Common use of Assessment of access and retention record Clause in Contracts

Assessment of access and retention record. 4.1 The University of Bristol is determined to invest additional fee income strategically in order to achieve maximum impact. We have taken an evidence-based approach, analysed current performance and prioritised interventions with a proven track record. As an institution with relatively low proportions of students from under-represented and disadvantaged groups we have focussed activity and investment on those areas in which we need to make progress against targets. 1 Where a year abroad is a fully integrated part of a programme of study, we wish to be able to charge the full fee of £9k per annum. 4.2 According to HESA performance indicators2, of the students aged under 21 who entered the University in 2012-13, 1.8 per cent withdrew from higher education without completing a programme, against a benchmark of 2.3 per cent. The same data source indicates a non- continuation rate of 10.5 per cent for mature students against a benchmark of 9 per cent. We recognise the need to improve rates for this group and outline planned activity in para 10.2. 4.3 Using the University’s own application and intake ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to analyse performance over the five year period from 2009-10 to 2014-15, the proportion of undergraduate applications from under-represented groups has increased in five categories: mature; disabled; local; NSEC groups 4-7; and Black and minority ethnic students). Applications from low participation neighbourhoods and the state sector have remained stable. 4.5 We are encouraged that following a period of decline from 2009-10, the 2014-15 data highlights an upward trend of applications from low performing school and college students. It should also be noted that in absolute numbers every category except mature students has seen an increase in applications. In many cases the 2014-15 figure is the highest for five years. 4.6 Whilst application rates are generally encouraging, we have had limited success in realising our ambitions to widen participation at the intake stage and we currently fall short of the majority of our HESA benchmarks. 4.7 In spite of limited progress against HESA benchmarks, the picture for many of the University’s own widening participation categories at the intake stage is more positive. Compared to the 2013 intake data, there has been a rise in all categories including a 1.8 per cent rise in intake from students attending low performing schools and colleges, a 0.4 per cent rise in local students and a 1.4 per cent rise in students from N-SEC groups 4-7. This suggests that offers are being made to students from under-represented groups and that the contextual and guaranteed offers are proving effective. 4.8 Our focus on conversion from application to intake has also delivered significant success. During the same five year period, we have seen year on year increases in converting proportions from: low performing schools; socio economic groups 4-7; low participation neighbourhoods: local postcodes; mature; disabled; and minority ethnic groups. We have exceeded all access agreement progress measures in this area (conversion targets were included for low performing schools and colleges, relation to LPS, socio economic groups 4-7 and local students). We are also very encouraged by the conversion rates for those students participating in our Access to Bristol and summer school programmes. More information on this area of activity is provided in para 14.10. 4.9 In most respects, the profile of our PGCE intake is either in line with or better than that of our key comparators4 and other local providers. In 2014-15 we recruited a cohort which was 34 per cent male: 66 per cent female (which compares with 32 per cent male: 68 per cent female for the comparator group and 25 per cent male: 75 per cent female for the local group). 41 per cent were categorised as ‘mature’ (compared with 50 per cent of the comparator group and 46 per cent of the local group). 2 ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇/pis/noncon 3 The University measures LPN applications and intake on the basis of the lower two POLAR quintiles, while HESA uses only the lowest quintile 4 The Institute of Education; University of London and the Universities of Bath; Birmingham; Cambridge; East Anglia; Exeter; Manchester; Nottingham; Oxford; Southampton and Warwick 4.10 Our biggest challenge in this area relates to the recruitment of Black and minority ethnic students. In 2013-14 there was a significant drop in this area (to 3 per cent of the cohort) but this has significantly improved for the 2014-15 academic year (to 7 per cent of the cohort). Despite our figures being slightly lower than our comparator group (15 per cent), we are higher than our local group (5 per cent). Retention has remained high for this student group, with only 5 per cent of the total withdraws in 2013-14 being minority ethnic students, notably none of the 2014-15 withdrawals are from this group. 