as secondary
education places were allocated prior to
the 1960s. Perverse here means harmful
to almost all, from the poorest to richest.
What is a good education, a good
university and a good job?
School-leaving age
(years) and university
entry (%), Britain, 1876-2013
50
University
entry
20
45
40
18
35
16
30
Age
14
12
25 %
20
School
leaving
age
15
10
10
8
1860
5
0
1880
1900
1920
1940
Year
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
Source: “Injustice” (2010)
HE by neighbourhood,
2005 (inequality by tract)
Sources: “Identity in Britain” (2007) pages 100-103 (next slides)
Concentrate on extremes
Tracts are half
Constituencies.
By decile the
inequality rate is
about 1:4. It is
higher if smaller
neighbourhoods
are compared.
Note how the
trend ‘flicks’
down and up at
both ends – it is
regressive.
Concentrate on the map
Concentrate on elite 10%
Going to most ‘prestigious’
Concentrate on the lines
Hallam
So, how is all this changing?
When Quintiles are considered rather than
deciles the worse off fifth had a 15%
chance of university in 2005. That rose to
19% by 2010. A huge increase for young
people (aged 18 and 19) in the worse-off
fifth of areas. An extra one in twenty five
going in just five years. A 26% ‘access
increase’…. (19-15)/15.
Source: HEFCE, 2010 report (January)
Recently a narrowing in
inequality occurred
A slight
narrowing
viewed in
some ways,
remarkable
in others, but
not even
those in
‘poleposition’ are
happy..
The source here are
HEFCE’s 2010
Trends report
Considering the 15% to 19% rise: It
was predicted given earlier GCSEs
It looks as if it reflects ‘investment’,
when a “lag” is put in, as below
But it is uneven. For the
worse-off fifth:
Women +5%, Men +4%
However, geographical differences in the trend are
much more important. The overall rise in Yorkshire
for all groups is just 4% in the last five years. To
those regions and sexes that have, more is given.
And – we have managed to create a system that still causes
great distress – possibly most distress to those at the top…
“Bright pupils are rejected
in scramble for university”
The Times Newspaper on April 10th reported on Florence MacKenzie who they
described as “upset and angry”. Their reported continued: ‘Universities would have
fought over Florence MacKenzie, 18, in previous years. On course to achieve A and A*
grades in her A levels, she has straight A*s in her nine GCSEs, plays hockey for her
school, and is Grade 8 at piano and violin. She and her parents were baffled when she
was rejected by three of her five chosen universities. Florence, from Banbury, is happy
with her place studying English at University College London, but was turned down by
Edinburgh, St Andrews and Durham. All are popular universities, hugely oversubscribed
for her chosen subject, allowing them to be extremely picky. Edinburgh allocated 70 per
cent of places on a points system that favoured teenagers from poor schools, those
whose parents did not go to university, or those from Scotland or northern England.
Florence goes to an independent girls’ school in Warwick so did not qualify. It set a hurdle
of 11 GCSEs at A* to qualify for the remaining 30 per cent of places, but many schools
(including Florence’s) do not set this many. She said: “I was very keen on Edinburgh and
upset when rejected by them — angry as well after I found out the reasons why. I don’t
think it’s a fair way of doing it, they should interview like other universities.” As many as
25 candidates are pursuing each place on popular courses at leading universities.’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article7093817.ece
So, what is
happening?
Consider a very
crude map of
inequality in
access
S. Yorks.
Banbury
Source:
“Human
Geography of
the UK” (2005)
pages 33-47 (&
next slides)
Human Geography
Landscapes:
Crude models predicting access
You can predict how many you
people will go to university from
each area by knowing their social
class background.
However there are geographical
effects above this. Living in an area
where it has become usual to go to
university, for from which
youngsters want to escape more
increases their chances of attending
beyond the effects of social class
and vice versa (Latin also puts
children with usual backgrounds off
places that reveal in using it…)
http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/hg
uk/chapter1.htm
Figure 1.7:
People under 21 attending university by social class (%)
All social classes
V: Unskilled
IV: Partly skilled
IIIM: Skilled manual
1998/99
IIINM: Skilled non-manual
1991/92
II: Intermediate
I: Professional
0
20
40
60
80
Consider a
crude indicator
of access
inequality
beyond class
S. Yorks.
Banbury
Source:
http://www.sasi.group.shef.
ac.uk/hguk/chapter1.htm
4% - -4% = 8% gap
“beyond class” For
every 12 children 1
extra in S. Yorks.
.does not go to uni.
Consider South Yorkshire and in
particular Sheffield – why the gap?
And why the dramatic reduction?
SHEFFIELD
Attercliffe
Brightside
Central
Hallam
Heeley
Hillsborough
TOTAL
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
1,075
1,285
1,215
1,225
1,315
1,410
1,450
1,545
1,600
1,660
1,670
1,695
710
855
770
765
800
885
890
935
1,045
1,135
1,205
1,355
2,370
2,860
2,590
2,575
2,665
2,825
2,860
2,895
2,970
3,050
3,155
3,245
3,415
4,120
3,605
3,610
3,720
3,720
3,600
3,505
3,585
3,680
3,550
3,660
1,370
1,635
1,575
1,605
1,595
1,705
1,720
1,750
1,715
1,760
1,745
1,895
1,955
2,280
2,155
2,130
2,240
2,425
2,540
2,505
2,510
2,490
2,495
2,645
10,895 13,035 11,910 11,910 12,335 12,970 13,060 13,135 13,425 13,775 13,820 14,495
change to 09/10
98/99 - 99/00 -
58
91
37
7
38
35
33
32%
58%
13%
-11%
16%
16%
11%
Source:
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) Student Record
Notes:
 Figures are based on a HESA snapshot population as at 31st December and have been rounded to the nearest five
 Covers postgraduate and undergraduate enrolments of all ages to full-time and part-time courses
 Figures for each Constituency do not include enrolments where the Constituency of the student cannot be established due to missing or
invalid postcode information.
