Skip to main content

Reaching out: The added value of HESA’s new measure of socioeconomic disadvantage - Appendix 1 (England)

Further work on our measure of disadvantage revealed an error in the generation of HESA measure deciles. Our output area files for England, Wales and Scotland contained statistics for higher level geographies (either local authorities, regions and/or countries), which had not been removed prior to the formation of the deciles.

HESA measure deciles have been recreated based on a total of 232,296 output areas (181,408 in England and Wales, 46,531 in Scotland and 4,537 in Northern Ireland). Around 1% of output areas changed from quintile 1 to a higher quintile or vice versa. Approximately 5% of output areas were affected when undertaking an analysis by decile. We have found the impact of this to be minimal and the conclusions of our research are not materially altered.

2022-05-23

Appendix 1: Students domiciled in England

Table A1: The regional distribution of students only found in quintile 1 of the HESA measure*

Region

Proportion (%)

North East

9.1

North West

15.4

Yorkshire and The Humber

13.4

East Midlands

15.6

West Midlands

14.7

East of England

11.3

London

5.0

South East

9.1

South West

6.5

Total

4,825

 

Table A2: The distribution of students only found in quintile 1 of the HESA measure by local authority (Top 30 by student numbers reported)*

Local authority

Proportion (%)

Leicester

5.4

Kirklees

2.9

County Durham

2.3

Sunderland

1.9

Dudley

1.9

Sandwell

1.8

Luton

1.7

Rotherham

1.4

Bolton

1.3

Slough

1.2

Tameside

1.2

Wakefield

1.1

Walsall

1.1

Cornwall

1.1

Wiltshire

1.0

Bedford

1.0

Wolverhampton

1.0

Doncaster

0.9

North Tyneside

0.9

Leeds

0.9

Northumberland

0.9

Coventry

0.9

Sheffield

0.9

East Riding of Yorkshire

0.9

Wigan

0.9

Bradford

0.8

Oldham

0.8

Rochdale

0.8

Ealing

0.8

Bury/Staffordshire Moorlands

0.7

 

Table A3: The urban/rural distribution of students only found in quintile 1 of the HESA measure*

Urban-rural classification

Proportion (%)

Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings

0.6

Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings in a sparse setting

0.1

Rural town and fringe

9.6

Rural town and fringe in a sparse setting

0.9

Rural village

2.2

Rural village in a sparse setting

0.4

Urban city and town in a sparse setting

0.6

Urban city and town

48.1

Urban major conurbation

33.2

Urban minor conurbation

4.5

Total

4,825

 

Share
Insight
Tej Nathwani

Tej Nathwani

Principal Researcher (Economist)
Siobhan Donnelly

Siobhan Donnelly

Lead Statistical Analyst

Contents