Impact of IOE research on higher education participation and funding

<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>IOE</strong> <strong>research</strong> on higher
education participation and funding
May 2012

<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>IOE</strong> <strong>research</strong> on higher
education participation and funding
Why this <strong>research</strong> is
highly significant
The <strong>IOE</strong> has created a critical body
<strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> which has improved
our understanding <strong>of</strong> who goes on
to higher education. The Institute’s
<strong>research</strong>ers have calculated the
chances <strong>of</strong> young people from different
socio-economic backgrounds winning
a university place, and have measured
the impact <strong>of</strong> funding changes on
HE participation.
These two projects (see side bar),
which also involved colleagues from
the Institute for Fiscal Studies, are
significant because they have informed
government decisions on HE funding
(via the Browne Review 1 , published
in October 2010, and the subsequent
White Paper, published in June 2011 2 ).
Dearden’s work helped to persuade
the Government that sufficient loans
and grants need to be available from
autumn 2012 to ensure that students
from disadvantaged backgrounds are
not deterred by higher fees. Meanwhile,
the <strong>research</strong> led by Anna Vignoles has
influenced the shape <strong>of</strong> the national
debate on widening participation and
has triggered the launch <strong>of</strong> a successful
website that is helping teenagers to
make more informed choices about HE.
It has also encouraged policymakers to
recognise the importance <strong>of</strong> providing
school students with improved
information, advice and guidance
on how to reach university. 3
Background to the <strong>research</strong>
Both pieces <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> were
prompted by two policy trends:
• the ongoing effort to find ways
to finance HE that place a greater
cost burden on graduates, with
potential implications for student
participation rates
• the increasing concern about social
mobility and the desire to provide
better access to HE for people from
disadvantaged backgrounds.
How the studies were conducted
Both studies used quantitative <strong>research</strong>
methods applied to a mix <strong>of</strong> survey and
administrative data.
Project 1: <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> fees, loans and
grants on HE participation
The <strong>research</strong> on HE funding changes
relied on data for 1992-2007 gathered
by the UK Labour Force Survey
(LFS) 4 . There were several significant
developments in HE finance during
this period. The introduction <strong>of</strong> upfront
tuition fees and the abolition
<strong>of</strong> maintenance grants in 1998 was
followed eight years later by a shift
to higher deferred fees and the
reinstatement <strong>of</strong> maintenance grants
(see ‘Tuition fees – the story so far’,
overleaf, for more information on this
issue). The <strong>research</strong>ers used the LFS data
to consider how changes in the funding
regime affected participation in HE.
The data also enabled them to examine
the impact <strong>of</strong> the 2012 reforms on the
distribution <strong>of</strong> graduates and calculate
fee and maintenance loan repayment
schedules under the new system.
Project 2: Widening participation
in higher education
This work used an innovative ‘linked’
administrative data set which consisted
<strong>of</strong> records from the Department
for Education, the Department for
Who conducted
this <strong>research</strong>?
Pr<strong>of</strong>essors Lorraine
Dearden and Anna
Vignoles <strong>of</strong> the
Department <strong>of</strong>
Quantitative Social
Science, Institute <strong>of</strong>
Education, led this
<strong>research</strong>. It also involved
Claire Crawford (<strong>research</strong>
<strong>of</strong>ficer) and Gill Wyness
(PhD student).
Who provided
the funding?
Project 1: <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> fees,
loans and grants on HE
participation (September
2006 to September 2009)
This project was funded
by the Department for
Education via the Centre
for the Economics <strong>of</strong>
Education and by the
Higher Education Funding
Council for England, via
the <strong>IOE</strong> scholarship
for Gill Wyness’s PhD
(circa £100,000 in total).
Project 2: Widening
participation in higher
education (January 2006
to December 2007)
The work on widening
participation was funded
by the Economic and
Social Research Council
under a large grant
<strong>of</strong> £306,777.
1

