PIs 2002/03: Guide to PIs
Background
This document offers a brief introduction to the purpose and nature of performance indicators (PIs) for higher education institutions in the UK.
What are performance indicators?
Performance indicators are a range of statistical indicators intended to offer an objective measure of how a higher education institution (HEI) is performing. They are not ‘league tables’, and do not attempt to compare all HEIs against a ‘gold standard’ or against each other (but see below). There are indicators for all publicly funded HEIs in the UK.
They currently cover:
- access to higher education
- non-completion rates for students
- outcomes for learning and teaching in universities and colleges
- research output
- employment of graduates.
The set of PIs published in September 2004 by HESA is the sixth in the series.
Why produce performance indicators?
The purpose of performance indicators is to:
- provide reliable information on the nature and performance of the UK higher education sector
- allow comparison between individual institutions, where appropriate
- enable institutions to benchmark their own performance
- inform policy developments
- contribute to the public accountability of higher education.
Who are they for?
PIs are of interest to a wide range of bodies, including Government, universities and colleges, and the UK higher education funding bodies. The indicators are also relevant to schools, prospective students and employers.Why not league tables?
No meaningful league table could fairly demonstrate the performance of all higher education institutions relative to each other. The HE sector is extremely diverse. Each institution has its own distinct mission, and each emphasises different aspects of higher education. Because of this diversity, and the need to compare HEIs fairly, we have used a range of indicators and benchmarks. Even so we do not cover all aspects of an institution’s performance. In particular, these indicators concentrate on performance relative to full-time undergraduates. However, note that there are other sources of data on institutions that can be used to make comparisons, such as the results of the Research Assessment Exercise (at www.hero.ac.uk/rae.)
What is the benchmark?
Because there are such differences between institutions, the average values for the whole of the higher education sector are not necessarily helpful when comparing HEIs. We have therefore calculated a sector average for each institution, which takes into account some of the factors which contribute to differences between them.
The factors allowed for are: subject of study, qualifications on entry and age on entry (young or mature).
The average, adjusted for these factors, is called the adjusted sector benchmark. For some of the access indicators, we have also allowed for which region of the country the student comes from, and produced what we have called location-adjusted benchmarks.
For the employment indicator, the benchmark used takes account of a wider range of factors. Fuller details will be made available soon.
The benchmark can be used in two ways:
To see how well an HEI is performing compared to the HE sector as a whole. For most purposes, it is preferable to compare the institution’s indicator to its benchmark, rather than to the (unadjusted) sector average. When there is a significant difference between the HEI’s performance and the benchmark, we have marked it with a symbol. A ‘plus’ symbol is used for institutions performing better than the benchmark and a ‘minus’ symbol for those performing worse.
To decide whether to compare two institutions. It is hard to meaningfully compare two institutions that are very different. For example, an institution where most students enter with very good A-level qualifications should not usually be compared with one whose students come from a wider range of educational backgrounds. Similarly, a medical school and a college that mainly concentrates on engineering subjects are not comparable, as medical students have much lower non-completion rates than engineering students. If two institutions have very different benchmarks, this is an indication that they are so different that comparing them would not give a helpful answer. But note that if two institutions have very different location-adjusted benchmarks, this may just show that they recruit from different regions of the UK.
Do the results affect HE policy?
Policy development, both at national and institutional level, is informed by performance indicators, but other factors are also taken into account. Within funding bodies and central government, the results are just one of many sources of information used to develop policies. The performance indicators also allow HEIs and funding councils to monitor the effects of policies over time, identify good practice and help disseminate it throughout the sector.
Summary of data
The performance indicators for 2002/03 are available from the HESA web site at www.hesa.ac.uk/pi. For all previous years, the indicators are available from the HEFCE web site at www.hefce.ac.uk/pi. All publicly funded HEIs in the UK are included, but not all feature in every table. The data for access, employment and research indicators relate to the 2002/03 academic year. Those for retention and completion relate to the 2001/02 academic year.
Access indicators
Tables T1 and T2 give information about the participation of groups that are under-represented in HE, relative to the population as a whole. Results are shown separately for young and mature students, and for full-timers and part-timers, because each of these groups have different characteristics.
The indicators for young full-time students show, for each institution:
- the percentage who attended a school or college in the state sector;
- the percentage who come from categories 4 to 7 of the new National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC);
- the percentage who come from a neighbourhood (as denoted by its postcode) which is known to have a low proportion of 18 and 19-year-olds in higher education.
