Bill Rammell - Neil Stewart Associates Conference
Barbican Centre, London - 27 March 2008

Introduction

Good morning everyone. It's a great pleasure for me to be here today and to be able to take part in your conference.

You know, as I know, that statistics play a big part in education, no doubt because, as a famous American humorist put it, statistics is the science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

That's why I approach the task of talking to you today about student retention a little cautiously. This is an area where statistics of different sorts have produced a particularly large degree of confusion and argument. Is retention getting better, getting worse, or staying the same?

Well, an argument can be made in favour of any of these. Indeed, two recent reports on the subject from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee do in a sense draw opposite conclusions from essentially the same evidence.

I don't want to go into detail today about the areas that HEFCE are considering in response to the NAO and PAC reports. Some of you may well have taken part in the sector seminars that HEFCE have been holding jointly with the NAO in order to explore this. But even so, the reports in some ways provide the framework for what I'm going to be talking about.

What do we mean by retention?

So let's start by considering what it is that we mean by retention. And indeed, whether retention matters.

Those might seem pretty obvious questions at first sight. It can be argued simply enough that someone who signs up to get a qualification and doesn't has dropped out. That analysis continues to the effect that, since, every university student costs a substantial amount of taxpayers' money each year, failure to complete a course equates to that money having been wasted.

That's one view. But there are others.

For example, the Open University used to boast that despite its huge and diverse student population it had zero drop-out. It made that claim on grounds which I, personally, applaud. Firstly, because any learning, however brief, is a positive achievement with a positive impact on the learner's life. And, secondly, because we shouldn't view learning as something that people start doing at 5 years old and finish with at 21. We should see it as a process that continues throughout life. And if a person takes one course unit and then stops, it shouldn't mean that they can't take another one later on, when they need it or when they're ready.

The country's been slow to catch on to that way of thinking. But it underpins many of the developments that the Government is currently taking forward in further and higher education - and indeed, also the drive towards more personalised learning in schools.

If we are to attain by 2020 the national skills levels that the Leitch review said we must in order to remain economically competitive, then it's the sort of thinking we're going to need. 70 per cent of our 2020 workforce have already left school and most of them are already in employment.

I've said many times before that for learning to reach many of them, in the workplace itself, we're going to have to rethink what we think of as a course or a unit of learning, and be prepared to break learning down into smaller, bite-sized chunks.

All of these things have implications for what we think of as retention. But none of them give us any excuse to be complacent about it.

For my part, I think the truth about retention lies somewhere between these two extremes. People can and do benefit personally and professionally from learning, whether they obtain a qualification at the end of it or not. But at the same time, it should be a cause for concern if, for one reason or another, students are prevented from fulfilling their ambition of obtaining a particular qualification.

Especially if there's something we can do to mitigate or remove entirely the barriers they face.

There's another argument, which I reject, that large numbers of students dropping out of their courses is the price that has to be paid for a mass higher education system of the sort we want. I don't see the fact that a certain percentage of students fail, or fail to complete, their courses as any sort of guarantee that standards are being maintained. As it happens, I think it's quite the opposite.

Rationing by queue the prospects in life that a degree brings, or pre-ordaining inevitable failure for a certain number of learners is not something that this Government is prepared to countenance. We are about opening up opportunity. Not reducing standards, but giving people best range of opportunities and support possible so they can get excellent educational base for their future life and career

That is why we are and will remain committed to increasing and widening participation in higher education.

What do we know about retention?

Earlier on I expressed some doubts about the various statistics about retention that are out there. That's mainly because, in order to be manageable and remain comparable, they depend on definitions that can sometimes seem arbitrary.

I think you'll agree that there's a difference that numbers can find it very hard to capture between, say, a student who drops out of one course to start a different course elsewhere; a student who drops out because of urgent family needs; a student who drops out because they've been offered a job they really want; and a student who drops out because they just can't afford to go on.

But I think it's worth taking a moment to look at just what we do know about retention. And what we do know actually looks pretty hopeful.

Over the last ten years, we've seen a dramatic rise in student numbers. There are 300,000 more students in the system now than there were then. Despite that, the higher education sector has maintained, and in some areas slightly improved retention rates for student. Indeed since 1997, non-completion rates have improved from 15.7 per cent to 13.8 per cent.

Overall student retention rates in this country compare very well internationally, a fact acknowledged in the National Audit Office report. The UK ranks fifth in the OECD for first degree completion rates, out of 23 countries who report data in this area. The UK have a survival rate of 78 per cent, Japan are top with 91 per cent followed by Ireland, Korea and Greece. We compare very well against other countries with, for example Germany ranked tenth, Australia fifteenth, Sweden twenty-first and USA twenty-third.

I want to say a word in particular about part-time students. I've already mentioned the fact that part-time study in its different forms is set to grow further over the coming years. And I've also referred to the difficulties that part-time students cause for retention bean-counters, who have to try to distinguish between a part-timer who's merely paused in their studies and one who's completely given up.

Retention rates for part-time students are indeed reportedly poor. But NAO themselves recognised the insufficiency of the data underpinning them. The data is a snapshot only, draws on unpublished administrative data, takes an arbitrary cut-off of 6 years for a part-time degree, which is actually the usual minimum period for completion, and excludes the Open University. That institution alone accounts for half of all part-time students.

