John Denham - Action on Access Conference: 'The Future of Widening Participation'

Good morning.

I’m delighted to be able to talk to you today as the first-ever Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills.

DIUS story

The new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was created by Gordon Brown on his first full day as Prime Minister. It brings together for the first time in Government three strands of policy that will be key factors in determining Britain’s future economic and social wellbeing.

The Prime Minister and I believe that Britain can only succeed in a rapidly changing world if we develop the skills of our people to the fullest possible extent, carry out world-class research and scholarship, and apply both knowledge and skills to create an innovative and competitive economy. In turn, we need to raise skills levels in order to take advantage of the opportunities that an innovative economy brings.

So the three strands of our work are all crucial for the future of this country.

But they are also crucial to building a society where no-one is left behind, and where ordinary people are given a greater stake in the community in the form of higher wages, higher aspirations and more stable and secure lives.

My new Department offers a more direct and distinct voice at Cabinet level which will help us to drive forward this important agenda.

What we’ve done

This government believes that talent and hard work, not where you went to school, should determine your success in life. We believe that education changes peoples’ lives for the better.

That is why we have tirelessly worked to widen participation to higher education since 1997.
We believe that no one should be deterred from going to university because of fear of financial difficulties. That is why we have reintroduced grants. And in July I announced changes to the student grant package. From 2008/09 the minimum threshold of family income for a full maintenance grant will rise from the current £17,500 per annum to £25,000 per annum.

From 2008/09 the maximum threshold of family income for a partial maintenance grant will rise to £60,000 from £37,500.

This will mean that one third of all students in England entering higher education in the academic year 2008/09 will receive a full non-repayable grant worth £2,825 and another one third will receive a partial grant.

Once the system is fully up and running (2010), we estimate that 50,000 more students each year will receive full grants and another 50,000 will receive partial grants.

We have also guaranteed the level of support for students who get Education Maintenance Allowances from 2008 who stay on and go into higher education. So prospective students from lower income backgrounds know exactly where they stand while they’re working towards entering higher education. No student has to pay their fees upfront. Once they finish, they benefit from the raised earnings threshold at which loan repayments start, and from next year the possibility of invoking a repayment holiday to manage their finances more flexibly.

We have created the Office for Fair Access: Universities charging higher level tuition fees must offer financial help to students from poorer backgrounds under the terms of their access agreement. Every year, around 400,000 students from low income backgrounds are expected to benefit from £300 million worth of bursaries or other financial incentives from their universities and colleges, and a further £35 million will be spent on outreach activity.

We have continued to invest substantially in the Aimhigher Programme. With a national network of 45 area-based partnerships, Aimhigher’s purpose is to widen participation in higher education by enabling partnerships of schools, colleges and higher education institutions to design and deliver attainment and aspiration raising activities for those from backgrounds currently under-represented in HE.

AimHigher has also been shown to have a positive impact on attainment in schools as well as in increasing aspirations. One of the winning entries in the National AimHigher Awards Scheme was Brakenhale School in Bracknell. Their maths residential weekends organised with AimHigher Berkshire saw the number of pupils gaining A*-C in GCSE maths increase from 22% in 2004 to 44% in 2006. A fantastic increase in attainment.

That is why I’m delighted my colleague Bill Rammell was able to announce a few weeks ago that funding would be made available for the programme to continue during the next three-year spending period.

At a time when the conflicting demands of public services make it necessary to prioritise the use of resources carefully, that fact is an indication of the Government’s confidence in the programme.

Universities are working hard

Universities are increasingly investing in widening participation too. Steve Smith's recent survey for the National Council for Educational Excellence shows the sheer volume of effort by higher education to reach schools. Every one of his respondents had something to offer from their own experience – student mentoring schemes, summer schools, programmes involving teaching staff, taster days. They were also helpful in suggesting what does and what doesn’t work well among the panoply of outreach measures. For example, relationships based on individual teachers were shown to be effective but only in the short term, because obviously, they may move on. What does work, is sustained involvement over a number of years – for example long term mentoring and repeated opportunities for taster of sessions on universities, time after time.