For mature students and for young part-time students, there is just one access indicator, the percentage of entrants who have no previous HE qualification and come from a low-participation neighbourhood, which is given in Table T2.
Table T7 shows for all students the proportion who are in receipt of the Disabled Students' Allowance (DSA) by institution, separately for full-time and part-time undergraduates.
Findings
Nationally, over 90% of 17 year-olds in full-time education attend schools or colleges in the state sector, while 87.2% of young entrants to full-time first degree courses in
2002/03 had attended such schools. Most institutions take more than 90% of their young entrants from state schools. About one in 9 institutions take less than 70% of their young
entrants to full-time first degree courses from state schools.
Following the revision by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) of the old Social and Occupational classification, this indicator has been completely re-defined. The new definition includes categories 4 to 7 of the new National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) in the 'low SEC' group, with categories 1 to 3 as 'not low SEC'. This change means that comparison with last year's figures cannot be made. Further details of the change are provided in the ‘Changes to PIs’ document.
Figures based on the Labour Force Survey and quoted in Regional Trends 37 show that nearly 50% of the population of working age are classified in groups 4 to 7, where classification is based on current or most recent occupation. Nationally, 28.4% of young entrants to full-time first degree courses come from this section of the population.
In the UK as a whole, about 30% of young people live in ‘low-participation’ areas. Nationally, 13.3% of young entrants to full-time first degree courses came from low participation neighbourhoods and 13.8% of mature entrants to full-time first degree courses (who also had no previous higher education qualification) came from low participation neighbourhoods, similar to the percentages in previous years.
The proportion of students in receipt of DSA is relatively small. The percentage of such students on full-time undergraduate courses in 2002/03 was 2.5%, with institutional values ranging from 0.0% to 18.2%. For part-time students, apart from those at the Open University, 0.9% were in receipt of DSA. The Open University, with nearly a third of all eligible part-time students, had 1.8% of its students in receipt of DSA.
Non-completion rates (Table T3)
Non-completion rates for students at an institution are presented in two ways. The first considers students who start in a particular year, and looks at whether they are still in higher education one year later. The second method (considered under the next heading) looks at projected outcomes over a longer period.
Using the first method, Table T3 shows what percentage of students at each institution who started in 2001/02 have continued at the same institution, transferred to another institution, or left higher education completely by 2002/03.
Figures are shown separately for young and mature entrants, for young students from low participation areas and from other areas, and for mature entrants with and without previous higher education qualifications.
Findings
In general, a higher proportion of mature entrants than young entrants do not continue in higher education after their first year. The UK non-continuation rate is 14.9% for mature
entrants compared with 7.3% for young entrants. The non-continuation rate for young entrants is below 10% at 70% of institutions. For mature entrants it is between 5% and 20% at the
majority of institutions. However, it is above 20% at around 9% of institutions.
Of course some of those who leave will return, so another table (Table T4) gives additional information on these. This shows that, nationally, about 27.2% of young students and 17.0% of mature students who did not continue beyond their first year then returned after a year out – either to the original institution or to another one.
Non-completion rates – projected outcomes (Table T5)
Another way to look at non-completion rates is to use information on current movements of students to project what would happen in the long run. Thus the indicators in Table T5 project what proportion of students will eventually gain a degree, what proportion will leave their current university or college but transfer into higher education elsewhere, and what proportion will leave higher education altogether without any qualification.
Findings
Nationally, 77.9% of students who start on a full-time first degree course are expected to qualify from that institution with a degree, whilst 6.4% are expected to transfer to
another higher education institution. Only 14.1% of students are expected not to gain any qualification and a further 1.2% are expected to achieve a qualification below degree
level.
Efficiency
In view of the other changes being introduced in 2002/03, it has been decided that the efficiency calculations could no longer provide any continuity with previous years, and so it was agreed to drop them from Table T5.
Research outputs
The main indicators of research in UK higher education are the ratings from the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which is held every four or five years. The results of the 2001 RAE were published in December 2001. The research indicators that are produced as part of the performance indicators (Table R1) provide additional information on the quantity of research outputs relative to the resources consumed.
Employment indicator
The 2002/03 employment indicator is based on the new Destinations of Leavers in Higher Education (DLHE) survey, which replaced the First Destinations survey. The DLHE survey was carried out among graduates six months after the end of the academic year in which they graduate. There is only one indicator in 2002/03 showing the percentage of graduates who are employed or in further study (or both), among all those who are employed, unemployed, or studying.
Findings
83.2% of graduates responded to the survey. At most institutions over 90% of graduates were employed or studying after six months.
