widening participation in higher education: a …/file/anna-slides.pdf · widening participation in...
TRANSCRIPT
Widening Participation in Higher Education: Analysis using Linked Admin Data
Institute of Education Institute for Fiscal Studies
Centre for Economic Performance
Research Team
Haroon ChowdryClaire Crawford
Lorraine DeardenAlissa GoodmanAnna Vignoles
Background and Motivation
• Rapid expansion of HE in the UK– 43% of 17-30 year olds participated in 2005-06
• But widening participation still cause for concern– Socio-economic gap in HE participation appeared to
widen in mid to late 1990s • Blanden & Machin (2004); Galindo-Rueda et al (2004);
Glennerster (2001); Machin & Vignoles (2004)
– Although may have narrowed somewhat since then• Raffe et al., 2006
Background and Motivation
• Concerns increased following introduction of tuition fees in 1998– But did not deter low income students (who
were protected by increased loan availability) (Dearden, Fitzsimons & Wyness, 2008)
• Recent policy developments may affect future participation– e.g. 2006-07 reforms (top-up fees)– Will soon be evaluated using this data
Research Questions
• How does the likelihood of HE participation vary by socio-economic background?
• How much of this gap can be explained by prior achievement?
• How does the type of HE participation vary across socio-economic groups?
New longitudinal admin data
• Linked individual-level administrative data– School, FE and HE records
• Data on participants AND non-participants• Consider two cohorts:
– In Year 11 in 2001-02 or 2002-03– Potential age 18/19 HE entry in 2004-05 or
2005-06 (age 19/20 entry 2005-06, 2006-07)• State and private school students
Data
• Socio-economic background– State school analysis:
• Free school meals status from PLASC• IMD quintiles based on home postcode (age 16)
– State and private school analysis:• Assume FSM = 0 for all private school kids • IMD quintiles based on school postcode (age 16)
– 47% of state school kids are in same quintile using home or school postcode
• 81% are in same or adjacent quintile
Data• Gender, MOB and school ID available for all
– School fixed effects for state school analysis– School type dummies when include private school kids
• Ethnicity, EAL, SEN from PLASC– Missing for private school kids
• Neighbourhood measure of parental education based on 2001 Census– Based on home postcode for state school analysis– Based on school postcode when include private school
kids
Data• Prior attainment
– State school analysis:• Quintiles (based on APS) at Key Stage 2, 3, 4 and 5 (plus
indicators of reaching expected level at Key Stage 4 and 5)– Private school analysis:
• Key Stage 4 and 5 results only
• Exclusion of Key Stage 2 and 3 results makes negligible difference
• Use of school rather than home postcode reduces raw differences (but end result similar)– Essentially eliminating within-school differences
Methodology
• Linear probability regression model– Easier to include school fixed effects
• Two models:– HE participation (at age 19/20)– HE participation in a “high status” institution
• Dependent variables are binary– 1 if participates, 0 otherwise
1 2 3is i i i i sHE SEG X PAα β β β μ η= + + + + +
Male HE participation, by deprivation quintile
0 10 20 30 40% participating in HE at 19/20
State school pupils
0 10 20 30 40% participating in HE at 19/20
State and private school pupils
Least deprived quintile 2nd quintile3rd quintile 4th quintileMost deprived quintile
HE participation (state school males)
No controls
Individual and
school controls
Plus Key
Stage 2 results
Plus Key
Stage 3 results
Plus Key
Stage 4 results
Plus Key
Stage 5 results
4th deprivation quintile 0.065** [0.003]
0.048** [0.002]
0.029** [0.002]
0.017** [0.001]
0.003* [0.001]
0.000 [0.001]
3rd deprivation quintile 0.134** [0.003]
0.085** [0.002]
0.055** [0.002]
0.035** [0.002]
0.010** [0.002]
0.001 [0.001]
2nd deprivation quintile 0.201** [0.004]
0.118** [0.002]
0.079** [0.002]
0.052** [0.002]
0.017** [0.002]
0.001 [0.002]
Least deprived quintile 0.288** [0.006]
0.160** [0.003]
0.110** [0.003]
0.076** [0.002]
0.031** [0.002]
0.007** [0.002]
Observations 550,972
R-squared 0.053 0.128 0.253 0.333 0.436 0.584
F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
HE participation (state and private school males)
No controls Individual and school
controls
Plus Key Stage 4 results
