University Choices of Year 12 Learners Jodie Lawton & Joanne Moore February 2011 Aimhigher

Aimhigher is the Government’s initiative to widen participation in higher education in through activities that raise the aspirations of young people. The Aimhigher Greater Manchester partnership involves 7 higher education institutions, 10 local authorities, 23 colleges and more than 150 schools. Key features of the Aimhigher Greater Manchester programme include:

A collaborative approach both to the definition of strategic priorities and to delivery, enabling colleges to communicate with universities about the activities for their learners.

Targeting of resources to those who have the highest level of need. Clear targeting using objective criteria ensures that limited resources have the maximum impact.

A sequential and progressive programme of activity – the Aimhigher progression framework which provides activities and support for young people over several years.

Active learning – information about opportunities is presented through visits to universities, discussions with HE students, summer schools or hands-on subject workshops, so that young people take away not only knowledge of HE options but inspiration and motivation to progress.

Building capacity in colleges to support progression to higher education, especially through resources and materials, delivery through Graduate Officers, staff development and sharing ideas and outcomes in local partnership meetings.

Drawing on the specialist the knowledge and networks of the partnership, Aimhigher has established highly successful work with some of the hardest to reach learner groups including apprentices and Looked After Children.

Applicants to Higher Education

Greater Manchester has shown an upward trend in applications to and entrants to higher education from the most deprived parts of the area, and an increased acceptance rate for learners from further education colleges. National data, from Action on Access, puts Greater Manchester in the top 5 areas for the rate of increase in HE application rates. Evidence of the impact of Aimhigher is growing in general further education colleges, where progression to higher education for Level 3 learners was low before Aimhigher, especially for vocational learners. Some of our large general further education colleges can show big increases in the numbers of applicants and entrants to HE. In one college the number of 2010 applicants Change in UCAS Applicants 2003-2009 was twice the previous year. Acceptance rates (2003 Baseline = 100) are a challenge and the competition for places 160 is fierce. However, colleges are reporting a big change in the aspirations of their students 150 and their motivation to achieve. 140

Data on Greater Manchester applicants to 130 higher education through the University and Collges Admissions Service (UCAS) shows a 120 clear upward trend, accelerating in recent 110 years. The number of Greater Manchester applicants in 2009 was 15% above the 100 previous year (all age groups). The rate of 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Greater Manchester England increase in Greater Manchester applicants in Source: UCAS Datasets 2009 compared to 2008 is above the rate for England (11%).

Acknowledgements The research team would like to thank all those who made the research possible, including Aimhigher coordinators and survey respondents from College, Loreto College, Sixth Form College, , The , , , , and others.

Introduction

During the last decade, higher education has expanded considerably, with more students attending university than ever before. Well over a third (36%) of young people between the ages of eighteen and thirty are estimated to participate in higher education1, a figure which the previous Government were aiming to increase to 50%. The concern to widen participation to include students who may not have traditionally considered it an option, has increasingly been stressed within government policy. Entrant figures show that there has been a 50% increase in the proportion of young people entering higher education from the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods over the last fifteen years, highlighting the success in attracting a wider range of non- traditional students into higher education. However, although Fewer than one in five young these figures show an impressive increase in participation, people from the most disadvan- students from low socio-economic backgrounds continue to be taged areas enter higher under-represented in comparison to their peers from other education, compared to one in backgrounds. Therefore although we now have a mass system, two for the most advantaged we do not yet have a fully inclusive one. areas (Corver, 2010)

Current admissions statistics show that high status universities receive significantly fewer applica- tions from lower social class applicants. For example, amongst all the applications to The University of Cambridge for 2088 entry, 3,676 applications were from learners in the category of higher mana- gerial or professional households, compared to just 188 from the category of routine occupation households2. This shows that the challenge for high status universities is getting those from low socio-economic groups to actually apply, and suggests that the biggest problems of access are to some of the big research intensive universities3.

This research project aimed to investigate how Year 12 students plan to negotiate the university choice process. Gaining a better understanding of how young people approach and make decisions about university study was considered particularly important following the publication of the Browne Review of Higher Education Funding, and the announcement that the government will raise the cap on tuition fees to £9000 for 2012 entrants. The fact that universities will be allowed to set their own fee level, and charge different amounts for different courses, will inevitably make higher education more differentiated and harder to negotiate. The issue of social-class related patterns of access to higher education has become a particular matter of public debate, for a number of reasons:

Increases in university tuition fees will place an increased importance upon institutional choice for students. Choice of university is a key concern for students from low socio- economic backgrounds as research suggests that they are predominantly “entering different universities to their middle class counterparts”4.

