Higher education - renewing the alliance for fair access: annual report 2024

3. Back to Basics: The Nature of Fair Access

Although the fair access agenda is now well-established, some of the ideas and foundations of this work have been contested of late. In this section, I clarify my thinking on five key issues: what is fair regarding fair access; whether fair access concerns more than entry to higher education; the substantive focus of fair access; whether promoting fair access for the most disadvantaged is at the expense of others; and clarification that Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) is an indicator, rather than a measure of progress.

Fairness

The goal of widening access to universities has been pursued in Scotland for many years, although some Scottish HEIs have aligned themselves more centrally to this agenda than others. The presentation of the agenda as 'fair access' since 2014 asserts that the goal is not to widen access per se, but rather to achieve social justice, i.e., to ensure that those with ability from more disadvantaged backgrounds are not excluded from higher education on account of the ways in which access has traditionally been administered. This fair access agenda is not an exercise in social engineering (not that it ever was) in which the aim is simply to change the composition of those who pursue higher education. Rather, changing the composition of the student body is a consequence of achieving fair access.

Fair access is achieved through three broad strategies (two of which are multifaceted):

• Bespoke pathways to entry, such as through Access courses, or articulation from college.
• Contextualised admissions, through which it is acknowledged what may appear to be lesser achievement by candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds in Scottish Highers and Advanced Highers is equivalent to what otherwise might appear to be higher achievement from candidates who do not experience these disadvantages.
• Work to better prepare disadvantaged candidates, either to achieve in pre-university examinations; to better understand higher education; to strengthen applications to higher education; and to prepare for life at university.

As currently conceived, fair access is pursued for those who may be disadvantaged on account of their socio-economic status. In my opinion, this should continue to be the focus of the work of the Commissioner for Fair Access (see also 'Focus' below).

I acknowledge that there are other imbalances in the student population that may also be considered unfair, for example, the under-representation of: boys in higher education as a whole;^[97] those from minority ethnic backgrounds in 'media, journalism and communication';^[98] or disabled students in 'medicine and dentistry',^[99] among many others. Furthermore, I acknowledge the sense of injustice that may be held by students (and their parents) from backgrounds that are not disadvantaged on account of having to achieve 'higher' grades in Highers and Advanced Highers, compared to their peers who have experienced disadvantage. I consider this in the section on 'Displacement' below.

Entry, experience, and outcomes

Fair access might be regarded as a misnomer. The fair access agenda is one that concerns who enters higher education (access), who thrives during higher education (experience) and what follows from higher education as a direct result of it (outcomes). Of course, experience and outcomes can only be considered if there is access, and it is understandable that the early focus on fair access has been on entry. It might be argued that the fair access agenda has been skewed as there is a national and institutional target for entry, but none for experience or outcomes.

Fair access must continue to focus on entry to higher education. However, there is a need to recalibrate the focus to take account of experience and outcomes. The issues that should be examined include:

• Progression. The SFC's annual Report on Widening Access shares data on which students progress to a second year of study in higher education.^[100] More detailed progression data, such as those progressing to each year of a degree is not published.^[101] Thus, although data on progression is reported, insight is partial.
• Performance. Progression is an indicator of performance. However, it is a crude indicator when it is the level of performance that is used as a tool by employers and HEIs to determine who gets to access post-degree outcomes (which class of degree, rather than pass/fail). More detailed data on performance – beyond progression to next level – would be useful.
• Financial circumstance, work, and impact on study. There is emerging evidence that students' financial situation may be impacting adversely on their studies,^[102] and their inclination to pursue studies,^[103] while outside of Scotland innovative approaches to supporting students financially are being pursued.^[104] The evidence base on how financial well-being impacts on fair access needs to be strengthened.
• Engagement in the wider opportunities that being an HEI student affords. HEIs market a university experience as being one that extends beyond the seminar room, lecture theatre, work place, or laboratory. It is not clear which students avail themselves, or are able to avail themselves, of these wider opportunities.
• Access to student support services. HEIs have developed an array of student-centred services to meet students' needs. As for wider opportunities, it is not clear which students avail themselves, or are able to avail themselves, of these support services.
• Postgraduate study. For some professions, postgraduate study is the gateway to a career. More generally, there is an assumption that postgraduate qualification enhances career prospects. More consideration must be given to access to postgraduate study, not least as we know that representation of full time entrants from Scotland's most deprived areas is lower at postgraduate than first degree level.^[105]
• Destinations. Data on graduate outcomes could be given more prominence in the fair access agenda.