4.11 In order to make progress against our widening participation progress measures, the University will continue to take a holistic and contextualised approach to admissions. All students from low performing schools and colleges will be flagged within the University’s admissions database and if an offer is made it will automatically be at the contextual (one grade lower) level. This will be irrespective of the predicted grades exceeding the entry requirements. In order to ensure positive conversion rates, and to explain the rationale behind the lower offer, a bespoke communication will be delivered through the University’s Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. 4.12 Context is also important in understanding the University’s current performance against a range of widening participation indicators. We are a highly selective, research-intensive University. For entry in October 2014, we received an average of 7.6 home applications for every place (with some programmes receiving over 16 applications per place). The average UCAS tariff score of our 2014 entrants was 465 (the equivalent of just over 3 A* grade A Level passes). By contrast, average secondary attainment in the Bristol area is among the poorest in England. At A Level, the average A Level student tariff score in the Bristol Local Authority is 703.7 against a national average of 787.15. This presents significant challenges for an institution with high entry requirements6. 4.13 A feasibility study, undertaken by IntoUniversity in January 20147 noted that Bristol has 32 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in the most deprived 10 per cent nationally. There is an estimated child poverty rate of 25 per cent (rising to 44 per cent in the south of the city). In the sub-domain of children and young people, 82 Bristol LSOAs fall within the most deprived 10 per cent nationally in the domain of Education, Skills and Training deprivation. 4.14 The impact of such high levels of deprivation on education within the city is clear. The City of Bristol has a disproportionately high number of underperforming schools. Of England’s core cities, Bristol has the second lowest percentage of Free School Meal pupils progressing to higher education and Black and minority ethnic pupils and those with English as an alternative language underperform at all levels of education in Bristol8 . 4.15 Beyond the Bristol area, the University draws students primarily from the south of England, where average income levels are relatively high. A predominantly traditional subject portfolio also has some impact on attractiveness of programmes to widening participation students. 4.16 Such characteristics create some very specific challenges when it comes to diversifying our own undergraduate intake (as opposed to playing our part in raising student aspirations and widening participation in Higher Education more generally). These involve culture and perceptions as well as attainment and economics. The former are slower to change and less easy to control than the latter. 5 ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇/cgi-bin/schools/performance/▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇?qtype=LA&no=801&superview=p16 6 The UCAS tariff and NQF/QCF tariffs are not calculated on the same basis so cannot be directly compared with each other 7 ▇▇▇▇▇, C (2014). ‘Feasibility study for an IntoUniversity Centre in South Bristol’ 8 Ibid. 4.17 Given this context, the University of Bristol’s strategy for Widening Participation has been deliberately built around a combination of aspiration and attainment-raising activity in local schools (often undertaken in collaboration with other local HE providers and designed primarily to widen participation in the Higher Education sector generally); more targeted activities, designed to attract the most able students to Bristol and a contextualised approach to admissions, which ensures that poor school performance is taken into account when selection decisions are made.

Assessment of access and retention record. 4.1 The University of Bristol is determined to invest additional fee income strategically in order to achieve maximum impact. We have taken an evidence-based approach, analysed current performance and prioritised interventions with a proven track record. As an institution with relatively low proportions of students from under-represented and disadvantaged groups we have focussed activity and investment on those areas in which we need to make progress against targets. 1 Where a year abroad is a fully integrated part of a programme of study, we wish to be able to charge the full fee of £9k per annum. 4.2 According to HESA performance indicators2, of the students aged under 21 who entered the University in 20122013-1314, 1.8 2.2 per cent withdrew from higher education without completing a programmeeducation, against a benchmark of 2.3 2.7 per cent. The same data source indicates a non- non-continuation rate of 10.5 10.6 per cent for mature students against a benchmark of 9 8.6 per cent. We recognise the need to improve rates for this group and outline planned activity in para 10.210.6. 4.3 Using the University’s own application and intake ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to analyse performance over the five year period from 20092011-10 12 to 20142015-1516, the proportion of undergraduate applications from under-under- represented groups has increased in five six categories: mature; disabled; local; NSEC N-SEC groups 4-7; disabled; female and Black and minority ethnic students). Applications from low participation neighbourhoods and the state sector have remained stable. 