In the current economic climate where there are large numbers of graduates entering the job market, competition for the most sought after jobs is no longer decided by whether candidates have a degree or not, but by which university they attended5. This creates a problem for graduates from ‘lower status’ universities, particularly former polytechnics, who are at a distinct disadvantage when they enter the labour market. This problem is likely to be exacerbated through marketisation, and the per- ceptions, distinctions, and choices of HE institutions HE inequality is both quantatitive play a part in reproducing the divisions and hierarchies and qualitative. University in HE6. entrants from low socio economic groups are under-represented The changes coincide with the removal of funding for both in overall numbers and in the Aimhigher initiative which encourages non- relation to the types of institution traditional entry to higher education. and the subjects and courses studied. Aims of the Research

The main aim of the research was to explore Year 12 decisions regarding progression to higher education, taking into account background factors and possible changes in university fee structures. The study explored the following questions:

What factors influence the type of institution applied to? Are there any differences between socio-economic groups? How far do learners understand the status hierarchy within the HE sector?

Use of Results

The findings are designed to provide practitioners in schools, colleges and universities in Greater Manchester with a deeper understanding of the worries and concerns that students face when making decisions regarding further study, and it is hoped that this will be utilised to improve the support on offer for young people.

The resources and timescale available for the project unfortunately did not permit the detailed study of a large number of participants, therefore it is not intended to be a comprehensive survey of students from low socio-economic groups. However, the results are likely to be transferable and generalisable to other learners within similar contexts.

Method

A survey was undertaken of learners in their first year of Level 3 study, ie. prospective entrants to HE in 2012. Learners at FE and Sixth Form colleges across Greater Manchester took part, including those studying both vocational and A Level subjects. This year group was specifically targeted as they will be the first to experience the new university fee structure, if proposed reforms are intro- duced as planned in 2012. An online survey questionnaire was used, to collect the following types of information:

Data on the participants current participation in education and their EMA status.

Attitudes towards progression. The questionnaire sought views on a number of different attitude statements. The statements were drawn from the research literature as factors likely to influence HE participation, and were grouped into themes of ‘attitudes towards university’, ‘finance’, and ‘support’.

Participants were also asked to rank a number of factors in priority order when choosing a university, and also rank five universities as to how they believe they appear on university league tables. This exercise was marked against The Times ‘Good University Guide’ (2010) to assess how far learners’ were able to match universities to their position in the ranking. The responses to these questions offer another perspective on the levels of understanding learners have of the HE market, and their market behaviour.

Respondents by EMA Status The Sample

Survey respondents were grouped according to a 140 socio-economic classification, assessed via their 120 eligibility to receive Educational Maintenance 100 Allowance (EMA), a means tested scheme which 80 offers financial support to low income families. 60 EMA was considered the most accurate way of 40 assessing respondents’ socio-economic status, as 20 it relates directly to household income. The 0 scheme is generally perceived as a positive factor No EMA £10 per £20 per £30 per by students, and it was intended that they would week week week not view this information as particularly sensitive EMA Framework or intrusive. Over two-thirds of the sample (67%) Household income EMA per week £25,552 - £30,810 £10 were in receipt of EMA, and of this group most (82%) £20,818 - £25,521 £20 were getting the maximum allowance of £30 per week. Below £20,817 £30