Where these data are readily available, consideration might be given – by institutions and collectives within, and the Scottish Funding Council – to making these publicly available to strengthen the fair access agenda.

Focus

In the sub-section on 'fair' access, I asserted that the focus of the Commissioner for Fair Access should remain on addressing socio-economic disadvantage. I retain an interest in wider patterns of unequal participation, although this is not the focus of my work. On the other hand, I am interested in the intersections between socio-economic disadvantage and other planes of difference. The Report on Widening Access provides insight into this intersectionality.

Gender.^[106] Progress has been made in increasing the number and proportion of both men and women from the CoWA Core Target group. However, progress has been more marked and more consistent for women:

• Increase in the relative share of SIMD20 for both men and women. The proportion of male entrants from SIMD20 has increased from 12.5% of all men in 2013-14 to 14.2% in 2021-22; the proportion of women entrants from SIMD20 has increased from 14.5% in 2013-14 to 18% in 2021-22.
• Increase in SIMD20 entrants for both men and women. The number of male entrants from SIMD20 has increased from 1,520 in 2013-14 to 1,910 in 2021-22; the number of women entrants from SIMD20 has increased from 2,325 in 2013-14 to 3,665 in 2021-22.

However,

• Stalling of progress for men. The relative share of SIMD20 men in 2021-22 is lower than that in 2017-18 (14.2% and 14.3%, respectively), with the number of SIMD20 men entrants falling between 2020-21 and 2021-22.
• Gender gap. The gender gap in entrants is most marked in the most deprived areas: there are almost twice as many women entrants among SIMD20 (3,665 women, compared to 1,910 men in 2021-22), with a much narrower order of difference in the least deprived areas (4,870 women, compared to 4,030 men for SIMD80-100 in 2021-22).

Ethnicity.^[107] The number and relative share of entrants from a BME background is higher in both the most deprived and least deprived areas, e.g., 26.7% of BME entrants were from SIMD20 areas (925) and 22.4% of BME entrants were from SIMD80-100 areas (780) in 2021-22. Notwithstanding this bi-polar distribution, progress has been made in increasing the number and proportion of BME students from the most deprived areas.

• Increase in number of BME entrants from SIMD20 areas. The number of BME entrants from SIMD20 areas has increased from 490 in 2013-14 to 925 in 2021-22.
• Increase in the relative share of BME entrants from SIMD20 areas. The proportion of BME entrants from SIMD20 areas has increased from 23.2% in 2013-14 to 26.7% in 2021-22.

However,

• Stalling of progress. The relative share of BME entrants from SIMD20 areas fell between 2020-21 and 2021-22 (from 29.2% to 26.7%), as the number of BME entrants from SIMD20 areas fell from 1030 to 925.

Disability.^[108],^[109] Progress has been made in increasing the number and proportion of entrants with a known disability from the CoWA Core Target group.

• Increase in number of entrants with a known disability who are from SIMD20 areas. The number of entrants with a known disability who are from SIMD20 areas has increased from 380 in 2013-14 to 985 in 2021-22.
• Increase in the relative share of entrants with a known disability who are from SIMD20 areas. The proportion of entrants with a known disability who are from SIMD20 areas has increased from 13.3% in 2013-14 to 16.7% in 2021-22.

However,

• Mixed evidence for the most recent year. Although the number of entrants with a known disability who are from SIMD20 areas has increased in each of the last six years (from 450 in 2015-16 to 985 in 2021-22), the relative share of students from a SIMD20 area with a known disability is lower in 2021-22 than it was in 2019-20 (16.7%, compared to 17.1%).