Case study on the impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>IOE</strong> <strong>research</strong>
Tuition fees – the story so far
Business, Innovation and Skills,
and the Higher Education Statistics
Agency. This English administrative
data helped the <strong>research</strong>ers to better
understand the determinants <strong>of</strong> HE
participation amongst individuals from
socio-economically disadvantaged
backgrounds. The study was unique
(and remains so) in being able to
follow two cohorts <strong>of</strong> students – those
who took GCSEs in 2001-02 and 2002-
03 – from age 11 to age 20. The data
allowed the <strong>research</strong> team to follow
these young people through the school
system and explore the determinants
<strong>of</strong> their HE participation from a
longitudinal perspective.
What the <strong>research</strong> discovered
The <strong>research</strong> on HE funding clearly
showed how government policy on
tuition fees policy can affect university
participation. It also demonstrated
that tuition fee levels can have a
crucial impact on human capital
accumulation. The <strong>research</strong> estimated
the separate impacts <strong>of</strong> tuition fees and
maintenance grants on the decision
to enter a UK university. It confirmed
that tuition fees have had a significant
negative effect on participation.
Dearden and her colleagues calculated
that a £1,000 increase in fees (at 2006
prices) would reduce participation rates
by 4 percentage points. A percentage
point reduction <strong>of</strong> this size across
Tuition fees were first introduced in the UK by the Labour government in
1998. They were payable upfront and means-tested according to parental
income, up to a maximum <strong>of</strong> £1,000 per year. Grants were subsequently
abolished, having been gradually phased out during the 1990s, and were
replaced by maintenance loans.
In 2006, upfront fees were also abolished and replaced by a deferred £3,000
fee – payable by all, regardless <strong>of</strong> parental income, but fully covered by a
fee loan. The loan is interest free and only payable after graduation (at a rate
<strong>of</strong> 9% <strong>of</strong> earnings once the graduate is earning £15,000 or more), and all
loans are written <strong>of</strong>f after 25 years. Grants were also increased at this time
(having been reintroduced in 2004) and maintenance loans extended. The
present tuition fee cap <strong>of</strong> £3,300 a year will be allowed to rise to £9,000 from
autumn 2012. Graduates will only start repaying the cost <strong>of</strong> their degrees
when their earnings reach £21,000 a year. They will pay 9 per cent <strong>of</strong> income
above this threshold.
all income groups would, in theory,
result in a disproportionate fall in the
number <strong>of</strong> students from low income
backgrounds. Their participation rate
would drop from 15 per cent to 11
per cent whereas the participation
rates for middle-income students
would fall from 18 per cent to 14 per
cent and for those from high-income
backgrounds from 30 per cent to 26
per cent. However, the <strong>research</strong>ers also
found that the increases in loans and
grants that generally accompany such
fee changes help to <strong>of</strong>fset most <strong>of</strong> this
negative impact. They calculated that
a £1,000 increase in non-repayable
support in the form <strong>of</strong> maintenance
grants results in a 2.6 percentage point
increase in participation.
These findings are comparable to,
but <strong>of</strong> a slightly lower magnitude
than, those produced by analyses <strong>of</strong>
HE funding in the US. It is, <strong>of</strong> course,
unlikely that these results will still hold
when applied to the 2012 increases.
But they do at least indicate that fee
increases have a negative effect
on participation.
The <strong>research</strong> into widening
participation in HE found that while
there are large gaps in participation
between high and low socio-economic
groups – especially at high-status
universities – thus far these have
generally arisen due to differences in
pupils’ prior attainment rather than
any financial or social barriers at the
point <strong>of</strong> entry to HE. Moreover, this
finding holds for both state and private
school pupils. This highlights the need
for intervention at an earlier age to
help disadvantaged pupils make good
choices at ages 14 and 16. This should
increase their chances <strong>of</strong> reaching
university, the <strong>research</strong> suggests.
How the <strong>research</strong>ers
disseminated the findings
The results from both projects were
disseminated through the normal
academic channels, including
conferences and journal articles.
2

