Triennial Review. Recommendations

Transcription

1 AIC/16/13 Agenda Item 9 24 May 2016 Triennial Review This paper provides the Committee with an initial draft of the triennial review, informs them of next steps in developing the draft and asks the Committee s advice on finalising the review. Recommendations Consider and agree to the key findings, next steps and SFC actions. Advise the executive on any additional key messages members identify on reading the initial draft of the review or any gaps in our analysis. Suggest the action required to make further progress in widening access on the basis of the findings of the review. Suggest any further areas that should be considered beyond those already within the review and the gaps identified above. Suggest where the executive might find further qualitative evidence for use in determining best practice for enhancing access to colleges. Advise on how best SFC might engage with both sectors (beyond the groups identified above) to ensure the review is both challenging yet accepted. Financial implications There are no direct financial implications of this review.

2

3 Triennial Review Purpose 1. This paper provides the Committee with an initial draft of the triennial review, informs them of next steps in developing the draft and asks the Committee s advice on finalising the review. Background 2. The Committee was given the full background to the triennial review in September 2014 (AIC 14 10) and agreed to the approach and structure of the review in May 2015 (AIC/15/12) advising: Of the importance of the review identifying and filling any data gaps and the need to prioritise data over anecdotal evidence On the importance of capturing external data, where possible, to see where there are overlaps and/or possibility of joint working That analysis at a regional level and by type of institution was necessary to complete the picture and identify any stumbling blocks, specifically on articulation to higher education That the review should be used to encourage colleges and universities to consider further opportunities for joint working, including extending articulation and better communicating the possible routes through education to young people The review should be used to highlight the key features of good practice in widening access, specifically work on articulation. 3. Given the duty placed on SFC to conduct a review of widening access every three years from the date of the Post-16 Education Scotland Act coming into force, we need to send the review to the relevant bodies (as outlined in Annex A) by 7 August Current context 4. It is important that this first review provides a framework which can be built on for future triennial reviews, as well as to help shape our future access policy. Nevertheless, the Committee were informed within AIC/15/12 of how the triennial review (which covers both colleges and universities) would need to align with the Commission on Widening Access (covering Higher Education) in terms of content and timing. With the Government yet to formally respond on the Commission s recommendations, we have developed this review to align with the recommendations as much as possible, notwithstanding the difficulty of anticipating the Government s response. 1

4 5. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has also announced that if re-elected the SNP would support recommendation 1 of the report which was to appoint an Access Commissioner. This means that the implementation of the recommendations both from the Commission, this review and SFC s ongoing role in relation to access, will need to align with developing plans for the Commissioner. The requirement to produce a triennial review precedes the establishment of the Commission so it is possible that the Government may wish to consider the future of triennial reviews in the light of the Commission s report. Following discussion at the Committee we will also consider the extent to which the review should report on areas that are already covered by the Commission s report. Summary of review: structure, key findings and recommendations 6. Annex A of this paper contains the Introduction to the review as well as section one, outlining the key quantitative data to determine what progress colleges and universities are making to widen access to fundable higher and further education. 7. This tells us that for colleges: Colleges across Scotland are succeeding in delivering provision to those from the most deprived areas of Scotland. Through Outcome Agreements, SFC is likely to continue to focus our efforts on those regions where there are a high proportion of the local population within the 10% most deprived communities of Scotland and where this proportion is not reflected in a College s intake. There is more work to do however to ensure support is in place for specific groups (by protected characteristic and care experience) and to identify how these characteristics intersect with socioeconomic background to create inequitable educational outcomes. For the final report we will also include an analysis of the successful completion rates by protected characteristics to mirror the retention analysis completed for universities. In equality terms Annex A outlines good representation by ethnicity and gender (at an intake level) but under representation by disability. It also outlines over-representation of younger students which is perhaps to be expected given the nature of the provision and the current strategic focus on younger students as per the Scottish Government s Opportunity for All. 8. This tells us that for universities: Whilst over the past four years there has been a gradual increase in both the number and proportion of undergraduate entrants to university coming from Scotland s most deprived areas, it is clear that the Commission s targets are unlikely to be met at the current rate of progress particularly if doing so 2