Responses were received from 270 young people. What type of course Slightly more A Level than vocational learners took are you studying? part (see figure). Other 1% Vocational A Level (BTEC, NVQ, 53% Almost all the respondents (99%) were aged 16-19 Diploma etc) years. Seven out of ten (69%) said neither of their 46% parents/carers had experience of higher education. Just under three-quarters (74%) said they were interested in applying to univesity in the future (and of the remainder most were undecided). Key Findings Most respondents who were considering university felt it would increase their Careers are main future career prospects, and this motivation was especially important for motivation learners in receipt of EMA. This concurs with other evidence which has sug- gested that students from low income backgrounds are more likely to give employability and self improvement as the main motivations for entering HE7. Responses were received from 270 young people. Slightly The EMA group were less confident that they could get a ‘good’ career without more A Level than vocational learners took part (see a degree, and more worried by the prospect of not achieving their career goals figure). post university, compared to the non-EMA group who were more confident of their ability to succeed in the job-market with or without a degree. Almost all the respondents (99%) were aged 16-19 years. Seven out of ten (69%) said neither of their parents/carers Proportionally more EMA students placed ‘getting on a job related programme’ had experience of higher education. Just under three-quarters Job-related in their top 3 priorities when considering university application (43% compared (74%) said they were interested in applying to univesity in the programmes are to 35% of non-EMA students). The stress on job related programmes could be future (and of the remainder most were undecided). becoming increas- a consequence of the proposed changes to student finance, which would see ingly popular students finishing university with considerably more debt. It may be that studying a vocational programme has become more important to students in order to increase their chances of entering graduate employment, and therefore ‘justifying’ the amount of money spent. This could however, “The more important have a negative effect on enrolments on general thing to me is getting a courses as they are not related to a specific degree that will help me career path. get a good job”

Finding the right course was the biggest priority for all prospective students, Choosing the right however the EMA group consistently ranked it highest. 62% placed it as their course is the No 1 number 1 priority, compared to 53% of the non-EMA students. This contradicts priority the findings of previous studies which have suggested that working class students lack a ‘future orientation’8.

The social aspects of university were ranked more highly by non-EMA learners than those in receipt of EMA. In fact well over half (56%), of the non-EMA The social aspects students stated that the social aspects of university were equally as important are less important as academic ones, compared to 47% of the EMA group. Some authors have stated that working class students prioritise the desire to enjoy themselves, even if this has a negative effect on their education prospects9. However, this no longer appears to be the case. EMA learners may need to be more clear that they are choosing the right course for them, which will justify the financial sacrifices made. Therefore other factors such as social aspects, very firmly take second place.

The majority of participants were concerned at some level about supporting Money worries are a themselves at university, however the students on EMA were twice as likely to key source of anxiety be strongly concerned than those from middle class backgrounds (15% of this group were extremely worried, compared to 7% of the non-EMA group). This finding supports previous studies which found that students in receipt of EMA were more likely to try and find ways to minimise expenditure in order to % of respondents with intention of HE who ranked aspects as very important to them

The most important reason for applying to university is to study a subject that interests me

The increased earning power/career prospects from having a degree is very important to me

I value the social aspects of university to be as important as the academic ones

I'm looking forward to mixing with other likeminded people with similar interests to myself

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Non EMA EMA Staying close to ensure they could still attend university, for example they were more likely to home is a deliberate stay at home in order to decrease their debt10. The current research found a similar pattern: 26% of the EMA group rated ‘minimising costs’ as their top strategy to minimise priority when choosing a university. 32% also placed ‘finding a university to costs, but can lead to travel to from home’ in their top three priorities. This builds on the conclusions sacri ce on uni of many existing studies which suggest that non-traditional students tend to choice rely on local provision, even when they could gain entry to a more prestigious institution at an additional cost11.

More EMA learners The respondents in receipt of EMA who were interested in university were more want to stay with likely than the others to say that staying with their existing friends is an impor- their existing friends tant condeiration. Well over a quarter (28%) of prospective EMA applicants rated staying with their friends as a priority (ten percentage points above the non-EMA group).

Of respondents interested in applying to university, the EMA group were more Subject orientation is likely than the non-EMA group to choose a subject that they already have an stronger amongst interest in. Almost three quarters (73%) of EMA respondents said that the most EMA learners important reason for applying to university is to study a subject that interests them (compared to 61% of the potential applicants not receiving EMA).

Eight out of ten The majority of respondents (78%) felt that part time work would be a neces- expect to work and sity whilst studying regardless of their social background. The findings suggest study that many students can no longer visualise being able to afford university without a supplementary income.

Changes in HE Funding

Three quarters of respondents (74%) stated that they were not in favour of the proposed changes in university funding.

The comments received could be divided into three main groups: those who Over a third would be had discounted university completely; those who disagreed with the proposals put o completely but wouldn’t let it put them off university; and those who still wanted to go but felt they would have to make sacrifices to enable this to be possible such as Six out of ten who taking a different course or applying to a lower status university. would still apply say Well over a third (37%) of respondents who had expressed an interest in dierential fees will university in future stated that the increase in the costs of university would aect their uni choice prevent them from applying altogether. Of the remainder who had expressed an interest in applying to university in future, 60% stated that the level of tuition fees would affect which universities they apply to. Over a third (35%) stated that it would affect their choice of course.

