̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Sonia Ilie

Poor children are being ‘failed by the system’ on road to higher education in lower-income countries

tdk25 — Tue, 06 Apr 2021 23:00:59 +0000

̽��ֱ��research, which used data from around 3,500 young people in Ethiopia, India, Peru and Vietnam, shows that promising but poorer students ‘fall away’ during their school years, as challenges associated with their socio-economic circumstances gradually erode their potential. Among children who showed similar levels of ability aged 8, for example, the wealthiest were often over 30 percentage points more likely than the least-wealthy to enter all forms of tertiary education: including university, technical colleges, and teacher training.

Even when they focused only on students who complete secondary school with comparable levels of learning, the researchers found that those from wealthier backgrounds were still more likely to progress to higher education. They describe their findings, reported in the British Education Research Journal, as indicative of the ‘protective effect’ of wealth in relation to academic advantage.

̽��ֱ��study was undertaken by the Research in Equitable Access and Learning (REAL) Centre at the Faculty of Education. Dr Sonia Ilie, its lead author, said: “In many lower-income countries, low socio-economic status is a continual barrier to young people’s attainment. What is clear is that these inequalities in higher education access have nothing to do with ability: this is about systems which are consistently failing poorer children.”

̽��ֱ��data used in the research was from Young Lives, an international childhood poverty study which is tracking two cohorts of young people from Ethiopia, India, Peru and Vietnam. ̽��ֱ��Cambridge researchers focused on the group born in 1994/5. Young Lives includes information about education and attainment at ages 8, 12, 15, 19 and 22, and importantly therefore includes the many young people in lower-income countries who may enter higher education after age 19.

̽��ֱ��researchers started by comparing basic entry rates into higher education among the poorest 25% and wealthiest 25% of participants. ̽��ֱ��percentage point gap between these quartiles was 45 in both India and Peru, 41 in Vietnam, and 17 in Ethiopia.

They then analysed higher education progression rates among increasingly comparable groups of students. First, they focused on those with similar demographic characteristics (such as gender, ethnicity, and whether they lived in urban or rural settings). They then progressively added more information about their education to examine students who were both in school, and achieving certain attainment levels, aged 8, 12 and 15.

̽��ֱ��gap between the poorest and richest students’ likelihood of enrolling in higher education narrowed steadily as each level of information was factored in. Given the disparity in the ‘raw’ wealth gap, this indicates that children from poor backgrounds often fail to progress because they drop out, or under-achieve, throughout primary and secondary school. It also suggests that factors such as a person’s gender interact with their socio-economic status to influence their likelihood of progressing to higher education.

Crucially, however, a gap still existed between rich and poor even among students who finished secondary school with comparable levels of learning. ̽��ֱ��size of the remaining gap reflected the complexities of each country’s higher education systems, but showed that at the same level of schooling and learning, wealth played this protective effect.

̽��ֱ��study also analysed the progress of ‘high-promise’ children. ̽��ֱ��researchers identified all children who had achieved a certain level of literacy at age 8, and then used numeracy and maths scores to compare the educational trajectories of the richest and poorest among this group.

Overall, the attainment gap between high-promise children from the top and bottom wealth quartiles widened during school, even though their test scores were similar at age 8. Ultimately, many more high-promise children from the richest quartile entered higher education compared with the poorest: the percentage point gap between the two groups was 39 in Peru, 32 in India and Vietnam, and 15 in Ethiopia.

“Even among children who do well to begin with, poverty clearly becomes an obstacle to progression,” Ilie said. “ ̽��ֱ��reverse also applies: if they are wealthy, even children with initially lower levels of learning catch up with their poorest peers. This is what we mean by the protective effect of wealth.”

̽��ֱ��study says that the first priority in addressing the higher education wealth gap should be targeted investment in primary education for the very poorest. This is already an emerging policy focus in many lower-income countries, where disadvantaged children, even if they go to school, often have poor learning outcomes. ̽��ֱ��reasons for this, documented in several other studies, include limited educational resources and support at home, and practical difficulties with school attendance.

̽��ֱ��findings also indicate, however, that targeted support should continue during secondary education, where wealth-related barriers persist. In addition, the residual wealth gap even among those who finish secondary school highlights a need for initiatives that will reduce the cost of higher education for disadvantaged students. ̽��ֱ��study suggests that means-tested grants may be one viable solution, but further evidence is required. It also warns that at present, taxation-based funding for higher education will essentially ‘subsidise a socio-economic elite’, while tuition fees will further prohibit access for the poorest.

Professor Pauline Rose, Director of the REAL Centre, said: “If we want to equalise opportunities at the point of entry into higher education, we have to intervene early, when the wealth gaps emerge. This study shows that targeted and sustained interventions and funding are needed for the poorest students not only in their earliest years, but throughout their educational careers.”

A generation of talented but disadvantaged children are being denied access to higher education because academic success in lower- and middle-income countries is continually ‘protected by wealth’, a study has found.

These inequalities in higher education access have nothing to do with ability: this is about systems which are consistently failing poorer children

Sonia Ilie

Gift HAbeshaw via Unsplash

Student graduating in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� bursaries boost students’ academic performance and reduce anxiety, study finds

ts657 — Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:15:02 +0000

Students from families whose household income is £25,000 or less automatically receive a non-repayable annual bursary of £3,500 at Cambridge. Students who are not dependent on their parents (including those who are estranged) get a higher bursary of up to £5,600 a year and also the possibility to stay in Cambridge year-round.