5 implies a substantial degree of displacement. Aligned with the recommendations of the Commission and this review, SFC will use Outcome Agreements to drive enhanced progress. A positive picture of the retention rates by protected characteristic but a need to deepen this analysis to understand the intersectionality of protected characteristics and its impact on retention rates such as socio-economic background and gender. In equality terms Annex A outlines good representation by ethnicity but under representation of males (which worsens when we look at deprivation) and disability. It also outlines over-representation of younger students which is perhaps to be expected given the nature of the provision. Interestingly the analysis also shows that students from the most deprived communities are more likely to be aged 21 or over. Students aged 21 or over also have lower retention rates than those aged under Annexes B I contain Section 2 of the review. It outlines qualitative evidence on good practice and compares it with practice currently in place across Scotland. It seeks to highlight the gaps and make recommendations for improvement. This section is split into chapters. 10. For colleges this includes one chapter on admissions and one on success and progression. As can be seen from the draft report we have significantly less qualitative evidence to draw on from the college sector. This is due to less research being available and because the Commission s work has generated significant volumes of evidence in relation to, predominately, the university sector. This makes the report seem unbalanced and could be read to imply that the SFC have focussed more on the university sector. This is not the case: the SFC executive is keen to seek the Committee s advice on how to manage this possible perception. The AIC is also asked to note that we will update this annex with the findings of the ELS review which was recently published. 11. For universities this includes seven chapters on the following themes: evaluation and research; admissions; data and measures; outreach; articulation and progression; strategic arrangements and interventions; supporting the student journey. Given the large range of stakeholders with which the Commission engaged, we have tried to use the evidence generated by the Commission to inform our findings. 12. A helpful finding which came out of Annex C is that a major barrier to identifying what works in widening access is a lack of evaluation of projects and this was confirmed during our examination of projects during the Commission. The SFC executive do not feel this applies to our main access initiatives such as SHEP, SWAP and AHDP as they commit to long term monitoring and evaluation as part of our funding and this is reported to the AIC. However, it is perhaps true of the one-off projects we have funded as although we may have an 3

6 evaluation of the project it is usually just after the project has ended and tells us little of the long term impact of the intervention. It is also suggested that this lack of evaluation has also resulted in a lack of concrete evidence on what works in the college sector. 13. The Committee is also asked to note Annex E which concurs with the finding of the Commission report that SIMD is the most suitable measure of disadvantage for the purposes of measuring progress and setting targets but that additional measures can help with decisions about individuals and the support they require. It also outlines that we will continue to work with Universities Scotland to build on earlier work to discuss these measures and how they can be used to demonstrate individual institutions impact in access. 14. Annex I also outlines an overarching finding which could apply to both sectors in that both the quantitative and qualitative evidence research analysed indicates a tendency for us to consider as protected characteristics together and for access projects to be fairly universal rather than specifically targeted to a clearly identified group of individuals with a common barrier or need. We suggest that going forward we need to enhance this by analysing our data in more depth including the intersectionality between groups and by making sure access initiatives are clearly defined and targeted. The Committee has already been adopting this approach through its review of both the regional coherence fund and SHEP by setting out key priorities. Main findings for colleges 15. Findings include: Good representation particularly from the most deprived communities and a direction of travel away from first come first served to selection criteria aligned to the curriculum requirements. Despite this good representation, more could be done to contextualise applications from deprived communities to enhance the likelihood of an accepted application and to improve their successful completion rates which are consistently lower. Two key factors in this are outlined as a need for early interventions and the impact of poverty on a student s likelihood of success. Good support systems for students with declared additional needs but regional difficulties in transitional arrangements and data sharing. The ELS review and the Education Scotland findings also identify an over reliance on the declaration of additional need rather than an inclusive approach which incorporates an assumption of need. A wealth of data within the sector which is not consistently used to best effect in terms of understanding, identifying and addressing inequalities and in identifying improvements in successful completions. This is particularly 4

