Consultation on a new approach to the Uni Connect programme from 2021-22 to 2024-25

Consultation on a new approach to the Uni Connect programme from 2021-22 to 2024-25

AccessHE/London Higher response

Question 1 To what extent do you agree with the proposed approach to phase three of the Uni Connect
programme? Please provide a brief explanation for your answer. If you believe our approach should
differ, please explain how and the reason for your view.

Tend to agree

We are supportive of the proposed approach to the extent that we can make an informed judgement
without detail on targeting methodology and funding.

We in particular welcome the proposal to synch phase three of the programme with the current
Access and Participation Plans (APPs), which will enable greater strategic alignment with the outreach
activity of HE providers.

We note from the consultation document that a decision on programme targets will be made once
the overall funding envelope for Uni Connect is clear. AccessHE acknowledges that the current 20%
engagement target enables measurement of outcomes in a way that is consistent across partnerships
and comprehensible to external stakeholders, however we would advocate a more nuanced approach
to programme targets in phase three. One of Uni Connect’s strengths is its local collaborative approach
to tackling higher education access gaps, yet the use of a ‘one size fits all’ target limits the ability of
the regional partnerships to address these gaps, given that their underlying causes are very often
rooted in place and therefore unique to specific areas. It is our hope that phase three targets, when
determined, will combine the standardised elements of phases one and two with regional adjustments
that properly account for the distinctive nature of access and participation challenges in different parts
of the country.

To take the example of Greater London, where only 13 wards (of more than 600 total wards) meet
the Uni Connect targeting criteria, working toward a 20% ward learner engagement target has in
certain respects proven counterproductive to supporting groups currently underrepresented in HE.
Owing to the small numbers of ‘target’ schools/colleges in London and the density of the HE provider
landscape here, a select number of institutions have found themselves overwhelmed with outreach
opportunities – Uni Connect-led, provider-led and third party – whilst others who face different but
equal challenges with HE progression are overlooked. The set of incentives created by the Uni Connect
target has therefore actually produced the very duplication of effort that the programme is meant to
minimise. The target also inhibits work that supports other underrepresented learners, such as free
school meals (FSM)-eligible pupils. We explain in our answer to question 7, below, how this group is
particularly sizeable in London and how a different approach to targeting in phase three could
facilitate improved advice and support with HE options.

Question 2 To what extent do you agree with our proposal to change programme targeting from an
area-based approach to one based on identifying the highest priority schools and colleges? Please
provide a brief explanation for your answer. If you believe our approach should differ, please explain
how and the reason for your view.

Tend to agree

AccessHE | AccessHE@londonhigher.ac.uk | @AccessHE

It is encouraging to see a proposed shift towards targeting the highest priority schools and colleges.
The consultation contains little detail on how this will work in practice however. As outlined in our
response to question 1, a wholly standardised approach to targeting schools/colleges is unlikely to
address local outreach ‘cold spots’ as is the stated aim of these proposals, nor will it guarantee that
activity is directed towards the least represented groups. Proposal 7 implies that partnerships will be
able to utilise a targeting matrix combining Uni Connect target areas and ‘their knowledge of local
context’; we would welcome further information on how partnerships will be supported and enabled
to make these decisions about targeting of activity. We would also underscore the importance of
targeting criteria being developed in consultation with HE providers as the main partners in the
delivery of Uni Connect activity.

We appreciate that some degree of standardisation is required when targeting activity, otherwise
many different approaches to defining priority recipients of HE outreach activity proliferate, making it
difficult to assess progress with closing access/participation gaps. In our 2019 report POLAR Opposite
we suggested trialling a household income-based metric, derived from National Pupil Database (NPD)
data and from schools directly, to establish a widening access cohort in London, which could then form
the focus of Uni Connect work. We would be interested to understand more about phase three
targeting and the extent to which it resembles this approach.

Question 3 To what extent do you agree with our proposals to strengthen the focus on further
education colleges in the programme? Please provide a brief explanation for your answer. If you
believe our approach should differ, please explain how and the reason for your view.

Tend to agree

We support working with further education colleges (FECs) via Uni Connect and indeed have done this
since the start of the programme. Moreover, HE in FE has been and remains an attractive further study
destination for Londoners so it is logical to seek to strengthen work with further education colleges,
especially work relating to HE progression pathways.

The consultation does not specify how partnerships are to achieve this strengthened focus on further
education colleges. There is mention of priority colleges in the document but little accompanying
detail on how this prioritisation will be determined. We would also welcome further information on
the support offer that partnerships will be expected to provide to FECs, as it is not clear whether the
intended outcome is the delivery of outreach programmes or the provision of Information, Advice and
Guidance (IAG), or both.

At points in the consultation document (e.g. pp.17-18) the FEC and mature learner targets are
presented interchangeably. It is not clear whether a strengthened FEC focus is to be achieved
specifically through work with mature learners studying at level 3, partly through it, or independently
of it.

Question 4 Do you have any comments about what the OfS should consider in developing its advice to
partnerships on engaging with mature learners studying at Level 3?