Comments from respondents who would be put off university:

“I don’t think uni fees should be put up this high because it will put people off going because of the debt they will be in. As well the economic situation is still affecting us so how would we know that there will be a job for us when we finish with all the debt”

“...people will not want to go to university anymore, I wouldn’t”

“I think tuition fees have got out of hand and that students on lower incomes should be supported more, its not fair”

“Some families like mine just cannot cope with the higher costs when what we earn can just about get us through our living expenses”

“The tuition fee proposals will put people off going to university when they do in fact have the ability to get onto a course” Comments from respondents who are still planning to apply to university:

“It would make me think hard about it, although I will have to go uni if I want to pursue my dream”

“I may need to go to a lower university so I can afford it”

“I feel this rise is unfair on people wishing to study at a red brick, who do not have the finance to get there like myself who is from a single parent family with two brothers. I have had to work from 14 just so I can have money to buy things for myself and school”

“I am lucky enough to have parents that will pay, for others they would be put off the ‘better’ universities”

“I would consider going to a cheaper university if it has the right course”

“It would definitely put me off applying for a longer course”

“I believe that the cheapest course would be the easiest for me to apply to”

Influences

It has been suggested that “parents are a major influence in shaping decisions to participate in higher education, and [students’] choice of where to study, and Family & parents are what course to follow, irrespective of whether they have been to university less likely to in uence themselves”12. Previous research has paid close attention to family influences, EMA students choice and provided evidence that socio-economic distinctions have a considerable of institution effect on how young people understand the HE market, and their decisions regarding university13. However the influence of family on decisions regarding higher education was less evident in the Greater Manchester research, and well under a fifth of students in receipt of EMA (17%) said their families will have an influence over the institutions applied to (compared to 22% of the middle class students).

Respondents with a family history of HE were proportionally more likely to feel confident that they know what to expect from university (44% of this group felt confident, compared to just 24% of those with no family history). Respondents who had no family history of higher education were unlikely to know a signifi- Those without a cant number of people who were at university; nearly two-fifths (38%) of those family history of HE with no family HE history stated that they knew no-one studying in higher are less condent that education. For these students their ‘network of influence’ often consists of they know what to people with little knowledge of the realities of higher education, which limits the expect at university amount of information they are able to gather through their social networks. This supports previous research suggesting that working class students are likely to have inferior levels of social capital, as they have less ‘contacts’ which can provide useful and accurate information regarding HE opportunities14.

Aimhigher activities provide an opportunity for students to collect trustworthy advice about the realities of HE, which can be used to aid their decision making process. In this study Aimhigher was shown to be a much more significant influence for students in receipt of EMA, with 43% stating that Aimhigher activi- Aimhigher has had a ties had moderately or strongly influenced their future plans. This figure for stronger eect on non-EMA students was considerably lower at 19% which reflects the targeting learners in receipt of of the Aimhigher cohort. It also provides encouraging evidence that students in EMA the lowest social class groups are being targeted effectively across Greater Manchester. Consequently, 44% of those who stated they had taken part in Aimhigher activities, felt they had significantly increased their knowledge of post 16 options. Knowledge and Understanding

Understanding of the university application process was fairly low across all EMA students were respondents, however EMA students were slightly more confident about this more con dent they aspect of HE than their middle class counterparts (two-fifths (39%) stated that understood the HE they either understood, or strongly understood the university application proc- application process ess, compared to a third (33%) of the non-EMA group). This could reflect the than other learners fact that more EMA learners had taken part in Aimhigher activities, with 40% of the Aimhigher group stating they understood the application process, compared to 34% of those who had not taken part in Aimhigher.

Few knew what Knowledge of the financial support available to students was low across the nancial support is whole sample of respondents. Only 6% agreed strongly that they had a good available understanding of the financial support available.

