Widen access to higher education by improving school attainment

School attainment is the strongest determinant of whether young people, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds, progress to higher education, according to guidance from the Office for Students. University widening participation can confront this issue head on by working with schools to offer interventions that go beyond traditional outreach work; programmes that directly improve school attainment to reduce disparities and widen access to higher education. But how do we design programmes that are both practical to deliver and robust enough to make a measurable difference?

Drawing on the development of two subject-specific interventions, a GCSE maths tutoring programme (Accelerate) and a Year 7 literacy intervention (Next Chapter), here are five practical reflections for building evidence-led outreach that supports attainment.

1. Start with the educational problem, not the intervention

When developing your programmes, start by answering a fundamental question: what educational barrier are you trying to address?

In our work, we began with systematic literature reviews alongside commissioned research to better understand where the evidence base was strongest, and where gaps remained. One consistent theme was the strength of evidence behind sustained, in-person, subject-specific tutoring, which became key to our design choices. 

Both programmes involve 12 weeks of in-person, subject-specific tutoring, taking place in the student’s school and also including an on-campus launch and celebration event. 

In both cases, the delivery model followed the problem – not the other way around.

2. Embed subject expertise from the beginning

Strong outreach is not just well organised; it’s educationally credible. That means programmes with subject expertise embedded from the outset.

We developed our interventions in partnership with specialist organisations: Maths Education in Industry (MEI) and the National Literacy Trust. These partnerships ensured that content was grounded in evidence-based pedagogy, not simplified into generic tutoring.

However, subject expertise alone is not enough. Effective design requires ongoing dialogue between subject specialists, school practitioners and outreach staff. These conversations often surface difficult but necessary questions about pace, depth and differentiation, especially within tight delivery windows.

The key lesson: subject expertise should shape both what you teach and how you deliver it.

• Make learning accessible to all in higher education
• Where to position pre-16 outreach in the university structure – and why
• Doing outreach with children? Start with bricks, questions and storytelling

3. Work with schools as co-creators, not customers

Involve schools from the outset by shaping programmes collaboratively, rather than consulting them only once a model had already been established.

This means involving subject leads in decisions about cohort selection, curriculum focus and scheduling. While this approach can take more time upfront, it pays off during delivery. Programmes built this way are more likely to align with school priorities, fit within existing timetables and avoid common implementation issues.     

This co-creation model also shifts the dynamic. Schools are not just delivery sites; they become active partners in shaping the intervention. That shared ownership helps programmes embed more effectively and respond to challenges as they arise.

4. Treat tutors as part of the intervention

Many outreach programmes rely on university students as tutors or mentors, but their role can be underdeveloped. If attainment is the goal, tutor capability becomes central to the programme’s impact.

This creates a challenge for outreach teams. Student tutors are not trained teachers, and their experience levels vary widely. Without the right support, even well-designed programmes can struggle.

Investing in structured training, ongoing support and opportunities for reflection can make a significant difference. In our programmes, we supported tutors to understand school contexts, adapt to different learner needs and translate subject content into accessible small-group sessions. We provided clear session plans, modelled effective teaching strategies, created space for tutors to share and reflect on challenges and offered regular feedback to build confidence and consistency.

We designed accessible resources and didn’t assume high levels of previous teaching experience, while recognising variation in tutors’ starting points. These included clear lesson plans, a range of stretch and support resources, coherent and engaging student work booklets. Each session came with guidance and tips on how to support students who were struggling, while stretching students who grasped concepts, along with practical worksheets and activities to facilitate this for each ability level. 

Our key takeaway was that, when tutoring forms a central part of the model, we need to treat tutor development as a core element of programme design.

5. Balance evaluation design with programme design

There is rightly a growing emphasis on robust evaluation in widening participation. But evaluation is not neutral; it shapes delivery in significant ways.

We aim to conduct a causal evaluation using a randomised control trial method (RCT), where we randomly select half of the cohort in each school to take part in the intervention and half as a control group who don’t take part. This strengthens the evidence base by allowing objective comparison.

However, this level of evaluation comes with trade-offs. Recruiting control groups doubles cohort sizes, adding pressure to schools. Parental consent processes, while essential, can complicate timelines and limit participation, particularly among groups you may most want to reach.

These constraints highlight that rigorous evaluation requires careful planning and resourcing in terms of staff capacity and sharing challenges and expectations with schools. Having clear processes in place for handling the challenges that complex evaluations like RCTs can bring is key, as this type of evaluation raises questions about who is included and who might be unintentionally excluded.

For outreach teams, the goal is to balance rigour with accessibility. Evaluation should strengthen your programme, not undermine its reach.

Taken together, these lessons point to a broader shift in how we design outreach for impact. Evidence-led programmes are not simply about adopting “what works”, but about creating the conditions where research, expertise and school context can interact productively.

This approach is not always quick or easy. It requires slower development, deeper collaboration and, at times, uncomfortable conversations about what is feasible. But the impact on school attainment is worth the investment.

Matthew Lucas is the widening participation manager at UCL.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.