Every time I meet a Vice Chancellor, they tell me about their determination to recruit from a broader social base, and about what they’re doing to meet that aim.

We must go further

Whilst applauding the progress we’ve made, we have to admit we are not there yet. No one could seriously argue that the current social bias across higher education and in individual institutions – including some of the most sought after – reflects a system that reaches all of our most talented young people. Nor could anyone argue that all our young people go to the most appropriate institution for them.

This is not to say that universities are guilty of systematic bias against young people from deprived backgrounds. I accepted in my speech to UUK’s annual conference in September that efforts by government and universities to increase the number of poorer students in higher education lead some critics to make accusations of "social engineering", putting dogma ahead of ability. But striving for a university system that is more representative of society is not about narrow ideology, nor is it about achieving statistically satisfying solutions. It is about Britain's success in the world.

In an increasingly competitive world, the prizes will go to those countries, education systems and institutions that overcome disadvantage to unlock the most talent in their societies, wherever it exists. Today, we have one of the best higher education systems in the world. But it is not yet reaching all the talent that is out there. Talent is being wasted; opportunities are being lost.

The challenge is stark. We must harness all the available talent we have if Britain is to remain competitive in the ever more competitive world of tomorrow.

It is in the interest of universities, both individually and collectively, to identify and nurture the talent of our young people. If they do so, they will reap the benefits of having the most able students.

Any vice-chancellor should feel concerned if their institution is not fully representative of the talent our country has to offer. Those most anxious to be judged on a world scale should be the most concerned if, as the century rolls on, their institutions continue to miss out on the best talent.

We are clear – our aim is not just about students getting in to higher education. It’s about them getting on to the course, at the university, which best suits their needs, talents and goals.

But universities cannot offer places to students – however talented - who do not apply. Those they do admit must be sufficiently well equipped to succeed. It is clear that there is only so much that can be done by focussing exclusively on university admissions procedures and 17 and a half year olds.

The evidence suggests young people make key decisions about university – whether university is “for them”, whether will commit to working hard to achieve, and what subjects they take – much younger, at age 12, 13, 14.

We – all of us with an interest in this, government, schools, colleges and universities – need to work together to do three things: raise standards, improve information advice and guidance and support for applicants, and raise aspirations.

Aspiration is the most important of all these. Why? Without it, a young person won’t achieve their potential. Provide all the information, advice and guidance in the world, but if a student doesn’t think university is for them, they simply won’t look at the information. However talented a student may be, if they have no aspiration to use it, the talent will be wasted.

One of the most depressing episodes of my political career illustrates this well. I was down in Southampton, my constituency, meeting a group of mothers who had run a very successful campaign to do up their council estate. They were led by a really smart woman, who was also heavily involved in the local primary schools. I was chatting to her, and the others who ran the campaign, and I asked her what all their kids would do when they grew up. She said “oooh, lawyers and doctors”. And then she laughed. They all laughed.

The children of graduates, of course, grow up in a world where becoming a doctor or a lawyer may be seen as just one of a range of opportunities available.

But if there continue to be communities like these, where no-one thinks that they can do such things, we will not harness all the talent out there.

At Labour party conference this year, the Prime Minister asked:

“How much talent that could flourish is lost through a poverty of aspiration: wasted not because young talents fail to reach the stars but because they grow up with no stars to reach for?”

We greatly value the work AimHigher, and every single one of you does in this room. Because you show our children those stars. You encourage our children to reach for them. And you support our children to grab them.

Effectiveness

We have committed to funding AimHigher for the next three years, but that does not mean it will remain unchanged.

I have spoken about how strongly the government feesl about the importance of AimHigher, widening participation work, and the impact it has. The government is restless to investigate how we can make the work you do the most effective it can be. I want to talk about how we can build on the important Aimhigher targeting guidance that was issued earlier this year.

My department and HEFCE will challenge universities and WP programmes to look critically at what they do, to see what works and what does not. The programmes must strengthen their abilities to monitor their own activities, to evaluate their impact. The goal - unlocking the talents of everyone to build a stronger society to face the challenges of the next century – is too important simply to hope it is working. We need to know.