Distinctions between universities

Several studies investigating HE choice have demonstrated that both students Reputation and and employers make distinctions between universities. This was shown to be high entry require- the case in the Greater Manchester research, with learners giving unique and ments are less of a individual reasons for considering particular institutions. A universities reputa- consideration for tion for excellence was shown to be a fairly important factor for all the students studied, however it was shown to be EMA students Respondents with intention of HE: slightly more important for non-EMA % agreeing with statements compared to EMA learners (58% and 54% respectively cited reputation as a A university's reputation for excellence is very important to me strong factor in the decision making I would not be interested in applying to a process). High entrance requirements new university (a former polytechnic)

were also slightly more important to The fact that a university has high entrance non-EMA students, with 32% stating requirements is important to me it would be a strong factor when I believe that I would feel comfortable at any type of university choosing a university, compared to My family have views on which institution(s) 28% of EMA students. I should apply to

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% The non-EMA learners included in Non EMA EMA Fewer non-EMA the survey sample were less likely to students would say they will apply to a new university (former polytechnic), and over a fifth consider applying to (21%) of this group stated that they would definitely not consider it (compared former polytechnics to 17% of the EMA group). This supports the findings of another study which concluded that students were becoming increasingly concerned that the rate of return they will secure from entering HE is very much dependent on the institu- tion they attend15. This could be a negative factor for students from lower class backgrounds who, as shown by this study, are more likely to choose a lower status university.

The EMA respondents showed concerns about ‘fitting in’ at university (and EMA learners are around one in ten stated that they were seriously worried about this, whilst no more likey to be one in the non-EMA had this concern). Furthermore they were less likely to feel worried about not that prestigious universities appear welcoming (fewer than a fifth (18%) of the tting in at univer- EMA respondents did not feel prestiguous universities were unwelcoming com- sity pared to 36% of the non- EMA group). This supports previous findings that “the desire to fit in and be accepted steered many (working class students) away from traditional universities, in particular Oxbridge”16. Few respondents were able to The knowledge of university rankings was fairly low across the whole sample. When asked to rank five universities in order according to The Times ‘Good correctly position University Guide’ (2010), the majority (38%) only got one answer correct universities accord- which was predominantly placing University of Oxford at the top of the scale. ing to their interna- The non-EMA group did perform better, with 35% getting 4 or 5 answers right, tional ranking compared to under a quarter (23%) of the EMA group. The difference between the groups could reflect issues of social capital discussed above.

Conclusions

The findings of the research with Year 12 learners in Greater Manchester reinforces the conclusion that decisions on university application are highly complex, personal, and context specific. Univer- sity decisions do not only relate to academic performance, but are also influenced by social and cultural factors such as future aspirations, family encouragement and attitudes towards education. Whilst the university decision making process is highly individualised, however, the findings show that students from low socio-economic backgrounds face common challenges that affect how they approach university choices, and that the challenges are different, or fewer, for non-EMA learners. In particular the university choices of EMA learners are significantly influenced by:

the cost of study. Worries about the cost are likely to lead to limited choice in terms of institution. The choices are often constrained by necessity, coupled with the need to engage in part time work, which means they de-prioritise other aspects of university life such as socialising or attending an institution in a desirable location or with higher ‘prestige’.

concerns about job prospects. Learners were more likely to give inital consideration to university if they could visualise their qualification leading to a successful career and higher future earnings. They therefore did not lack a ‘future orientation’ which has been suggested in previous research19. Instead if they consider the prospects were good enough then they are willing to sacrifice other aspects of university life, to ensure that attendance was a practical financial possibility.

participants’ network of influence. The influence of parents/family is particularly limited for those from low socio-economic groups who received less help from parents in terms of their HE choices. Previous research has suggested that this is due to to parents’ own lack of knowledge and experience of HE, which means prospective HE applicants from these group have limited access to advice.

The preference for ‘newer’ and more local universities amongst the EMA group may reflect percep- tions of their ability to cope in HE, the costs involved and concerns about ‘fitting in’. Whilst, the preference amongst the non-EMA group for ‘traditional’ universities may reflect a more subtle understanding of the hierarchies present within the HE sector, and the benefits that may come from attending an elite institution.

The responsibility for widening participation in higher education increasingly rests with universities themselves. Widening Participation strategies vary between institutions, and further differentiation in the sector may increase the differences. The proposed cap on student places, and the fact that future university funding will be jeopardised by increases in student numbers, opens up the possi- bility that universities will not look beyond the best qualified applicants. This has negative implica- tions for widening participation, as the non-traditional students that have been encouraged to ‘aim higher’ are statistically less likely to study A levels, and less likely to make up the difference and achieve the top grades.

It is therefore worrying that targeted sources of advice such as Aimhigher are being removed at a time when changes in the HE sector increase the complexity faced by learners from low socio economic backgrounds.