7 the case when considering the inter-connection between protected characteristics. The need for more research on the reasons for drop-out rates by protected characteristic to enable the development and implementation of early intervention strategies. The need for a holistic approach with all staff to supporting students and tackling drop-out rates including attendance monitoring, inclusive teaching approaches and student engagement and feedback. In contrast to the retention rates in the university sector, the college sector successful completion rates improve according to each age group and are consistently higher with more mature learners. 16. Next steps to enhance practice include: More detailed understanding of the impact of poverty on success rates at colleges. To understand and promote good practice in relation to early interventions including a more sophisticated understanding of the reasons for drop out by protected characteristic and their inter-connections. 17. Specific actions for SFC include: Consulting with colleges on their approaches to considering applications. Replacing the previous ELS claims based process for meeting the additional needs of students with an Access and Inclusion Fund which will seek to support need through both inclusive and personalised approaches. Main findings for universities 18. Findings include: A need to move towards more sustained intervention with younger children and their families and teachers. Interventions should be sustained throughout an individual s learner journey, with more emphasis given to progression. Outreach to engage with mature learners more consistently. There is potential for better sharing of information, approach and collaboration at a strategic level. This was particularly felt to be the case for articulation (see Annex G). There is a need for a national understanding of the variety of outreach programmes, interventions and projects on offer to access students. This finding is also confirmed by the recommendations of the Commission. Interventions need to be more targeted and tailored to tackling the particular barriers to participation in outreach and progression certain groups may face. 5

8 The needs of different groups need to be more clearly understood recognising how socioeconomic background can intersect with other protected characteristics to require different outreach approaches. For example, higher education providers should seek to develop outreach programmes that are sensitive to the needs of different genders. There is room for further engagement of students in the development and delivery of outreach both of strategic approaches and specific activities. A need to develop a more consistent and evidence approach to contextualised admissions including the use of non-academic factors (see Annex D). 19. Next steps to enhance practice include: Refining measures used to track progress in widening access including enhancing partnership between different data providers as well as enhancing evaluation of different approaches to assess what works. Ensuring regional alignment between universities and colleges to support the senior phase and to develop parity of esteem between the different pathways, including apprenticeships. Ensuring greater alignment between policy to drive equality and diversity and that which drives widening access by socioeconomic deprivation. Enhancing collaboration across education and with other sectors. 20. Specific actions for SFC include: Exploring with partners in other areas of the education system, the feasibility of developing a set of principles around the learner journey, from nursery onwards. Finalising a 10 year strategy for articulation (which incorporates colleges and universities). Working with both the college and university sector to better understand the impact of a reducing population of school leavers and develop policy accordingly. Assessing the effectiveness at engaging and supporting mature learners. Developing our expectations in Outcome Agreements to reflect the findings of this review. 21. In addition, following the Government response to the Commission s recommendations, we will explore how best to: monitor how institutions core funding is used to support access review the best use of our funds to deliver the Commission s recommendations 6

9 develop options for more targeted funding to better support recruitment and retention of access students. Main findings from SFC initiatives and projects 22. Annex J contains an overview of SFC strategic investments in access and next steps to develop policy. This includes the Impact for Access fund programme devised to inform the triennial review. This section does not include next steps and SFC actions as the actions have already been taken or they are covered in earlier points. 23. Findings include: Evidence that the regional coherence approach adopted in has had an impact on retention rates at the institutions receiving these funds and that this has achieved significant access outcomes. Evidence that SHEP is effective. The fuller triennial review also indicates that the Committees recent decision to prioritise the work of SHEP to enable a tiered approach with more intensive interventions where the need is greatest is the correct approach. A need to reconsider the use of low progression as a way of identifying schools to work with. Research from the Impact for Access Funds and the Commission suggests that this in or out approach can be detrimental and recommends that it is widen out to cover other widening access criteria. The need for more longitudinal tracking and evaluation of projects, this work should also consider gender and their perception of subject areas at key decision points. The need to engage with school pupils from P7 onwards rather than only in the Senior Phase. Aligning with research from the college side, that long term widening access achievements only happen when the full college and university staff are engaged with it as a strategy. The development of all staff in this is crucial to ensure all students progress and enjoy successful transitions. This development should also consider how to identify talent beyond examination grades. A need co-ordinate and promote access activities across Scotland. A need for more evidence and investment in understanding the access issues relating to getting on post college or university. 1 Please note that these funds were formerly known as Widening Access and Retention Funds and they were allocated to all universities. In 2011 a decision was taken to allocate them to specific institutions that had higher levels of access students and lower retention rates. 7