For example, AimHigher sometimes loses track of students when they leave school, either at 16 or 18. If we don’t follow them, how will we ever know what impact we’ve had? This has to change.

I have also asked HEFCE to look at universities’ widening participation activities in the round to ensure that they are targeted effectively and that there is coherence across the agenda.

Structural change

But there is a greater challenge. HEFCE's recent study looking at low participation in four constituencies shows how local circumstances create restricted 'horizons for action'. It confirms through rigorous academic study my example from Southampton. Choices and perceptions about what is possible are constrained by a range of social and cultural factors. The usual aspiration raising solutions, although helpful, will not achieve the necessary cultural breakthrough on their own. To make progress requires a cultural change. And that change can only be brought about through deep and enduring partnerships between schools, colleges, universities and others with an interest in the education of our young people and a role to play in economic regeneration.

Widening Participation projects are enormously valuable and change peoples’ lives. But what happens when the project workers leaves? When the kids who have benefited have gone off to university? Take away the people, have we fundamentally changed the school or university to enable other students to benefit?

If a project provides information advice and guidance to young people who would benefit from university, for example, when the project finishes, has it built the capacity of the school, teachers and parents to offer the same quality of service which have been shown to be so valuable? This is our next challenge.

The next phase in widening participation work must be collaboration that brings structural changes to both universities and schools to mainstream the excellent work done. Where there are specific issues - for example, overcoming the poor performance of young working class men, raising the aspirations of young people in underperforming schools, or improving the support that pupils get in filling out their UCAS forms – AimHigher partnerships, other WP schemes, universities and schools should work together to form deeper, longer term relationships which last for years rather than days. Relationships not based on projects, that end, but based on shared aims and objectives. That build systems, processes and structures for success that lasts.

In October, I was delighted to launch a prospectus with Lord Adonis on how universities sponsor trusts or academies. There are a range of partnership models, and it is for universities, schools and colleges to work with local partners to determine the most appropriate for each individual case. One option is for a single university to sponsor a single academy, playing an active role on the governing body, and supporting the management. Another might be universities taking part in a trust which aims to raises achievement across a cluster of schools.

To give one example, the University of the West of England has sponsored the City Academy, Bristol, since 2003, engaging in a variety of activities across the Academy, including student mentoring and Continuing Professional Development for staff. This partnership has raised students’ attainment, but also their aspirations. Whereas in 2002 only seven sixth-formers went on to university, in 2007 the figure was 39. Engaging with a trust has the potential to have a similar impact. The Universities of Warwick and Exeter, for example, are both optimistic about the difference that their support for trust schools can make.

Partnerships such as these raise standards across the board, increase aspirations of teachers, parents and students, and support pupils applying for university. For example, they will embed the careers and educational advice that is necessary to engage, inspire and inform young working class men to make suitable life choices. They will help everyone in a school to inspire our 12, 13 and 14 year olds to open their eyes to the opportunities around them and inspire them to achieve their potential. AimHigher partnerships and other WP schemes have a role in building these links and mainstreaming the good practice that they currently provide. We will ensure that we provide a full evidence base to support decisions about which kinds of partnerships are effective in which situations.

And we expect to see a greater effort attached to supporting trusts and academies. In the coming months, we want to see all WP projects considering how to promote them.

In talking to universities about creating stronger structural links, the issue of funding has inevitably been raised. May HEIs which already have links see the value in drawing on mainstream resources to sustain their new links. But I recognize that some pump-priming could well be useful. Over the next few weeks I shall be in discussion with HEFCE and UUK about the best ways of doing so.

Conclusion

I want to conclude by stressing once again just what a high priority widening participation should be for all of us.

At its core, its about identifying and nurturing talent.

Its about not letting a child’s potential go to waste, just because of the circumstances in which they were born.

I make no apology for my impatience for a fast pace of change and a strong evidence base.

Widening participation practitioners can and must play a role in that mainstreaming process by helping to bring universities, academies and trusts together to form long term, deep relationships which last.

Thank you.