We in the Government do recognise the importance of developing reliable national data on part-time students. HEFCE have asked the sector's Performance Indicators Steering Group to investigate the issue, but given the challenges of determining maximum study duration and how to include the Open University it's by no means an easy task.

The modular nature of most part-time courses and the increasing use of credit units even for full-time courses means that students don't necessarily sign on for a full degree when they commence study and that people can deliberately choose to complete only certain modules - and then withdraw when they have achieved their objectives.

I hope it goes without saying that we would be very strongly against any measure of success which created a arbitrary cut-off, at which point a student would be deemed to have failed. That could lead to many unwelcome consequences. For example, an institution's reputation could suffer for no better reason than that it has done what everyone in politics and business has asked it to do and become more flexible. That could ultimately reduce flexibility to individuals and employers and create perverse incentives.

But there is more to do

To those who want institutions to be punished financially for drop-out, I say this. There would be no surer way to lower standards and no more effective incentive for dumbing-down than to threaten to hit a university in the pocket every time a student walks out the door.

However, I do accept there is more that we all ought to be doing to minimise non-completion. That is why we welcome suggestions from the Public Accounts Committee - and indeed, anyone else - to further improve university student support services.

And there is plenty that we are already doing.

For example, we have announced the continuation of funding for the Aimhigher programme to help raise pupils attainment and aspiration; and we are encouraging schools and universities to form stronger structural links to help identify and nurture talent, helping to prepare students for university from a younger age.

And the Government is also spending record amounts of money on higher education. Public expenditure on it has increased over 23 per cent in real terms from 1997-98 to 2007-08. As part of that increase, we are providing HEFCE with ring-fenced grants of £243 million to help support retention.

Something that both the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have highlighted is the fact that retention rates are affected by many factors. So both universities and the Government are thinking increasingly seriously about improving the quality of the whole student experience.

In order for that to be possible, each higher education institution and each faculty, school and department must get to know its students using quantitative and qualitative information. Involving and consulting students must help and I acknowledge the fact that some universities have already been doing this successfully for years.

But the onus isn't only on the sector. It's also on those of us who make higher education policy. That's why my Ministerial colleagues and I at the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills have spent the last six months visiting campuses up and down the country in order to meet ordinary students and listen to what concerns them. I can tell you now that I, personally, have heard many interesting and surprising thoughts on the things that can have an impact on the quality of a student's higher education experience and, therefore, their likelihood to complete their studies successfully.

That is also something which the National Student Forum, established only last month, will help with. The importance we place on this may be judged from the fact that the work of the forum will receive support at Ministerial level from my colleague Baroness Delyth Morgan

You may also be aware that John Denham has recently asked Paul Ramsden from the Higher Education Academy to think about and report on future challenges for the sector and in particular how higher education can provide a truly quality experience for students.

What universities can do.

For all the investment that we're making, I don't pretend that universities have it easy. We're asking them to increase the number and diversity of the students they recruit. We're asking them to become more flexible so that they can reach out beyond the campus to employers and workers, We're asking them to improve the quality of the student experience in and outside the classroom. And we're asking them to ensure that more students complete their courses. That's a lot to ask.

But I don't apologise for it. It's what needs to happen if universities are to make the contribution we need them to not just to meeting the Leitch targets, but also to making this country a better and fairer place to live.

So, for example, universities have work to do not only in tailoring their provision to individual students needs but also in offering excellent support and pastoral service for all students. I would like to see each student with a single initial point of contact for their problems.

I'm not just talking about giving weaker students the help they need if they're ever going to limp across the finishing-line. And I'm not just talking about riding to the rescue of students with some sort of crisis in their lives. This is not just about helping everyone to 'scrape by' but helping everyone to achieve their full potential.

A more diverse student population and greater variety of delivery options does place a greater emphasis on effective university management; it draws retention strategies into sharper focus. Each higher education institution must develop its own strategy for its own circumstances. But there is a good tradition of learning from other parts of the sector.

It follows from this that higher education institutions must be aware of what's going on among their student population. And they must be ready to take action where they identify a problem. That is something that has emerged clearly from the Higher Education Academy's work on ethnicity and student achievement. It is very obvious, but no less true for that.

Just as we need to maintain standards - and help everyone to have the best experience, so on retention we need to ensure that all students, whatever background, circumstances, institution, mode of delivery or location, that all students are given relevant support. In that way, we will give them the very best chance to stay in higher education and to achieve well.

That goes not only for 18 year-olds from high-performing school on highly competitive course. It goes for all students in higher education, whatever their level and whether they're on the campus or in the workplace.

Conclusion

I therefore welcome the joint NAO/HEFCE conferences and this event today as the start of a process that will give new impetus to institutions' efforts to improve retention and allow them to learn from each other's experiences.

Universities' performance on retention in this country has been very good - in spite of press reports - and again I pay tribute to the higher education sector for their achievements. But we must ensure that all students have that best levels of support and a best possible experience.

Our students deserve the best and we are committed to ensuring that they receive it. I hope that you will join with my colleagues and I in working to make that a reality.

Thank you.