Implementing the HEFCE guidance: Achieving Targeting Targets Chris Carpenter

1
Implementing the HEFCE guidance Achieving
Targeting Targets?Chris Carpenter Mike Kerrigan

• Aimhigher National Conference7th October 2009

2
Workshop structure

• Brief presentation
• Your questions
• Discussion groups
• Summary and close

3
HEFCE Targeting Guidance (2007)

• Stage 1 Area level targeting
• e.g. particular schools/colleges, communities
• Stage 2 Learner level targeting
• Stage 3 Monitoring the effectiveness of
  targeting
• IMD 67 of participants
• NS-SEC 4-8 67 of participants

4
Stage one Area Level

• HEFCE Targeting Guidance
• Identify schools, colleges and communities where
  disadvantage is concentrated, and where resources
  should be directed
• Our approach
• IMD Maps to indicate deprived communities and for
  context
• School/college profiles

5
Example IMD MapsBassetlaw District and
Nottingham City
6
Example School profile(simplified version)

• Assists partnerships in identifying target /
  priority schools
• IMD, HE participation (POLAR2 qYPR) and FSM
  identified as key targeting criteria
• Combines PLASC pupil data (aggregated at LSOA
  level) for each school with IMD and POLAR2 area
  indicators
• Full version incorporates IDACI and EST

7
Stage 2 Learner Level

• HEFCE Targeting Guidance
• Most intensive interventions (equivalent to
  Cat2?) e.g. mentoring, master classes, summer
  schools
• Make judgements as to which learners (from
  disadvantaged backgrounds) will benefit most from
  provision
• Our approach
• Postcodes database
• LA support to identify cohorts

8
Identifying cohorts

• Developed using LA data and with their support
• Some criteria used
• IMD (40 most deprived)
• FSM
• POLAR2
• Disability
• Care background
• PLUS potential to progress to HE
• Cohorts distributed to individual schools
• Teacher judgement often used to refine

9
Stage three Monitoring theeffectiveness of
targeting procedures

• HEFCE Targeting Guidance
• Collection of key data NS-SEC, IMD, parental HE
  experience
• Improved targeting depends on improved monitoring
• 67 participants from 40 most deprived areas
• 67 participants from NS-SEC 4-8
• Our approach
• Collection of participant data
• Monitoring Evaluation Database

10
Collecting and using data

• Consent forms / application forms
• Permission to use for monitoring evaluation
• Entered onto AhEM Monitoring Evaluation
  Database
• Data collected includes (amongst others)
• Postcode (for IMD POLAR2)
• Occupation (for NS-SEC)
• Parental experience of HE
• Enables detailed reports for monitoring
  effectiveness of targeting

11
Coding occupations for NS-SEC

• Single open question method
• What is the occupation of the highest earning
  parent/carer currently living in the household?
• Input by areas into ME database and extracted by
  AhEM for coding centrally (giving consistency)
• New occupations coded manually using ONS listing
  as a guide
• Occupations added to a lookup once coded to
  automatically code future occurrences
• Around 60-70 of occupations now automatically
  coded by lookup - this figure is continually
  increasing

12
Results summary

• Improvements across all indicators, although
  still missing HEFCE targets

13
Taking populations into account
Categories broken down into deciles A 10 most
deprived J 10 least deprived
14
AhEM Collective IMD
15
AhEM Collective NS-SEC
16
AhEM Collective POLAR2 qYPR
17
Monitoring school/college targeting

• Allows partnerships to identifying which
  schools/colleges are selecting appropriate
  learners to participate in Aimhigher activity

18
Your questions
19
Discussion groups

• Problems in implementing targeting procedures.
  Any solutions?
• Issues with using FFT (potential to succeed) data
  in identifying cohorts
• Monitoring of targeting Cohort data vs.
  Participant data
• Are Category 1 and Category 2 classifications of
  any use?

20
Thanks for your time!

• Chris Carpenter
• c.j.carpenter_at_lboro.ac.uk / 01509 223462
• Mike Kerrigan
• m.d.kerrigan_at_lboro.ac.uk / 01509 223460