PIs 2006/07: Changes since last year

Since 2005/06, there has been quite a major change in the way in which the low participation data has been produced in the Widening Participation Indicators.

Why have we introduced a new postcode indicator?

Introduction

Following the recommendations of the PI review, the Performance Indicators Steering Group (PISG) has agreed that the postcode indicator should be replaced from this year. The new indicator is based on the revised POLAR definitions of low participation areas, using the lowest quintile of wards as low participation. Further explanation and details of the quintiles used, and their relationship to postcodes, can be found at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/widen/polar/polar2/ (see the CSV file at the bottom of that page for the lookup table).

A POLAR2 low participation location adjusted benchmark has been provided for all institutions. For Scottish institutions, it is recommended that the location adjusted benchmark is used in preference over the raw benchmark, as location adjustment takes account of variation in participation rates between the different Home Nations, and in particular the higher participation rate in Scotland. See discussion below.

Discussion

The PI review that reported last year noted that the existing postcode indicator was based on an old geodemographic classifier, and proposed two replacements. One was to be based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), and the other on the POLAR2 definition of low participation areas.

There was general agreement that a replacement was needed, and support for both of the proposals was expressed. However, it was clear that further work on the detail was needed. One of the difficulties with the IMD was the difficulty of comparison across the countries of the UK, with definitions used for the index in one country being slightly different from those in another. In the end, it was accepted that these difficulties could not be overcome in the short term, although PISG are looking for an alternative measure that would be acceptable.

It has therefore been agreed that initially there should be just one replacement indicator, based on the POLAR2 definition. For this indicator, which is applied to young and mature, full-time and part-time entrants, a 2001 Census Area Statistics ward is defined as low participation if its participation rate places it in the bottom 20 per cent of wards ranked by this measure.

The value of this new indicator (POLAR2) for young full-time first degree entrants across the sector is 9.0 percent, rather less than the value for the old indicator (Super Profiles) of 14.7 percent (14.0 percent in 2005/06). The benchmarks are calculated as before, and take account of this reduced average value.

Differences

For the majority of institutions, the change does not adversely affect the indicator. As with the other indicators, there will be fluctuations at institutions year on year, but it is not anticipated that these will be any greater than previously.

Scottish institutions

The one group which is affected is the set of Scottish institutions. The revised participation rate is higher in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, and so the number of students from low participation areas in Scotland is lower than in the rest of the UK. The percentage of students from low participation areas at Scottish institutions has fallen substantially (from 18.5 percent in 2006/07 using Super Profiles to 3.2 percent in 2006/07 using POLAR2). The benchmark shows that most of the institutions in Scotland are significantly below the UK average, however the location-adjusted benchmark allows for this between-country difference.

There are two main reasons why this participation-based classification of areas in Scotland differs substantially from the classification used previously for the performance indicators. Firstly, rather than use a geodemographic classifier, the new method uses Census Area Statistics wards. Previously, the classifier clustered together very small areas (enumeration districts or data zones) that were judged to be similar in terms of the values of a range of census 1991 variables. The resulting 160 GB clusters each then contained a large enough population for which to calculate participation rates, and it was on the basis of these calculated rates that the designation as low participation or not was made. The disadvantage of this was that areas within a cluster were not necessarily close together, so many of the clusters formed using Scottish data zones also included numbers of English enumeration districts. This meant that the high participation rates in many of the poorer areas of Scotland (high relative to those in England) were ‘diluted’ by those English areas. Now that the more numerous and smaller wards are being used as the units for calculating participation rates, this dilution no longer occurs, and the high participation rates in Scotland are correctly recorded.

The second important reason for the changes is that the measure of participation is much improved from what we had available when the Performance Indicators were first published in 1999. In particular the new participation measure includes HE that takes place in FE colleges and is returned on non-HESA records. Previous work by HEFCE (2005/03) showed that this type of participation in FECs is much more prevalent in Scotland than in England and Wales, particular so for poorer areas (HEFCE 2005/03, page 42).

Both these effects act to substantially reduce the proportion of areas in Scotland that are classified as having low participation relative to the rest of the UK. In turn this has acted to lower the low participation area performance indicator for any institution that has substantial recruitment from Scotland.