Recommendations

Good Information, Advice and Guidance. Supporting the best university choices for individuals is going to require the best information, advice and guidance (IAG). Universities, schools and colleges in Greater Manchester should prioritise the development of strategic and operational plans for delivering HE-related IAG to learners. This should include strategies for early intervention with young people to enable then to start planning their future as early as possible. Staff development for practitioners should also be prioritised at all levels to enhance their capacity to give accurate and impartial IAG to learners.

Broadly based networks of support. There is an ongoing need for schools and colleges to develop close links and practical activities with a range of universities in order to show poten- tial applicants a variety of institutions, rather than just focussing on certain elite or local universities which may not be the goal for many students. There is a danger that focussing on one university in particular may result in further gaps in students’ knowledge, particularly for those who have limited social capital and access to other forms of advice.

Help to negotiate financial implications. Financial advice and guidance will increasingly need to take place in the light of the new fee structures. Prospective applicants need to be aware of the implications of differentiated charging betwen universities, and the framework of fee-waivers, grants and bursaries or other incentives that is put in place over time (as well as and the eligibility criteria for each). The financial aspects should ideally be communicated as early as possible to prevent financial barriers causing students to discount university at an early stage of their education.

Understanding the differences in what universities offer. Potential HE entrants from poorer backgrounds are less likely to move far from home and less likely to perceive differ- ences between higher education institutions as justifying higher fees. Learners will need more help from tutors and from universities themselves to consider how their furture opportunities are balanced with the immediate considerations of cost and distance, both physical and psy- chological.

References 1 Corver, M (2010), Trends in young participation in higher education: core results for England, Bristol: HEFCE, 2010/3. 2 Jary, D. and Jones, R. (2006) Overview of Widening Participation Policy and Practice, in D. Jary and R. Jones (ed) Perspectives and Practice in Widening Participation in the Social Sciences, University of Birmingham: C-SAP, 3-30: 18. 3 University of Cambridge (2008), Entry Requirements. www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/requirements 4 Reay, D., Davies, J., David, M., Ball, S (2001) Choices of degree or degrees of choice? Class, Race and the Higher Edication system. Sociology. Vol. 35, No. 4.et al, 2001: 858. 5 Coffield, F., & Vignoles, A (1997) Widening participation in higher education by ethnic minorities, women and alternative students. A report for the National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education. London: HMSO: 5. 6 Ball, S., Davies, J., David, M., and Reay, D (2002) ‘Classfication’ and ‘Judgement’: Social class and the cognit- tive structures’ of choice of higher education. British Journal of Sociology and Education, Vol. 23; No.1: 52. 7 Connor, H., Dewson, S., Tyers, C., Eccles, J., Regan, J & Aston, J (2001) Social Class and Higher Education: Issues Affecting Decisions on Participation by Lower Social Class Groups. Institute for Employment Studies, Norwich: HMSO; Lawton (2010) Unpublished. 8 Robertson, D., & Hillman, J (1997) Widening participation in Higher Education for Students from Low Socio- Economic Groups and Students with Disabilities. National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education. London: HMSO. 9 Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour. Aldershot, Eng: Saxon House. 10 Brooks, R (2003) Young People’s Higher Education Choices: the role of family and friends. London: Routledge; Connor et al (2001) op cit 2001; Ball et al (2002) op cit; Gorard, S., Smith, E., May, H., Thomas, L., Adnett, N & Slack, K (2006) Review of Widening Participation Research: addressing the barriers to participating in higher education. Bristol: HEFCE. 11 Coffield and Vignoles, 1997 op cit; Connor et al, 2001 op cit; Furlong, A (2005) Cultural dimensions of deci- sions about educational participation among 16-19 year olds, Journal of Education Policy, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 379-389. 12 Gorard et al, 2006 op cit: 22. 13 Brooks, 2003 op cit; Ball et al, 2002 op cit; Reay et al, 2001 op cit; Walkerdine, V., Lucey, H. & Melody, J (2001) Growing Up Girl: Psycho-Social Explorations of Gender and Class. London: Palgrave; Archer, L., & Hutch- ings, M (2000) Bettering Yourself? Discourses of risk, cost and benefit in ethnically diverse, young working class non-participants constructions of HE. British Journal of Sociology of education, No. 21. Pugsley, L (1998) Throw- ing Your Brains at it: higher education, markets and choice. International Studies in Sociology of Education. Vol.8, No.1. 14 Ferlander, S (2004) E-learning, marginalised communities amd social capital: a mixed method approach, in M. Osbourne, J. Gallacher & B. Crossan (eds.) Researching Widening Access to Lifelong Learning: issues and approaches in international research. London: RoutledgeFalmer. 15 Aston and Bekhrandnia, B (2003) Demand for graduates: a review of the economic evidence. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute. 16 Connor et al, 2001 op cit: 85 17 Jackson, B, & Marsden, D (1962) Education and the Working Class. London: Routledge; Robertson & Hillman, 1997 op cit. Identifying Areas for Improvement - Checklist*