As with the proposed further education college focus, we support engagement with mature learners
and already actively pursue this. However, mature learner engagement is defined in two different
ways in the consultation. This question and proposal 4 in the consultation document imply that mature

AccessHE | AccessHE@londonhigher.ac.uk | @AccessHE

learners should be engaged via further education colleges. Elsewhere in the document (e.g. paragraph
40) there is reference to a stronger role for Uni Connect in ensuring ‘adults seeking higher education
can find out about and access different types of courses’, which would imply support outside of the
college setting as well as an IAG as opposed to outreach delivery focus to this work. It would be helpful
for partnerships and other stakeholders in Uni Connect to understand how, where and through what
means mature learners are to be engaged in phase three of the programme.

If the intended purpose of work with mature learners is to promote increased progression to HE
and/or awareness of HE progression pathways, it is worth highlighting the variety of routes into HE
besides FE that exist for this group. The consultation does not share an expectation of whether
partnerships should also seek to engage adults in the wider community, though in our view there
would be a considerable advantage to doing so, given the rich landscape of informal, community and
adult learning settings that exist in London such as the Institutes for Adult Learning. AccessHE, through
our Mature & Part-Time Student Forum, has already commenced work on an online IAG portal for
prospective mature students in Greater London as mature students within this network had
themselves identified a gap in IAG provision for those not otherwise in pre-level 6 education.

A related consideration to strengthening the focus on FECs and mature learners in phase three is that
of the programme budget. We note that the programme design is intended to be scalable, however
the assumption made in this proposal is that the existing strands of activity (targeted, hubs) will
continue alongside renewed focus on two additional, sizeable groups. Partnerships would therefore
benefit from an indication at the earliest possible opportunity of funding levels as well as of
expectations about which of these four strands to prioritise and how. Otherwise, the impression
created is that partnerships will be asked to deliver more work with less resource.

Question 5 To what extent do you agree with our proposal that Uni Connect hubs will facilitate access
to programmes of outreach for target learners who have already been involved in the programme and
would benefit from ongoing engagement? Please provide a brief explanation for your answer. If you
believe our approach should differ, please explain how and the reason for your view.

Tend to agree

It is encouraging to see a stated aim to continue targeted work for those learners who have already
been involved in the programme. This is particularly true given the disruption to programmes on
account of the covid-19 pandemic, as learners who would ordinarily have received an intensive
programme of in-person sessions have been provided with online equivalents. It has been harder to
gauge the impact of these programmes but evidence obtained from partner schools would suggest
that levels of engagement with online activity have been lower, implying a potential loss of HE IAG in
2019/20 and 2020/2021.

It will be important to consider the impact on longer-standing school/college partnerships if funding
tapers off once learners complete ongoing Uni Connect programmes. Partnerships will be required to
carefully manage expectations as schools/colleges may not understand the rationale for reducing
support.

From the perspective of HE providers too, it is beneficial to be able to offer a long-term commitment
to partner schools and colleges so that outreach activities can be properly embedded within a stable
careers strategy. This also allows providers to develop longitudinal approaches, underpinned by
robust evaluation.

AccessHE | AccessHE@londonhigher.ac.uk | @AccessHE

Question 6 To what extent do you agree with our proposals to provide routes through which schools
and colleges can find out about and access local outreach provision? Please provide a brief explanation
for your answer. If you believe our approach should differ, please explain how and the reason for your
view.

Strongly agree

We strongly support the proposals and would argue that this approach is already well embedded in
the London NCOP outreach hub. There is a reference to operating in ‘the context of reduced
programme funding’ (paragraph 50), which implies that the hub functions will have to scale down, but
this is not accompanied by information on what would be deemed successful hub operations. The
‘success criteria’ published by the OfS in 2020 went some way towards mapping this out, but the
document pertains to phase two of the programme and it is not clear whether the criteria will be
carried forward into phase three.

In general terms, hubs operating as a ‘single point of contact’ (SPOC) can be challenging to manage
and operationalise in the unique circumstances of London, where schools and colleges are already
accustomed to accessing HE outreach and IAG from many different sources. This challenge is
compounded by the fact that the Uni Connect hub in London has replaced earlier iterations of SPOCs
under Aimhigher, NNCO and NCOP and is competing with other platforms (UCAS, UniTasterDays,
Uni4Me). It is therefore essential that the purpose of the Uni Connect hubs is clearly defined and their
core audience clearly articulated to ensure they complement these other routes for accessing support
and guidance. The issuing of new ‘success criteria’ for phase three could go some way towards
achieving this.

Question 7 To what extent do you agree with our proposals to support strategic activity to address
local outreach gaps for underrepresented groups? Please provide a brief explanation for your answer.
If you believe our approach should differ, please explain how and the reason for your view.

Tend to agree

This proposal is in our view a logical continuation and extension of the outreach hubs’ work in phase
two of the programme. If however the hubs are to move from mapping local outreach needs in phase
two to actively addressing them in phase three, it is reasonable to expect a proportionate increase in
funding. It is encouraging to see a commitment to a minimum hub funding allocation for partnerships
outlined in the consultation document.