Higher education participation and funding
However, given the huge policy relevance
<strong>of</strong> these studies, the <strong>research</strong>ers also
undertook a parallel set <strong>of</strong> activities to
ensure that policymakers, influential
opinion-formers, and the general public
were aware <strong>of</strong> their findings.
Media work
They mounted a concerted campaign
to get the media interested in their
work. This included direct contact with
specific education correspondents at
various national broadsheets. This, in
turn, led to interest in the findings from
radio broadcasters. This media activity,
which was primarily designed to reach
parents and teachers, led to:
• articles in the THE 5 and the
Independent 6
• several Radio 4 interviews, including
one for the Today programme, on
the impact <strong>of</strong> HE funding on
participation rates 7
• a presentation by Anna Vignoles at
the Guardian’s ‘summit’ conference
on the future <strong>of</strong> HE 8 . This event was
attended by David Willetts, Minister
<strong>of</strong> State for Universities and Science,
and Simon Hughes, deputy leader
<strong>of</strong> the Liberal Democrats.
Think tanks
Recognising that think tanks can play
an important role in disseminating
<strong>research</strong> to policymakers the <strong>IOE</strong>
<strong>research</strong>ers again targeted particular
organisations and went to talk to them
about their findings. For example, they
met with the Sutton Trust 9 to discuss
the implications <strong>of</strong> the <strong>research</strong> for
the then forthcoming Browne Review.
Policymakers and university bodies
The <strong>research</strong>ers also recognised that
they needed to take the message
directly into government. They did this
by presenting their findings at:
• the 2010 <strong>research</strong> conference <strong>of</strong> the
Department for Children, Schools
and Families
• the 2010 social and economic <strong>research</strong>
conference organised by
the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills.
They also disseminated their results in
informal meetings with policymakers
via their government-funded <strong>research</strong>
centre, the Centre for the Economics <strong>of</strong>
Education. The <strong>research</strong>ers then fed their
findings directly into the policymaking
process. Dearden and Wyness were
called before the Browne Review in
January 2010 10 . Dearden and Vignoles
also made presentations to the Review
in May 2010 11 and Vignoles advised the
Russell Group <strong>of</strong> universities 12 in the
lead-up to the Browne Review’s report.
Dearden and Wyness also provided
advice and a report to Universities
UK 13 on the implications <strong>of</strong> various
funding options in early 2010. The
organisation then used this to inform its
own submission to the Browne Review.
Most recently, Dearden was called as an
expert witness to a Business, Innovation
and Skills select committee hearing on
the future <strong>of</strong> higher education. 14
3

Case study on the impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>IOE</strong> <strong>research</strong>
educational attainment. It recognised
the importance <strong>of</strong> advice and guidance
in improving the choices students make
earlier in the school system in the 2011
HE White Paper.
<strong>Impact</strong> achieved by
these studies
These projects have had a significant
impact on government thinking on HE
funding and social mobility.
HE funding
The Government has recognised
that the impact <strong>of</strong> tuition fees can
be mitigated by income-contingent
loans and grants. Dearden was
involved in extensive discussions with
HM Treasury and ministerial advisers
in the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills prior to the
publication <strong>of</strong> the HE White Paper
in July 2011. The final decisions
about the financial package were
influenced by both the <strong>IOE</strong> <strong>research</strong>
and her direct inputs. She was
involved in independently verifying
the implications <strong>of</strong> different options
that ministers were considering – in
particular the consequences for students
from a range <strong>of</strong> backgrounds. Her
independent analysis was subsequently
described as “incredibly helpful” by
a senior government source. 15
Widening participation
The Government has also acknowledged
that the key to widening participation
in HE is earlier intervention and that
most <strong>of</strong> the problem <strong>of</strong> access by
poorer students is due to their prior
Meetings with senior politicians
Following the publication <strong>of</strong> the
White Paper, Vignoles and Crawford
were invited to a meeting with David
Willetts to discuss HE and social
mobility and were asked to produce a
review which then fed into the Cabinet
Office report on this issue. This report 16
quoted their social mobility review
extensively. Crawford and Vignoles have
also been involved in several <strong>of</strong> the
Government’s social mobility initiatives,
and have attended meetings with the
Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg
(June 8, 2011) and Alan Milburn in
his role as Independent Reviewer on
Social Mobility and Child Poverty
(July 21, 2011).
New website established
One <strong>of</strong> the tangible outcomes
<strong>of</strong> Vignoles’s work on widening
participation is bestCourse4me.com,
the not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it website that was set
up as a direct result <strong>of</strong> a presentation
she gave on her <strong>research</strong> in New York
in 2008 17 . She told her audience that,
if funding were available, someone
should set up a website to ensure that
young people were better informed
about their HE options. David Willetts
was at the conference and agreed that
this was an excellent way to start to
address the dearth <strong>of</strong> good information
available to potential students. With
his help a main sponsor for the site was
eventually found – the philanthropist
Steven Edwards, a former s<strong>of</strong>tware
entrepreneur. The site, which is also
backed by Micros<strong>of</strong>t, has broken new
ground because for the first time
data on employment, careers and
salaries are brought together in one
place to help students make the right
choice <strong>of</strong> institution and subject for
them. As David Willetts has said, it
provides “granular information on the
advantages <strong>of</strong> taking different courses
and going to different universities” 18 .
The website was mentioned specifically
4

