Bursaries fail to help poor students stay the course

Shift to outreach, Ebdon says, as Offa finds no link between awards and retention

March 6, 2014

Source: Alamy

Size doesn’t matter: continuation rates were similar whatever the award sum

Les Ebdon, the university access tsar, has called for institutions to spend less on bursaries for poor students after a study found that they have no observable effect on dropout rates.

According to the report by the Office for Fair Access published on 6 March, neither the size nor the availability of a bursary had a discernible effect on whether a student from a poor background would finish a course or not.

The study Do Bursaries Have Any Effect on Retention?, which looked at dropout rates when tuition fees were about £3,000 a year, says continuation rates were broadly similar whether poor students received more than £1,060 a year in bursaries or less than £700 a year.

However, A-level grades and family income were factors that influenced dropout rates, the report says.

Professor Ebdon, the director of fair access to higher education, said that the report, which covers the period between 2006-07 and 2010-11, provides “powerful new evidence” that universities should spend money on expanding their outreach work with schools rather than on students themselves.

“This new piece of Offa analysis shows that bursaries may not be the powerful retention tool that many currently believe them to be,” said Professor Ebdon. He urged universities to take the report into account when drawing up their access agreements for 2015-16, when institutions in England will spend about £600 million on financial support for students, outreach and services to improve retention.

“We will be encouraging them to rebalance their investment towards both targeted [and] sustained activities that raise attainment and aspirations and activities that support students in successfully continuing their studies and progressing to employment or postgraduate study,” Professor Ebdon said.

The call to shift spending away from direct cash support for poor students could prove controversial as severe cutbacks have already been announced by the government.

In November, it was announced that the £150 million National Scholarship Programme, which provides awards worth £3,000 a year, would be reduced by £100 million in 2014-15, while last month’s grant letter announced the end of the £37 million Access to Learning Fund, which provides discretionary grants to poor students.

Professor Ebdon’s failure to speak out against these cuts to student support has prompted criticism, with Geoff Layer, vice-chancellor of the University of Wolverhampton, calling for Offa to start “standing up for students”.

Rachel Wenstone, vice-president (higher education) of the National Union of Students, criticised Professor Ebdon’s call to scale back bursary support for the poorest students.

“It is concerning that Offa is making recommendations like this because we know the financial package provided to students is nowhere near enough,” Ms Wenstone said.

She said the recommendation did not take into consideration the different circumstances of institutions, many of which already had a high proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and did not need to spend as much on outreach.

“You cannot look at the sector as a whole in this way – you need to look at individual circumstances,” she said.

jack.grove@tsleducation.com

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Reader's comments (1)

Blair introduced the tuition fee using his Scottish Labour MPs' majority and arguing that a substantial majority of post A level students should go to universities. The fallacy here is assuming that all students should complete A levels and should hence opt to go to universities. Since then other politicians, UUK and Ebdon and his outfit all simply assume that universities and degree courses should be the the only destination. Many students who are forced to take the university route find that the degree courses they have enrolled are not appropriate for them and they find that they do not meet their expectations or fulfill their purpose, and hit with other problems they drop out. This "attrition rate" is higher in the post92 sector. Instead of dangling the bursaries or spending more cash on outreach work which is not going to help those who do not going like the degree courses, the effort should be directed at creating more skill-based diploma /certificate courses which these students can relate to and feel that they are worthwhile. This does mean that cutting out the emphasis that university degree courses should be for all. Putting more investment in properly developing skill-based courses say in technology colleges with strong links with the industry to provide an alternative route for aforementioned students. We do not need these many universities any way.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

men in office with feet on desk. Vintage

Three-quarters of respondents are dissatisfied with the people running their institutions

students use laptops

Researchers say students who use computers score half a grade lower than those who write notes

Canal houses, Amsterdam, Netherlands

All three of England’s for-profit universities owned in Netherlands

Mitch Blunt illustration (23 March 2017)

Without more conservative perspectives in the academy, lawmakers will increasingly ignore and potentially defund social science, says Musa al-Gharbi