10 24. The Committee is asked to: consider and agree to the key findings, next steps and SFC actions highlight any additional key messages that stand out to them on reading the initial draft of the review or gaps in our analysis suggest the action required to make further progress in widening access across higher and further education. Current gaps 25. We are still working to develop the following areas within the review: Recommendations: each chapter of the review has a Next Steps section, there is further work required to develop the recommendations contained within. Section 3 of the review and an executive summary of the review: both will pull together sections 1 and 2 and signal our overall direction of travel the so what factor. College Performance Indicators: there was a change in the methodology used to determine the College PIs for AY which delayed any trend analysis. Colleagues have now resolved this and we will pull out the key trends in time for the final review in the summer. Applications: information on applications is not held centrally for colleges, but for universities we will endeavour to pull out the key themes through using UCAS data. Destinations: We are working on developing the analysis of destinations for universities. For colleges, the results of the first College Leaver Destinations survey were published in December 2015 for AY We will pull out the high level findings but they currently do not differentiate by anything other than age, highlighting destinations for those between We will continue to develop the survey to refine and extend the use of data linkage to improve the completeness and robustness of these data. This includes making links with data on protected characteristics and socioeconomic background. Annexes: these will contain detail on all the data summarised within Section 1 of the review. Bibliography: outlining all references and evidence used in the review. 26. As outlined earlier, we are very aware that there is a significant imbalance within section 2 of the review between colleges and universities with the evidence to support good practice within colleges significantly lacking in comparison to the wealth of evidence on good practice for universities (in terms of published research and the evidence generated by the Commission). We have sought evidence from the Equality Impact Assessment on Developing 8

11 Scotland s Young Workforce and the associated sources it used, the Equality Challenge Unit, College Development Network and Education Scotland. We recognise that part of this imbalance is due to the different nature of widening access to college as opposed to university but we are still concerned by the extent of the imbalance and how this may be interpreted. 27. The Committee is asked to suggest: any further areas that should be considered beyond those already within the review and the gaps identified above where we might find further qualitative evidence for use in determining best practice for enhancing access to colleges. Next steps 28. We will work to finish the review by filling the gaps identified above; finalising the chapters and bring the recommendations together into a final section. We will also consider how we create a report that is complementary to the Commission on Widening Access s report rather than replicating parts of it. We would suggest we share the final report with Colleges Scotland, Universities Scotland and then informally with the Scottish Government before formally sharing it with all necessary stakeholders as specified under the act. 29. The Committee is asked to advise how best to engage with both sectors (beyond the groups identified above) to ensure the review is both challenging yet accepted. Risk assessment 30. The triennial review is a statutory duty. The primary risk is failing to publish it in time. Whilst there are still gaps, we believe there is a low risk that this will occur, although with the unknown timescales around implementing the recommendations of the Commission, there is a risk that the review gets delayed amongst competing priorities. We are mindful of this and are working to ensure a timely publication. 31. The recommendations of the review are aligned with those outlined by the Commission and so there is a low risk that they are received negatively or that the discussions around the implementations of the Commission s recommendations impact adversely on the review. 32. The review requires SFC to take a stronger role in making any recommendations for action in consequence of the conclusions it has drawn within the review. There is a reputational risk in taking this role and in getting the balance right the review must be challenging but accepted by the sectors. 9

12 Equality and diversity assessment 33. This review has outlined the progress of both sectors in widening access to higher and further education not just by socioeconomic background but where possible also by protected characteristic and the intersection between the two. 34. We have not included all protected characteristics as the data collected for both universities and colleges is not sufficient to enable that to happen, but we are working to enhance this and more information on this work can be found in our annual update to the Council Board on Equality and Diversity here. 35. Before any specific recommendation from the review was taken forward we would assess any impact it might have on other protected characteristics and move to mitigate any negative impact in implementing the recommendation. Financial implications 36. There are no direct financial implications of this review. Recommendations 37. The Committee is invited to: Consider and agree to the key findings, next steps and SFC actions. Advise the executive on any additional key messages members identify on reading the initial draft of the review or any gaps in our analysis. Suggest the action required to make further progress in widening access on the basis of the findings of the review. Suggest any further areas that should be considered beyond those already within the review and the gaps identified above. Suggest where the executive might find further qualitative evidence for use in determining best practice for enhancing access to colleges. Advise on how best SFC might engage with both sectors (beyond the groups identified above) to ensure the review is both challenging yet accepted. Publication 38. This paper will be published on the Council website. Further information 39. Contact: Rachel Adamson, Senior Policy and Analysis Officer, , 10