Higher education participation and funding
in the 2011 HE White Paper. Since its
launch, the site has attracted more
than 82,500 unique users and in the
six months to November 2011 it saw
an 88 per cent increase in ‘traffic’
compared to the same period <strong>of</strong> 2010.
Steven Edwards acknowledges that
Anna Vignoles has played a key role in
the site’s success: “She has been very
important in the development <strong>of</strong> the
bestCourse4me website, from initially
proposing the idea through support
and advice on identifying the best and
most practical data sets, to valuable
guidance on the best way <strong>of</strong> presenting
the information to educationally
disadvantaged students,” he said.
“The site would not exist without her
contribution and continues to benefit
significantly from her involvement 19 .”
Other testimonials: Vignoles has also
briefed some <strong>of</strong> the key organisations
involved in promoting social mobility
through HE, such as the Bridge Group.
Dr Tessa Stone, chair <strong>of</strong> this association’s
steering group, confirmed that her
advisory work has proved influential.
Dr Stone recently issued a statement
thanking Anna Vignoles for her advice
on the data issues that need to be
resolved in order to improve our
understanding <strong>of</strong> social mobility. She
then added: “I summarised your points
for Alan Milburn who I know has used
them to underpin his discussions with
UCAS 20 and with the universities he is
visiting, and they’ve been extremely
helpful in informing the considerations
<strong>of</strong> the Bridge Group’s expert group on
data, which is lobbying on the same
sort <strong>of</strong> issues.”
The Sutton Trust, another organisation
that is highly active in this policy area,
has also confirmed the importance <strong>of</strong>
Vignoles’s work. Dr Lee Elliot Major,
its <strong>research</strong> director, recently said 21 :
“The <strong>research</strong> Anna Vignoles has done
for us has been highly influential on
higher education policy thinking
in Government and elsewhere –
detailing the extent to which university
participation rates are driven by prior
school attainment, and demonstrating
the need for informed choice for
prospective students.”
Conceptual impact
The impacts <strong>of</strong> the <strong>research</strong> by Dearden
and Vignoles referred to up to this point
can be categorised as “instrumental” (i.e.
5

Case study on the impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>IOE</strong> <strong>research</strong>
directly i influencing changes in policy
or practice) 22 . However, as the ESRC has
pointed out, social science <strong>research</strong>
can also have conceptual impacts
(including informing debates, directions
in thinking and culture that lead to
developments in policy and practice).
This is the case with the <strong>IOE</strong> <strong>research</strong>
on widening participation, as the Times
Higher Education has acknowledged. An
article that the magazine published on
the issue in February 2010 23 pointed out
that for years schools had claimed that
university admission arrangements were
biased against state school students
while top universities had retorted
that they admitted a disproportionate
number <strong>of</strong> independent school students
simply because they were more
qualified. The article’s author then added:
“But there are signs that the debate is
shifting. The publication <strong>of</strong> one piece <strong>of</strong>
<strong>research</strong> in particular, which shows that
attainment is the key to university entry,
has been key … [this showed that] once
academic achievement has been taken
into account, pupils from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds were more or
less equally likely to go to university as
their more advantaged peers, and to an
institution <strong>of</strong> equal status.”
Closing reflections
The timing <strong>of</strong> the <strong>IOE</strong> <strong>research</strong> on HE
funding and participation was certainly
fortuitous in terms <strong>of</strong> being able to
have a direct impact on government
policy. Key policy questions prompted
the <strong>research</strong> in the first place and hence
findings were relevant and timely.
That said, the extensive dissemination
activities that the <strong>research</strong>ers
undertook to promote this work also
played an extremely important role in
ensuring its influence. n
6

