Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Liz ThomasProfessor of Higher Education
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
International Research on the Effectiveness of Widening Participation
CFE and Edge Hill University, on behalf of HEFCE and OFFA
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
About the research study. Common contextual issues from across the case
studies. Findings in relation to access, retention and
success. Ideas and issues from other countries. (Potential) implications for England.
Overview
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Office for Fair Access (OFFA), undertaken CFE and Edge Hill University.
Six national case studies: Australia, the Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Ireland, South Africa and the US.
Access, retention and completion and financial support.
Provides contextual information about the education system, HE sector, definitions and statistics.
Describers policy responses and evaluated interventions.
Identifies lessons for England.
About the research study
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Trend towards greater proportion of the cost of HE to students and/or their families as a result of expansion of HE and austerity;
Most countries offer a package of support for HE students in the form of non-repayable grants and bursaries complemented by income-contingent loans;
Students are not deterred by higher level fees if appropriate mechanisms are in place to enable them to manage the cost and minimise the risks;
Financial aid is complex and there is need for the simplifi-cation of information and application processes.
Contextual issues from across the case studies
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Findings regarding access, retention and success
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Some studies have found that systems that defer the cost of studying in HE combined with income contingent loan repayment do not deter students from lower socio-economic groups – e.g. Australia and Netherlands. These studies find that students have a reasonable understanding of debt and repayment. Such a model may facilitate access, allowing students to reduce up-front costs.
Research in Norway and US however calls this into question. Families with lower education levels expressed more concern about loan repayment in Norway. In the US debt levels, deferment and unemployment all rising amongst graduates, especially low income families. This impacts on post–graduation spending power, including decisions about housing, financial investments and fertility.
Problems are magnified for non-completers who have lower salaries.
Access
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Insufficient funding: There are eligible students who don’t receive funding (or funding is reduced to meet demand, e.g. South Africa), and/or eligibility levels are too low (e.g. missing middle in the US).
Fragmented information: Most countries have a website drawing together information, but this needs to be supported by guidance. This means students are not sure in advance of the financial support they will receive. In Ireland the Student Support Act (2011) reduced the number of student finance options and established a single, unified and more efficient online grant application scheme.
Clarity about financial support pre-entry
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
The evidence is mixed regarding retention and success too. US studies show positive impact of financial support on
retention and achievement, especially for low income students. But, some studies show if financial support does not cover full costs there is no impact.
Research in South Africa has considered the impact of financial support on attainment, and has found mixed evidence.
Increased cost of HE is leading to higher levels of employment.
Retention and success
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Learning from other systems?
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Different contexts make direct and simplistic comparisons inappropriate.
We should avoid cherry-picking (McGrath, 2001, p. 398) or naïve borrowing (Evans et al,1999, p. 2).
Health warning!
We can gather ideas and explore relevance to our national and institutional contexts, and to fuel our imagination and creativity.
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Financial information one-stop-shop (Ireland, Netherlands).
Single financial aid application process (Ireland, US).
Different fee rates or financial aid to encourage participation in particular subjects (Australia, Netherlands, US).
Financial aid paid monthly (Netherlands).
Additional support for students living away from parents (Netherlands), or with children (Norway).
Capped earnings from employment level, after which state funding reduced(Netherlands, Norway).
Institutional responsibility for financial aid package (US).
Some interesting examples
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Do students have sufficient pre-entry information about financial support for it to impact on access decisions? How can we provider greater clarity and certainty to inform access decisions?
Should we use financial support to encourage participation, retention or success in certain subjects?
Can institutions play a greater role in reviewing students’ financial support before they enrol and run into difficulty?
Are we giving enough financial support to impact on retention? What are the alternative models?
What is the impact of financial support on attainment? Should employment be considered as part of the financial
package?
Implications for England
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Support with the cost of fees. Norway and Ireland do not charge undergraduate tuition fees. Others charge gees and offer reduced fees/waivers to students on low incomes.
Maintenance grants or living allowances. Typically mean-tested, non-repayable grants or allowances. In most countries, only students from the lowest household income groups are eligible, but in Norway 97 per cent of students are in receipt of grant support.
State-funded student loan schemes. Typically available on a voluntary basis to all full-time undergraduates. Australia’s loan scheme covers tuition fees only, while other countries’ loans can be used to cover tuition and living expenses. Repayment of loans is typically at below market interest rates, can be deferred until after graduation and is income-contingent. Payment is typically collected through the taxation system. This system operates in Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa and the USA as well as in England.
Commercial student loan schemes. Less likely to be income contingent. In South Africa commercial loan providers generally demand repayments one month following the granting of the credit.
Types of funding (1)
Edge Hill University: University of the Year
Student loan subsidiary programmes. Typically smaller, one-off payments to assist students to pay for services and amenities.
Loan to grant conversion schemes. Offers a financial incentive to students who complete their degrees, e.g. Norway and South Africa up to 40 per cent of the value of a student loan is converted to a grant, dependent upon academic results.
Targeted income support. Targeted at specific groups e.g. disability funding in Australia, Norway and Ireland (and England), or students with children in Norway.
Hardship funds – These are typically funded at state or even pan-state level but are almost always administered at institution level. They are designed to provide financial aid for students who experience ‘hardship’ during the course of their studies and can be used to cover study costs such as books and living expenses. E.g. Ireland.
Scholarships . Typically allocated by universities, based on financial need or academic excellence. Some are repayable, e.g. Australian Start-up Scholarships, others are given in the form of a non-repayable grant.
Types of funding (2)
