Retention patterns and activities in London Sam Turner, AccessHE - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

May 16, 2023 304 likes •549 views

Retention patterns and activities in London Sam Turner, AccessHE | November 2017 Introduction Growing evidence to suggest that investment (and resultant improvements) in access for disadvantaged students has failed to translate

SLIDE 1

Retention patterns and activities in London

Sam Turner, AccessHE | November 2017

SLIDE 2

Introduction

Growing evidence to suggest that investment

(and resultant improvements) in access for disadvantaged students has failed to translate into improved outcomes.

Retention has become a critical indicator of

widening participation performance.

London is seen to perform particularly poorly.

SLIDE 3

Expenditure

Institutional expenditure within student

success is expected to rise to £185.1 million in 2018-19.

From 12% in 2013-14 to 23% in 2018-19.
London spend in student success is expected to

rise to £35.27 million by 2021-22 – 23.8%.

Access spending still remains high.
Institutions with high drop-out rates are

investing more in retention and student success.

SLIDE 4

R² = 0.6048 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percentage no longer in HE after one year Percentage of expenditure in student success

Proportion of access agreement expenditure in student success vs institutional drop-out rate

SLIDE 5

Exploring patterns

Ethnicity
Low Participation Neighbourhoods
Institution size and tariff band/type
State school intake
NS-SEC
NSS score

SLIDE 6

R² = 0.2832 R² = 0.6085 R² = 0.0201 R² = 0.0702 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage no longer in HE after one year (%) Percentage of ethnic composition of UK student body

Ethnic composition of UK students vs institutional drop-out rates (London institutions)

White Black Asian Other (including mixed)

SLIDE 7

R² = 0.0256 R² = 0.1096 R² = 0.0033 R² = 0.0159 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage no longer in HE after one year (%) Percentage ethnic composition of UK student body

Ethnic composition of UK students vs institutional drop-out rates (non-London institutions)

White Black Asian Other (including Mixed)

SLIDE 8

R² = 0.0622 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Percentage from low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR3) Percentage of students no longer in HE after one year 2014-15

Proportion of students from Low Participation Neighbourhoods (LPNs) vs institutional drop-out rates

SLIDE 9

R² = 0.6271 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 150 200 250 300 350 400

Percentage no longer in HE after one year (%) Mean entry tariff points

UCAS mean entry tariff points vs institutional drop-out rate

SLIDE 10

London average 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% High Creative specialist Specialist other Med Low

Percentage no longer in HE after one year Tariff band

Institution tariff band and drop-out rate

SLIDE 11

R² = 0.0856 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

Percentage no longer in HE after one year Total undergraduate population

Total undergraduate population vs institutional drop-out rate

SLIDE 12

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

Percentage no longer in HE after one year Total undergraduate population

Total undergraduate population (by institution tariff band) vs institutional drop-out rate

Low Medium High Creative specialist Specialist other

SLIDE 13

R² = 0.5209 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage no longer in HE after one year Percentage of young student intake from state schools

Percentage of intake from state schools vs institutional drop-out rate

SLIDE 14

R² = 0.5244 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Percentage no longer in HE after one year Percentage of intake from NS-SEC classes 4-7

Percentage of intake from NS-SEC classes 4-7 vs institutional drop-out rate

SLIDE 15

R² = 0.0436 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Percentage no longer in HE after one year NSS 2015 Overall Student Satisfaction score

NSS Overall Student Satisfaction score vs institutional drop-out rate

SLIDE 16

Targets

Across the AccessHE membership, all but one

institution have at least one retention target.

Most commonly two, but varies depending on

the institution.

Often addressing total/young population and

then a specific group.

SLIDE 17

All UG, 9 Young, 10 Mature, 7 LPN, 4 Care leaver, 3 BME/BAME, 2 NS-SEC, 2 Disabled, 1 Low income, 1

AccessHE member HEI retention targets by target group

SLIDE 18

Themes and activities

Debate between value/effectiveness of

targeted vs universal activity?

Some key themes from access agreements:
Financial support: hardship, grants and

evaluation.

Peer-mentoring or peer-assisted learning and

‘buddying’ schemes: formal and informal, academic and social.

Academic skill development: ensure ‘course-

readiness’ and prevent ‘falling behind’, peer learning, workshops or drop-in activity.

SLIDE 19

Themes and activities

Transition programmes for specific groups of

learners: first term interventions, continuation from pre-entry schemes.

Predictive learner analytics: identification of

‘at-risk’ students, entry profile and on-course records, prediction and response.

Curriculum design and changes to assessment

and feedback: inclusive teaching and learning, teaching practices, timing and processes.

SLIDE 20

Themes and activities

Personal tutoring: folding into other

activities, integrating with mental health support.

Personalised approaches which recognised

intersectionality: compounding effects, recognising individual students.

SLIDE 21

Summary

Expenditure – London spending on student

success in line with sector average, but spending reflecting performance.

Patterns - Correlation with ethnicity,

tariff/type, state school intake and NS-SEC. Weaker for LPN, NSS score and size.

Targets – Common across all institutions, but

number/targeting reflecting performance.

Themes and activities – Recognition of

whole-institution approach to support individual students.

SLIDE 22

Questions?

Sam Turner, AccessHE sam.turner@londonhigher.ac.uk

SLIDE 23

Data sources

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/performance-indicators/non-

continuation

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/publications/students-2015-

16/introduction

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/performance-indicators/widening-

participation

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/nss/results/2015/
https://www.offa.org.uk/access-agreements/ (2018-19)
https://www.offa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Access-agreement-

2018-19-key-facts-revised-OFFA-201708.pdf With thanks to Paresh Shah, Research Manager at London Higher for supporting with data collection and analysis.