Care experience.^[110] Progress has been made in increasing the number and proportion of entrants with care experience from the CoWA Core Target group.

• Increase in number of care-experienced entrants who are from SIMD20 areas. The number of care-experienced entrants who are from SIMD20 areas has increased from 25 in 2013-14 to 145 in 2021-22.
• Increase in the relative share of care-experienced entrants who are from SIMD20 areas. The proportion of care-experienced entrants who are from SIMD20 areas has increased from 16.2% in 2013-14 to 26.5% in 2021-22.

However,

• Stalling of progress. The relative share of care-experienced entrants from SIMD20 areas fell between 2020-21 and 2021-22 (from 32% to 26.5%), as the number of care-experienced entrants from SIMD20 areas fell from 155 to 145.

Age.^[111] Progress has been made in increasing the number and proportion of both younger (under 21) and older (21 and over) entrants from the CoWA Core Target group.

• Increase in the relative share of SIMD20 for both younger and older entrants. The proportion of younger entrants from SIMD20 has increased from 10% in 2013-14 to 12.8% in 2021-22; the proportion of older entrants from SIMD20 has increased from 23.9% in 2013-14 to 25.1% in 2021-22.
• Increase in SIMD20 entrants for both younger and older age groups. The number of younger entrants from SIMD20 has increased from 2,085 in 2013-14 to 3,005 in 2021-22; the number of older entrants from SIMD20 has increased from 1,765 in 2013-14 to 3,950 in 2021-22.

However,

• Stalling of progress in relative share for older age groups. The relative share of older students from SIMD20 areas is lower in 2021-22 that it was 2017-18 (25.1% and 26.4%, respectively), although the number of older entrants from SIMD20 areas has increased.
• Most under-represented sub-population. At only 12.8% of all entrants in 2021-22, the relative share of younger students from SIMD20 areas is lower than the equivalent relative share for BME students, care-experienced students, those with a known disability, and both men and women.

Displacement

It is a fact that increasing the relative share of CoWA Core Target entrants (SIMD20) determines that the share of other cohorts will be reduced. ^[112]Concerns have been raised that increasing the share of CoWA Core Target entrants could be at the expense of marginally less disadvantaged entrants (SIMD20-40), and students who do not experience disadvantage (assumed to be in cohorts SIMD40-100).

Although it may seem counter-intuitive, at present, increasing the share of students from the most deprived areas has not led to fewer students progressing to higher education from less deprived areas.The number of entrants has increased for all SIMD quintile cohorts since 2013-14. As Table 4 reports (comparing 2021-22 to 2013-14):

• There has been an increase of 1,745 entrants from Scotland's 20% Most Deprived Areas
• Increase of 1,395 entrants from marginally less deprived areas (SIMD20-40)
• Increase of 830 entrants from SIMD40-60 areas
• Increase of 1,010 entrants from SIMD60-80 areas
• Increase of 690 entrants from the least deprived areas in Scotland (SIMD80-100)

Notwithstanding these progressive trends, there are 1.6 times more entrants from the least deprived areas, compared to the most deprived areas. There is room for improvement.

Furthermore, concerns that the marginally less deprived may be 'displaced' are also, at present, unfounded. The relative share of both SIMD20 and SIMD20-40 has increased since 2013-14 (from 13.7% to 16.5% for the most deprived areas, and from 15.2% to 16.8% for SIMD20-40 areas).

Notes: Shaded cells denote an annual increase in the number of entrants.

On the other hand, there is mixed evidence for the most recent year. The number (Table 4) and relative share of SIMD20-40 increased between 2020-21 and 2021-22; although the number of SIMD20 increased (Table 4), the relative share of SIMD20 entrants reduced.