 Excludes the Open University
17 MARCH 2010
Government has
very scant data
• Higher Education: Sheffield (PQ 29 March 2010) – Extract:
Mr. Betts: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how
many and what proportion of young people in (a) each Sheffield constituency and (b) the
City of Sheffield have entered higher education in each year since 1998. [323761]
Mr. Lammy [holding answer 25 March 2010]: The numbers of young (under 21)
undergraduate entrants, from the Sheffield constituencies of Attercliffe, Brightside,
Central, Hallam, Heeley and Hillsborough and Sheffield local authority, are provided in
the following table. Figures are provided for the academic years 1998/99 to 2008/09.
Percentage change in young undergraduate entrants: 1998/99 to 2008/09Change
(percentage)Sheffield Attercliffe+74Sheffield Brightside+91Sheffield Central+78Sheffield
Hallam+12Sheffield Heeley+44Sheffield Hillsborough+53Sheffield local authority+46
The Department does not collect data on the number of residents in a particular area who are
not in higher education, which would be necessary to calculate a proportion. It is,
therefore, not possible to calculate the proportion of young people in each Sheffield
constituency and Sheffield local authority who have entered higher education in each
year since 1998.
• http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100329/text/100329w0
054.htm#10033012005640
The next five slides consider trends
in Sheffield by area – and division
Educational divides for the lucky may
be narrowing but other gaps growing
Source: “ The Sheffield Project” (2009, Shef. Uni.) (& next slides)
Between dental record at age 5 and
school records from age 11, inequalities
are most starkly shown by RTA:
Sheffield: Road traffic casualties
2005–2007: children aged 0–10
Brightside
Attercliffe
Central
Heeley
Hillsborough
Hallam
69
67
54
42
30
11
Next slide: from age 15 we can forecast futures
By home
location at
age 15
All this results
in polarisation
in youth
National modal
age (16-24):
[ the Pied Piper of
London? ]
Sources: “Identity in Britain”
(2007) pages 105-122 (next
slides)
The children
taken by the
Pied Piper of
London may
be too old
when it comes
to playing with
their
grandchildren.
Britain can
be seen
as a city
with
quarters
and its
hinterland
Oxford NW,
‘professional’
by label.
A memory test:
Oxford
North
West:
Prof./
Elem.!
1st / 2nd
most
common
jobs
‘bedder’ = Elementary
When talking where I live and where I am
from…
A way forward – given the funding
review - please think more local
• One tangible geographical step forward
from abstract wishes is to consider your
local area – what happened to the
chances of the great great grandchildren
of those who paid their penny subscription
to build a university in Sheffield?
• Or, in Oxford, to those hundreds of
thousands of children of the ‘bedders’
When talking where I live and where I am
from… (Oxford also sits in a low part. Area)
HEFCE benchmarks ignore
geography (as they stand), thus:
In 2009 Sheffield appeared in 2nd place
amongst Russell Group (+ York = RGY)
Universities in how it was taking 8.2% of
students from low participation
neighbourhoods (target was 7.1%). But
the university sits on the edge of one of
the largest ‘seas’ of such neighbourhoods.
Its rank out of all universities was 66th.
Geography
matters: Look at
the proportions
attending private
schools at age
15
2% in S.
Yorks.
Banbury:
9%+
Source:
http://www.sasi.group.shef.a
c.uk/hguk/chapter1.htm
When talking of where I live and where I am
from… Oxford takes far more from the 7%
From state schools or colleges
Sheffield has risen from 4th to 3rd placed
amongst RGY universities (85th
amongst all England’s in taking 85.7%
from state schools given a benchmark
of 81.5% (note 93% of all children go).
But this is hardly surprising given its
geography – in a “state school sea”.
For every child in Britain that attends a private school (7%)
Sheffield takes – pro rata – two children (14.3% of entry).
When talking where I live and where I am
from… in Oxford ‘choice’ is often private
Parents from working classes
Of the RGY universities Sheffield is 7th by
social class origin of parents, taking 20.7%
of “NSEC 4-7”, benchmark 22.9%, full
English ranking 93rd. Proportion slipping
from 21.3% in 2008, but rank not slipping
as the source class group shrinks. All
unsurprising. Northern upper-middle class
parents use state schools far more.
Are we hitting many targets but missing the point?
Conclusions
• Try to think outside of RGY and outside
2010 (Russell Group + York)
• Do think of the people of Sheffield, Oxford,
or wherever; not an abstract
• It may be harder then to be too
complacent? To tell others to try harder?
• Who needs to ‘Dream bigger dreams’? –
‘us’ or ‘them’. Are universities the problem?
• Whose dreams are bigger in the first place?
Its elitism simply complacent?
Further reading if interested:
The return to elitism in education, Soundings, Issue 44, March 2010:
“A society's attitudes to innate intelligence are closely correlated with its levels of
inequality, writes Danny Dorling. In Britain, the backlash against comprehensive
education has created a market-based system in which schools and universities
compete for money and students”. http://www.eurozine.com/authors/dorling.html
With Ben Hennig, (2010). Angles, Saxons, Inequality, and Educational
Mobility in England and Germany, Social Europe Journal, Online Debate Article.
http://www.social-europe.eu/category/good-society-debate/
Tall tales and ripping yarns (2010) Adults Learning Magazine, an article on why
inequality persists, and what can education do to challenge it
http://www.niace.org.uk/publications/adults-learning