4.5 We are encouraged that following a period of decline from 2009-1010 to 2013-14, the 20142015-15 16 data highlights the continuation of an upward trend of applications from low performing school and college studentsstudents which began in 2014-15. It should also be noted that in absolute numbers every category except mature students has seen an increase in applicationsapplications from 2014-15. In many cases the 20142015-15 16 figure is the highest for five years. 4.6 Whilst application rates are generally encouraging, we have had limited success in realising our ambitions to widen participation at At the intake stage progress is also being made. HESA data indicates that state school intake rose slightly from 2013-14 to 2014-15. We have seen an increase of 1.7 per cent in the proportion of students from NS-SEC groups 4-7 from 2011-12 to 2013-14. Intake has increased from students living in low participation neighbourhoods we now exceed the HESA benchmark for the number of part time undergraduates entrants by age and low participation marker (13.6 per cent against a benchmark of 11.3 per cent). We recognise however that despite these positive rises, we currently continue to fall short of the majority of our HESA benchmarks. Information provided in sections 7 and 8 outline the interventions designed to make faster progress. 4.7 In spite of limited progress against HESA benchmarks, the picture for many of the University’s own widening participation categories at the intake stage is more positive. Compared to the 2013 2014 intake data, there has been a rise in all five categories including a 1.8 3.5 per cent rise in intake from students attending low performing schools and colleges, a 0.4 0.7 per cent rise in local state school students and a 1.4 0.9 per cent rise in students from N-SEC groups 4-7low participation neighbourhoods. This suggests that offers are being made to students from under-represented groups and that the contextual and guaranteed offers are proving effective. 4.8 Our focus on conversion from application to intake has also delivered significant success. During the same five year period, we have seen year on year increases in converting proportions from: low performing schools; socio economic groups 4-7; low participation neighbourhoods: local postcodes; mature; disabled; and minority ethnic groups. We have exceeded all access agreement progress measures in this area (conversion targets were included for low performing schools and colleges, relation to LPS, socio economic groups 4-7 and local students). We are also very encouraged by the conversion rates for those students participating in our Access to Bristol and summer school programmes. More information on this area of activity is provided in para 14.10. 4.9 In most respects, the profile of our PGCE intake is either in line with or better than that of our key comparators4 and other local providers. In 2014-15 we recruited a cohort which was 34 per cent male: 66 per cent female (which compares with 32 per cent male: 68 per cent female for the comparator group and 25 per cent male: 75 per cent female for the local group). 41 per cent were categorised as ‘mature’ (compared with 50 per cent of the comparator group and 46 per cent of the local group). 2 ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇/pis/noncon 3 The University measures LPN applications and intake on the basis of the lower two POLAR quintiles, while HESA uses only the lowest quintile 4 The Institute guaranteed offers are proving effective. In the five year period from 2011-12 the University’s intake of Education; University of London BME students more than doubled from 288 to 590. 4.8 Our focus on conversion from application to intake has also delivered significant success. During the same five year period, we have seen increases in converting proportions from all target groups. We are also very encouraged by the conversion rates for those students participating in our Access to Bristol and the Universities of Bath; Birmingham; Cambridge; East Anglia; Exeter; Manchester; Nottingham; Oxford; Southampton and Warwick 4.10 Our biggest challenge in summer school programmes. More information on this area relates to of activity is provided in para 14.12. 4.9 In most respects, the recruitment profile of Black our PGCE intake is either in line with or better than that of our key comparators4 and minority ethnic studentsother local providers. In 20132015-14 there 16 we recruited a cohort which was a significant drop in this area 36 per cent male: 64 per cent female (to 3 which compares with 40 per cent male: 60 per cent female for the comparator group and 37 per cent male: 63 per cent female for the local group). 43 per cent were categorised as mature (compared with 44 per cent of the cohort) but this has significantly improved for the 2014-15 academic year (to 7 comparator group and 57 per cent of the cohortlocal group). Despite our figures being slightly lower than our 9 per cent of Bristol’s current cohort is from a BME background (compared with 12 per cent of the comparator group (15 and 6 per centcent of the local group), we are higher than our local group (5 per cent). . 