Higher education participation and funding
Further reading
Outputs from the projects include:
Chowdry, H., Crawford, C., Dearden, L,
Goodman, A. and Vignoles A. (2010)
‘Widening participation in higher
education: analysis using linked
administrative data’, Institute for Fiscal
Studies working paper, http://www.ifs.
org.uk/publications/4817.
Chowdry, H., Dearden, L. and Wyness,
G. (2010), ‘Higher education reforms:
progressive but complicated with an
unwelcome incentive’, IFS Briefing
Notes, BN113. http://www.ifs.org.uk/
publications/5366
Crawford, C., Chowdry, C., Vignoles, A.,
Powdthavee, N., Goodman, A., Machin,
S., McNally, S., Hussain, I., Gibbons,
S. and Telhaj, S. (2008) Widening
participation in Higher Education: a
quantitative analysis - TLRP Research
Briefing 39, (London, TLRP) http://
www.tlrp.org/dspace/retrieve/3696/
Vignoles+RB+39+FINAL.pdf.
Dearden, L., Fitzsimons, E. and Wyness,
G. (2011), ‘The impact <strong>of</strong> tuition fees and
support on university’, CEE discussion
paper no. 126, July. http://cee.lse.ac.uk/
ceedps/ceedp126.pdf
Vignoles, A. and Powdthavee, N. (2009)
“The socioeconomic gap in university
dropouts,” The B.E. Journal <strong>of</strong> Economic
Analysis & Policy: Vol. 9 : Iss. 1 (Topics),
Article 19. DOI: 10.2202/1935-1682.2051
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/
bejeap/vol9/iss1/art19.--
i

Case study on the impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>IOE</strong> <strong>research</strong>
Notes
1 More formally known as the
Independent Review <strong>of</strong> Higher
Education Funding and Student Finance
2 Higher Education: Students at the
Heart <strong>of</strong> the System, Cm 8122. London:
Stationery Office http://c561635.r35.cf2.
rackcdn.com/11-944-WP-students-atheart.pdf
3 Ibid.
4 The Labour Force Survey is
a quarterly sample survey <strong>of</strong> UK
households that is conducted by
the Office for National Statistics. It
provides information on the labour
market that can be used to develop,
manage, evaluate and report on
government policies.
5 Attwood, R., “Mind the gap”, Times
Higher Education, February 25, 2010.
6 Hodges, L., “New website gives
wannabe students vital information
about drop-out rates and earnings”,
Independent, March 18, 2010.
7 December 9, 2010.
8 March 16, 2011 http://www.
guardian.co.uk/higher-education/
speakers-list?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
9 May 4, 2010
10 Lorraine Dearden’s presentation
to the Browne Review on January 28,
2010 can be viewed here http://vimeo.
com/9291214
11 The presentation that
Anna Vignoles made to
the Browne Review on May 21, 2010 is
at http://vimeo.com/12289278
13 Universities UK is the representative
organisation for the UK’s universities.
14 May 17, 2011.
15 The comment was made in a private
email exchange between Pr<strong>of</strong>essor
Dearden and the government <strong>of</strong>ficial.
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Dearden has retained the
correspondence.
16 Government Social Mobility
Strategy, (2011) Opening doors –
breaking barriers, http://download.
cabinet<strong>of</strong>fice.gov.uk/social-mobility/
opening-doors-breaking-barriers.pdf
17 She addressed a conference
sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation
<strong>of</strong> New York and the Sutton Trust, which
took place between June 1 and 3, 2008.
18 “Help for young people in the
recession”, speech by David Willetts,
January 9, 2009.
19 Comments made in an
email exchange.
20 The Universities and Colleges
Admissions Service is the organisation
responsible for managing applications
to higher education courses in the UK.
21 Email correspondence.
22 This classification system was
developed by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Sandra Nutley
See: Nutley, S., Walter, I., Davis, H. (2007)
Using Evidence. How Research can Inform
Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.
23 Attwood, R., “Mind the gap”, Times
Higher Education, February 25, 2010.
12 The Russell Group represents 20
leading UK universities.
ii