Our experience of incubating new HE outreach activity via the hubs in phase two has shown that they
can most effectively address ‘cold spots’ in provision when HE providers are bought in to the design
and delivery of activity. This is because provider involvement enriches the activity for learners and is
seen as highly desirable from schools’ perspective. In this respect the hubs rely on alignment with
provider-led widening access work. The incentives for providers to deliver outreach as part of Uni
Connect activity are regulatory and/or intrinsic to their civic missions, however in the context of finite
time and resources providers logically prioritise the former. As such, there are few levers available to
Uni Connect partnerships when it comes to directing provider-led activity towards ‘cold spots’ if they
do not map against key APP targets.

AccessHE | AccessHE@londonhigher.ac.uk | @AccessHE

This problem can be illustrated through the example of London. Collaborative outreach here draws in
a larger network of HEI partners than in any other area of the country – c.35 providers are listed as
core and wider members of the London NCOP partnership. Yet an analysis of provider APPs (see fig 1)
shows that the majority of London NCOP partners target low participation neighbourhoods.
Comparatively few seek to work with learners from low socio-economic groups or learners from Black
and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds.

Figure 1 - APP targets of London HE providers (n=21)

Conversely, the ‘cold spots’ of HE outreach provision in London only partially map against low
participation neighbourhoods (LPNs). They are more likely to correspond to areas (particularly of inner
London) with the highest rates of FSM-eligible pupils. In the context of AccessHE research highlighting
the high proportion of FSM-eligible pupils reporting increased HE financial concerns since the outbreak
of the covid-19 pandemic, there is a strong argument for supporting these learners via strategic
outreach. But without a clear inducement for HE providers to get involved in this work, the impact it
can have will be limited.

AccessHE’s members already support the delivery of strategic outreach activity via Uni Connect and
are keen to continue this. Their and our reflection on work undertaken during phase two is that it
would be helpful for providers to understand what they are expected to deliver as part of strategic
activity in phase three, given they have unique areas of expertise but also finite resources and
capacity. We would be interested to learn whether collaborative Uni Connect targets, embedded
within institutional access and participation plans, are under consideration as one possible mechanism
for achieving this.

Question 8 To what extent do you agree with our proposed approach to funding and targeting Uni
Connect during academic year 2021-22? Please provide a brief explanation for your answer. If you
believe our approach should differ, please explain how and the reason for your view.

Strongly agree

In our view it will be helpful if the academic year 2021-22 functions as a transition year as proposed.
This would allow for early engagement with key stakeholders to identify priority schools/colleges,

AccessHE | AccessHE@londonhigher.ac.uk | @AccessHE

which would in turn provide direction and structure to work taking place in the remainder of phase
three.

Despite this lead in time, schools and colleges will nonetheless find it disruptive if targeted support is
withdrawn or tapers off after 2021-22. We understand that a subsequent consultation will determine
the approach to targeting but it would be helpful to know at the earliest possible opportunity to what
extent current partner schools/colleges will fall within the new ‘priority’ category, for the purpose of
the messaging that is provided to them in 2021-22.

Question 9 Do you have any comments about any unintended consequences of our proposed approach
to the Uni Connect programme, for example for particular types of provider, schools or colleges, or for
particular types of student?

As we explain in our response to question 5, the shift from area-based to priority school/college
targeting may impact on pre-existing relationships between London schools/colleges and AccessHE
members.

Creative specialist providers, especially conservatoires, may find their ability to engage with the Uni
Connect programme is limited on account of the specialised nature of training pathways to access
certain creative HE courses, which begin well before Y9. Accordingly, their outreach priorities and
target groups may not be compatible with the Y9-13 focus of phase three.

There is a potential risk that alternative provision institutions and special schools are disadvantaged
by the proposals. They may be overlooked, especially if the chosen approach to targeting relies heavily
on the participation of local areas (POLAR) metric, despite their students often experiencing significant
barriers to accessing HE. As they are typically smaller institutions, they may also not have the same
infrastructure or capacity to engage with the Uni Connect hubs as larger schools and colleges.

Question 10 Do you have any comments about the potential impact of our proposed approach to the
Uni Connect programme on individuals on the basis of their protected characteristics?

We believe the proposed approach could have significant impact on learners based on their ethnicity
and disability, as the consultation commits to supporting certain BAME groups, those from Gypsy,
Roma and Traveller Communities and disabled learners through phase three of Uni Connect.

The actual impact that phase three of the programme can have here will depend largely on funding
levels and the existence of specific structures that incentivise work with these groups.

Question 11 Do you have any other comments on our proposals for Uni Connect?

n/a

Question 12 Are there aspects of the proposals you found unclear? If so, please specify which, and tell
us why.

n/a

AccessHE | AccessHE@londonhigher.ac.uk | @AccessHE

Question 13 In your view, are there ways in which the objectives of this consultation (as set out in
paragraphs 18 to 22) could be delivered more efficiently or effectively than proposed here?

n/a

AccessHE | AccessHE@londonhigher.ac.uk | @AccessHE