4.10 Retention has remained high for this student group, with only 5 per cent of the total withdraws in 2013-14 being minority ethnic Black and Minority Ethnic students, notably none of the 2014-15 withdrawals are were from this group and in 2015-16 there has been one withdrawal from this group. 4.11 In order to make progress against our widening participation progress measures, the University will continue to take a holistic and contextualised approach to admissions. All students from low performing schools and colleges will be flagged within the University’s admissions database and if an offer is made it will automatically be at the contextual (one grade lower) level. This will be irrespective of the predicted grades exceeding the entry requirements. In order to ensure positive conversion rates, and to explain the rationale behind the lower offer, a bespoke communication will be delivered through the University’s Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. It should be noted that we will reaffirm our commitment to contextualised admissions within the University’s new strategy and are actively exploring how we can effect real change in the demography of our undergraduate student body. 4.12 Context is also important in understanding the University’s current performance against a range of widening participation indicators. We are a highly selective, research-intensive University. For entry in October 20142015, we received an average of 7.6 8 home applications for every place (with some programmes receiving over 16 almost 20 applications per place). The average UCAS tariff score of our 2014 2015 entrants was 465 460 (the equivalent of just over 3 A* grade A Level passes). By contrast, average secondary attainment in the Bristol area is among the poorest in England. At A Level, the average A Level student tariff score in the Bristol Local Authority is 703.7 716.5 against a national average of 787.15778.35. This presents significant challenges for an institution with high entry requirements6. 4.13 A feasibility study, undertaken by IntoUniversity in January 20147 noted that Bristol has 32 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in the most deprived 10 per cent nationally. There is an estimated child poverty rate of 25 per cent (rising to 44 per cent in the south of the city). In the sub-domain of children and young people, 82 Bristol LSOAs fall within the most deprived 10 per cent nationally in the domain of Education, Skills and Training deprivation. 4.14 The impact of such high levels of deprivation on education within the city is clear. The City of Bristol has a disproportionately high number of underperforming schools. Of England’s core cities, Bristol has the second lowest percentage of Free School Meal pupils progressing to 4 The Institute of Education; the Universities of Bath; Birmingham; Cambridge; East Anglia; Exeter; Manchester; Nottingham; Oxford; Southampton and Warwick 6 The UCAS tariff and NQF/QCF tariffs are not calculated on the same basis so cannot be directly compared with each other 7 ▇▇▇▇▇, C (2014). ‘Feasibility study for an IntoUniversity Centre in South Bristol’ higher education and Black and minority ethnic Minority Ethnic pupils and those with English as an alternative language underperform at all levels of education in Bristol8 Bristol7. 4.15 Beyond the Bristol area, the University draws students primarily from the south of England, where average income levels are relatively high. A predominantly traditional subject portfolio also has some impact on attractiveness of programmes to widening participation students. 4.16 Such characteristics create some very specific challenges when it comes to diversifying our own undergraduate intake (as opposed to playing our part in raising student aspirations and widening participation in Higher Education more generally). These involve culture and perceptions as well as attainment and economics. The former are slower to change and less easy to control than the latter. 5 ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇/cgi-bin/schools/performance/▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇?qtype=LA&no=801&superview=p16 6 The UCAS tariff and NQF/QCF tariffs are not calculated on the same basis so cannot be directly compared with each other 7 ▇▇▇▇▇, C (2014). ‘Feasibility study for an IntoUniversity Centre in South Bristol’ 8 Ibid. 4.17 Given this context, the University of Bristol’s strategy for Widening Participation has been deliberately built around a combination of aspiration and attainment-raising activity in local schools (often undertaken in collaboration with other local HE providers and designed primarily to widen participation in the Higher Education sector generally); more targeted activities, designed to attract the most able students to Bristol and a contextualised approach to admissions, which ensures that poor school performance is taken into account when selection decisions are made. As outlined in the expenditure section below, in recognition of the need to improve application and intake rates for students from under-represented groups, our investment in access, student success and progression will increase from 2017-18 onwards.