Plus Key Stage 5 results
4th deprivation quintile 0.109** [0.008]
0.098** [0.006]
0.016** [0.003]
0.004* [0.002]
3rd deprivation quintile 0.130** [0.008]
0.108** [0.006]
0.015** [0.003]
0.002 [0.002]
2nd deprivation quintile 0.173** [0.008]
0.143** [0.007]
0.019** [0.003]
0.000 [0.002]
Least deprived quintile 0.223** [0.008]
0.171** [0.007]
0.026** [0.004]
0.001 [0.002]
Observations 584,259
R-squared 0.028 0.114 0.416 0.596
F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000
Type of Participation
• Also consider type of HE participation, because:– Students at less prestigious institutions more likely to
drop out and/or achieve lower degree classification – Graduates from more prestigious institutions earn
higher returns in the labour market• Define “high status” university as:
– Russell Group university (20 in total)– Any UK university with an average 2001 RAE score
greater than lowest found amongst Russell Group• Adds Bath, Durham, Lancaster, York, etc (21 in total)
Female “high status” participation, by deprivation quintile
0 10 20 30 40% attending high status HEI at 19/20
State school pupils
0 10 20 30 40% attending high status HEI at 19/20
State and private school pupils
Least deprived quintile 2nd quintile3rd quintile 4th quintileMost deprived quintile
“High status” HE participation (state school females)
No controls
Individual and
school controls
Plus Key
Stage 2 results
Plus Key
Stage 3 results
Plus Key
Stage 4 results
Plus Key
Stage 5 results
4th deprivation quintile 0.049** [0.005]
0.031** [0.004]
0.019** [0.004]
0.012** [0.004]
0.007 [0.004]
0.004 [0.004]
3rd deprivation quintile 0.101** [0.005]
0.048** [0.004]
0.032** [0.004]
0.021** [0.004]
0.013** [0.004]
0.009* [0.004]
2nd deprivation quintile 0.148** [0.005]
0.063** [0.005]
0.043** [0.005]
0.029** [0.004]
0.018** [0.004]
0.012** [0.004]
Least deprived quintile 0.200** [0.007]
0.076** [0.005]
0.054** [0.005]
0.038** [0.005]
0.026** [0.005]
0.017** [0.004]
Observations 181,391
R-squared 0.021 0.041 0.124 0.171 0.217 0.314
F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
“High status” HE participation (state and private school females)
No controls Individual and school
controls
Plus Key Stage 4 results
Plus Key Stage 5 results
4th deprivation quintile 0.087** [0.012]
0.062** [0.010]
0.018** [0.006]
0.006 [0.005]
3rd deprivation quintile 0.120** [0.012]
0.073** [0.010]
0.022** [0.006]
0.012* [0.006]
2nd deprivation quintile 0.144** [0.012]
0.073** [0.009]
0.020** [0.006]
0.008 [0.006]
Least deprived quintile 0.177** [0.011]
0.097** [0.010]
0.031** [0.007]
0.019** [0.006]
Observations 205,523
R-squared 0.013 0.075 0.231 0.343
F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000
Conclusions
• Widening participation in HE to students from deprived backgrounds is largely about tackling low prior achievement
• Focusing policy interventions post compulsory schooling unlikely to eliminate raw socio-economic gap in HE participation– But does not absolve universities
Limitations
• Young participants only– But other work looks at mature students
• Limited information on private school students
HE participation (state school males without Key Stage 2 & Key Stage 3 results)
No controls Individual and school
controls
Plus Key Stage 4 results
Plus Key Stage 5 results
4th deprivation quintile 0.065** [0.003]
0.048** [0.002]
0.003** [0.001]
0.000 [0.001]
3rd deprivation quintile 0.134** [0.003]
0.085** [0.002]
0.010** [0.002]
0.001 [0.001]
2nd deprivation quintile 0.201** [0.004]
0.118** [0.002]
0.018** [0.002]
0.002 [0.002]
Least deprived quintile 0.288** [0.006]
0.160** [0.003]
0.032** [0.002]
0.007** [0.002]
Observations 550,972
R-squared 0.053 0.128 0.435 0.584
F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000
HE participation (state school males without KS2 & KS3 and using school postcode)
No controls Individual and school
controls
Plus Key Stage 4 results
Plus Key Stage 5 results
4th deprivation quintile 0.098** [0.007]
0.100** [0.006]
0.014** [0.002]
0.004* [0.002]
3rd deprivation quintile 0.122** [0.007]
0.115** [0.006]
0.015** [0.002]
0.002 [0.002]
2nd deprivation quintile 0.165** [0.008]
0.155** [0.006]
0.018** [0.003]
0.000 [0.002]
Least deprived quintile 0.213** [0.008]
0.187** [0.007]
0.027** [0.003]
0.001 [0.002]
Observations 539,298
R-squared 0.026 0.095 0.430 0.582
F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000