They told researchers from the Faculty of Education that without it, they would have struggled to pay for books, rent and even food without taking out further loans.

One of the key findings of the study was that this financial support offered needed to be advertised more clearly since some recipients had been unaware of it before applying. As an important factor in students’ choice of university, communicating the availability of the bursary could boost efforts to widen access to Cambridge.

̽��ֱ��Cambridge Bursary Scheme allocates £6.8million a year in bursaries to financially disadvantaged students. Of those who received a bursary, 87% said financial support made them feel less anxious, 90% said it helped them focus on their studies and 74% said it helped them have a work-life balance.

It also helped alleviate concerns around being a burden on their families – whose ‘hidden contribution’ to university funding has come under increasing public scrutiny. One student interviewed for the study said having a bursary was “a huge relief not only off my shoulders but off my parents’ as well” while another commented: “I probably would have been able to pay [my study costs] with the help of my parents but it would be very difficult for them…they were not sure about the next four years’ employment; it would be risky, a difficult decision for us.”

Many noted that it helped them overcome fears they wouldn’t fit in at Cambridge, with one student commenting: “ ̽��ֱ��fact that the university was willing to invest in funds to make sure that people like me could come to university made me feel less nervous about applying and less nervous about fitting in socially as well.”

Students used their bursaries to cover food and living costs plus ‘one-off’ purchases such as a computer, specialist equipment, specific editions of books, new clothes, shoes, or a bicycle. Some saved money for course-related travel, with one interviewee’s field trip forming a significant part of their chosen dissertation topic.

Researchers compared students’ views gained through surveys and interviews with an analysis of data related to drop-out rates, class of degrees awarded and graduate employment, using a methodology developed by higher education regulator the Office for Students.

Students from lower income households outperform peers

This found students from households with the lowest declared incomes perform at least as well, if not better, than peers from better-off families.

In addition, students with a full bursary who came from schools historically under-represented at Cambridge or those from relatively low-performing schools performed as well academically as those from households with higher incomes.

More than 96% of students finish their degrees at Cambridge, and researchers found there was no correlation between drop-out rates and socio-economic backgrounds. At least 85% of bursary recipients were in graduate jobs or further study six months after leaving university.

Co-author of the study Dr Sonia Ilie, Senior Research Fellow at the Faculty of Education and Hughes Hall, said: “Fair access to higher education is not just about entry: across the sector there is concern that lower socio-economic backgrounds should not be associated with lower outcomes or lower completion rates, and that students should be supported to make the most of their experience in a way that sees any financial barriers fall away.

“Across all of our analyses we found evidence that broadly speaking, the Cambridge Bursary Scheme operates as intended, with very few, if any, differences in outcomes by students’ economic background.

“There is still work to be done, though, and we’re undertaking research to understand the impact of different levels of financial support, and build more evidence about how the current system can be improved.”

Financial support needs 'advertising boost'

Students interviewed by researchers listed the financial support available at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge as among the reasons they applied. However, 40% admitted not knowing if they would be eligible for it when applying.

They recommended raising the profile of the financial support available at Cambridge by providing clearer and more accessible information.

Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Graham Virgo: “Cambridge is committed to fairness in its admissions processes and to providing a level playing field for its students once they are here.

“By bridging the gaps in student finances experienced by those coming from households with low incomes, our bursaries help everyone to get the most out of a Cambridge education.

“However, this report gives us a clear message, which is that if more students from low-income households knew how much financial support was available at Cambridge, more would apply.

“This is something we will be looking at as a matter of urgency.

“We do not want anyone who has the ability and drive to thrive here to rule out Cambridge on the basis of cost.”

They recommended raising the profile of the financial support available at Cambridge by providing clearer and more accessible information.

Jesus College Fellow and Professor of Education Anna Vignoles provided support to the researchers: "This report provides valuable evidence on the effectiveness of the Cambridge Bursary Scheme, and is part of wider ̽��ֱ�� efforts to take an evidence based approach to further development of their policies in this area.

"We now need to work out the best way of letting potential students know that this support is available.”

̽��ֱ��Cambridge Bursary

Bursaries are awarded to students from households with an income between £25,000 and £42,620 on a scale linked to their household income.

Some students can access up to £5,600 a year if they are classed as financially independent, which includes care leavers, mature students and independent students.

More information is available on the ̽��ֱ��’s undergraduate web portal.

If you would like to learn more about supporting the Cambridge Bursary Scheme, please visit: www.philanthropy.cam.ac.uk/undergraduatebursaries

Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� Bursaries help with students’ academic outcomes, wellbeing and university experience, a new report from the ̽��ֱ��’s Faculty of Education has found.

̽��ֱ��fact that the university was willing to invest in funds to make sure that people like me could come to university made me feel less nervous about applying and less nervous about fitting in socially

a Cambridge student

Dear World: Bursaries

Yes

Can I pick your brains? A question of social mobility

ta385 — Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:35:34 +0000

̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge is working with partners across East Anglia to raise teenage aspirations in a region brimming with untapped potential.