Widening Participation in Higher Education: Analysis using Linked Admin Data

1
Widening Participation in Higher Education
Analysis using Linked Admin Data

• Institute of Education
• Institute for Fiscal Studies
• Centre for Economic Performance

2
Research Team

• Haroon Chowdry
• Claire Crawford
• Lorraine Dearden
• Alissa Goodman
• Anna Vignoles

3
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)

4
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

5
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?

6
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

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
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

11
Male HE participation, by
deprivation quintile
12
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 550,972 550,972 550,972 550,972 550,972 550,972
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
13
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 584,259 584,259 584,259 584,259
R-squared 0.028 0.114 0.416 0.596
F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000
14
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)

15
Female high status participation, by
deprivation quintile
16
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 181,391 181,391 181,391 181,391 181,391 181,391
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
17
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 205,523 205,523 205,523 205,523
R-squared 0.013 0.075 0.231 0.343
F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000
18
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

19
Limitations

• Young participants only
• But other work looks at mature students
• Limited information on private school students

20
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 550,972 550,972 550,972 550,972
R-squared 0.053 0.128 0.435 0.584
F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000
21
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 539,298 539,298 539,298 539,298
R-squared 0.026 0.095 0.430 0.582
F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000