Areas for Development Self-Assessment Yes No Unsure

1. Overall IAG Strategy: 1.1 Is there a clear understanding of how the di erent information, advice and guidance activities about HE progression link together, and has this been communicated to sta ? 1.2 Is information on progression options embedded throughout college life?

1.4 Are mechanisms in place to co-ordinate progression support activities between IAG

2. Support & Training for Tutors: 2.1 Do tutors have awareness of the links between aspiration building, achievement and progression?

members and how these link together? 2.4 Are mechanisms in place to ensure consistency of delivery of information, advice and guidance on progression options by tutors?

3. HE Awareness:

3.2 Are links with HE institutions formalised? 3.3 Do the activities include inputs from a range of HE institutions and courses? 3.4 Do you have up-to-date case studies illustrating potential progression routes and the opportunities available? 3.5 Do tutors keep in touch with ex-learners and use these people to raise awareness of the opportunities and realities of HE? 3.6 Are mechanisms in place to keep up-to-date with the nancial aspects (costs and incentives)? 4. Supporting Applications/UCAS Forms: 4.1 Have links been made with HE admissions tutors to provide information to students on entry requirements?

4.3 Is there a system to monitor the quality of references (and does it work)? 4.4 Could more time be built in to enable learners to have more time to research options as well as to complete applications? 5. Progression Tracking: 5.1 Are applications and acceptances through UCAS recorded on central college systems? 5.2 Do you have a process for following up leavers and recording destinations? 5.3 Is destination information from courses, including progression to HE, included in management reports?

*Taken from Aimhigher Greater Manchester, ‘Exploring Support for Progression to Higher Education for Young Full-time Vocational Learners in Further Education Colleges’ Report, October 2008 Resources & Links

Aimhigher national practitioner website www.aimhigher.ac.uk/practitioner Information about the Aimhigher programme, Aimhigher contacts across the country, events, news, media coverage etc.

Aimhigher Greater Manchester www.aimhighergreatermanchester.co.uk Information on activities, resources, news etc.

Aimhigher for learners in Greater Manchester www.uni4me.com What is higher education about, what questions do you need to ask to check it out for yourself, and where can you go for help and information.

Materials for Teachers and Tutors www.teachernet.gov.uk The Tutors’ Resource Pack contains material for students in years 12 & 13 and the Teachers’ Pack contains material for students from year 9 through to 11.

University and HE portal www.direct.gov.uk For finding out what help is available from the Government for those thinking of attending university.

Student finance online www.studentfinance.direct.gov.uk Online portal provided by Student Finance England.

Compare higher education institutions in the UK http://www.unistats.com/ Official website to enable comparisons between UK universities. Includes information on teaching quality and students’ own assessment of the learning experience.

Student Survivor www.studentsurvivor.org.uk An online game in which young people are challenged to create and keep their student happy, fed, watered, clean, studious and in the money.

UNIAID www.uniaid.org.uk A charity helping young people overcome financial hurdles to higher education - includes Student Survivor virtual game. Includes very good games about managing finances for a range of ages.

Coping with finances www.uniaidinteractive.org.uk Toolkit of 30 imaginative workshops covering 9 modules, linked with the National Curricu- lum for anyone who is concerned with helping students cope with their finances.

University and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS) www.ucas.com The central organisation that processes applications for full-time undergraduate courses at UK universities and colleges.

HE Reforms http://www.bis.gov.uk/studentfinance The Government's plans for reforms to higher education and student finance.

Bright Journals www.brightjournals.org An educational e-mentoring website created by innovative charity, The Brightside Trust.

Independent sponsored website www.unionview.com View of what universities and their immediate surroundings have to offer.