Understanding SIMD – an indicator, not a measure

As signposted in the introduction to this Report, most of the objections to the fair access agenda focus on the way in which disadvantage is estimated – more specifically, the use of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) to identify the disadvantaged. SIMD is flawed as a measure of the disadvantage experienced by individuals. SIMD does not aim to measure individual disadvantage, and it is well-known among those concerned to tackle poverty in Scotland that more people living in poverty in Scotland live outside Scotland's 20% Most Deprived Areas and most people who live in one of Scotland's 20% Most Deprived Areas do not live in poverty. The risk of false positives and false negatives when using SIMD to identify the disadvantaged is readily apparent. These risks have already been discussed at length in relation to the fair access agenda.

However, I recommend that we should continue to use SIMD to indicate progress with fair access. There are five points in favour of continuing to use SIMD, the first three of which are listed below:

• Tracking progress. SIMD is the metric that we have used to track progress since the start of the CoWA agenda. It has provided focus to the work of HEIs and other stakeholders working to promote fair access. Continuing to use SIMD provides continuity when tracking progress.
• Promoting social justice. Promoting fair access with a focus on Scotland's most deprived areas, adds to the body of social policy interventions that seek to promote social justice in Scotland, countering the multiple inter-related disadvantages that are characteristic of Scotland's most deprived localities.
• National target to which we have committed. We have set a target to be achieved by 2030 (with the next interim target in 2026) and we should not renege on this goal, which might otherwise signal a weakening of commitment to promote fair access.

I accept that critics may find these three arguments to be wanting, criticising, respectively: persisting with an indicator that is flawed; charging Scottish HEIs with a responsibility to address social imbalances that extend beyond education; and persisting with the target premised on these points. However, there are two more arguments in favour of continuing to use SIMD:

• SIMD status is not the only metric that Scottish HEIs use to promote fair access. The University of Aberdeen, for example, uses the following as widening access criteria in addition to SIMD:^[113]
  • Care-experienced students.
  • In receipt of free school meals.
  • In schools defined as University of Aberdeen priority schools.
  • Estranged From Parents.
  • Have Caring Responsibilities.
  • In receipt of Educational Maintenance Allowance.
  • Experienced a physical and/or mental health issue that has impacted on secondary education.
  • Ordinarily resident in a POLAR 4 Quintile 1 (Rest of UK) postcode area.
  • Gypsy, Roma, or Travelling Community.
  • Refugee/Asylum Seeker Status.
  • Home address is in an area considered to remote and rural (5-8 on the Scottish Government 8-fold Urban Rural Classification).
  • Parent Or Carer in the Armed Forces.
  • Served In Armed Forces.
  • Have been through the Children's Panel process.
  • Parents(s) have had a custodial sentence.

All Scottish HEIs use a range of widening access criteria, although not all use as extensive a list as the University of Aberdeen.

• At the present time, we do not have a workable alternative to SIMD. The Access Data Short Life Working Group has explored two alternatives to SIMD (Scottish Child Payment, and Free School Meals) and is likely to conclude that we are not yet able to use either of these individual-level indicators to track progress toward fair access.

In effect, SIMD is an indicator of progress toward fair access, rather than a measure of it. It has, and continues to serve, a useful purpose in providing focus to the fair access agenda and has served to evidence the progress that has been made in Scotland in recent years. However, there is room for improvement and the need to be vigilant to ensure it is used to best effect. I make three further points regarding SIMD.

• Continue work to operationalise a robust indicator of individual disadvantage. Although we are not able to replace SIMD at the current time, or to define a second indicator to complement SIMD, working toward one of these goals should be a priority action.
• Examine deployment of SIMD. It is within the gift of Scottish HEIs to scrutinise the extent to which SIMD adequately represents disadvantage among their student body, by examining the intersection of SIMD with other indicators of disadvantage. Similarly, it is within the gift of Scottish HEIs to use the marker of SIMD20 to understand whether student experience, performance and outcomes are equivalent to non-SIMD students.
• Displacement. Notwithstanding the evidence that the focus on SIMD20 as a marker of disadvantage is not adversely impacting access to Scottish higher education at present, there is a need to continually monitor this issue, particularly if there are no further increases in the total number of entrants, and with a view to understanding impact on courses within institutions.