Access to Higher Education Development Project

Foreword

Over the last 25 years, Access to HE has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of adults, for whom it has provided a unique route into higher education. It has been able to provide new opportunities not only to those who may be recognised in statistical tables as 'under-represented' in higher education, but also to individuals who may not fall into those familiar categories, but who, from the circumstances of their individual lives, are undoubtedly disadvantaged. Certainly, the statistics which are summarised within this report clearly indicate the contribution of Access to attempts to widen access to higher education, but it is perhaps more powerfully demonstrated in the testimony of former Access students for whom Access has opened doors which would otherwise have remained closed.

Since 1997, when the Agency became responsible for the recognition of Access to HE programmes, Access has remained popular, with about 40,000 adults being registered on QAA-recognised Access programmes each year and the number of Access certificates issued growing annually. But in that time, the context in which adults live and work, and the higher education environment into which they are seeking entry, have changed. While the Access to HE certificate has become established as a widely recognised and credible qualification for progression to HE, there are inevitable questions that are posed about any successful idea. Could it do even better? Could it do more?

These questions were recognised in the White Paper, The Future of Higher Education (2003), which, while acknowledging that Access provided a 'valuable entry route into higher education for many students', noted that numbers going into HE from Access had not grown significantly over the past few years. The challenge for all of us is to consider how the benefits of Access might be extended further, while ensuring that those students who were in some way disadvantaged when they started the Access course do not find themselves still at a disadvantage when they apply to, or when they take up their place in, higher education. The Agency therefore welcomed the White Paper's invitation to come forward with proposals for the development of Access to meet the needs of today's adult learners, and is pleased to be able to report here on the outcomes and recommendations of the project which developed as a result.

We believe that the proposals made in this report present a way forward which will allow Access to extend its current reach and provide opportunities for more adults to be able to progress to more areas of higher education. Our proposals are about building on success - not starting from scratch - and we look forward to being able to work with others to build on the success that has already been achieved and develop the strengths of Access to HE.

Peter Williams
Chief Executive

Executive summary

Purpose

1 This document reports on a research project undertaken during 2003. The overarching aim of the project was provided by the White Paper, The Future of Higher Education (2003), in which the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education was invited to 'come forward with proposals to modernise the criteria for Access Courses so that they are sufficiently flexible and attractive to meet the needs of today's adult learners'.

2 The findings resulting from this research, and the recommendations which have been developed in consequence, are reported below. The proposals are addressed, in the first instance, to the Department for Education and Skills, for whom the report has been prepared, but the relevant authorities in Wales and Northern Ireland may also wish to note the report's findings and recommendations.

Current Access to HE provision

3 QAA-recognised Access to HE provision is delivered largely, though not exclusively, in FE colleges across England and Wales. Delivery is characterised by a strongly dominant pattern modelled on the one-year, September start, classroom-based programme. While evening provision is not uncommon, often as a variant of programmes delivered in the day, most programmes are available in the daytime only. Opportunities for part-time or mixed-mode study are more limited, and there are few developments in work-based, flexible and distance learning versions of Access.

4 Although many Access programmes are defined as 'combined' or 'general', individual students are often studying on pathways designed for particular progression routes. While Access programmes are available in a wide range of subject areas and in different subject combinations, there are some areas which are less well served than others, where appropriate development would increase opportunities for students.

5 Colleges employ a range of curriculum and organisational structures, providing some flexibility and choice for individual students, as well as an in-built potential for expanding or revising programmes in response to changing needs and demand. This is the area in which there is most indication of development and innovation.

Key themes of findings

A number of key themes emerged during the research, which informed the development of the recommendations:

a concern to make Access a part of national strategies for widening participation;
a drive towards ensuring the viability and robustness of Access provision;
the confirmation of the Access to Higher Education certificate as an acknowledged national award;
the need for security of funding for Access provision, and sufficiently flexible funding to accommodate innovative provision;
a concern for the continuing development of new and innovative Access opportunities;
the achievement of consistency in the structure of the Access qualification;
the achievement of consistency in the description of student performance on Access programmes.

Summary of research findings and recommendations

(The full recommendations are provided under Section 5 of the main report.)

Strategic context

6 There is an absence of a clear strategic context to support and drive the development of Access. It is a widely held view that Access needs to be more clearly related to other widening participation initiatives and be given the policy focus and related financial support which is brought by a high-profile, long-term campaign.

7 Regional cooperation, and cooperation between FE and HE, are also important in providing a more strategic approach to developing different Access routes and types of delivery within an area, and in identifying and responding to gaps in Access provision.

Recommendation 1

There should be a national strategy to support the development of Access to HE provision, based on government regions, which recognises the particular contribution to widening participation made by Access to HE and its relationship to other widening participation initiatives.

Promotion and marketing

8 There is an urgent need for the profile of Access to be raised through a campaign which will address the 'lack of visibility' of Access. Whilst its image remains generally positive, among those who are aware of it, the opportunities offered to adults by Access are not widely recognised, and it is thought to have a 'weak profile' in HE.

Recommendation 2

There should be a national promotional campaign to increase awareness of Access to HE programmes amongst the adult population in general; to attract, in particular, more students from disadvantaged groups; and to improve the profile of Access in both FE and HE sectors.

Funding and student financial support

9 The current funding regime is considered likely to discourage development and innovation of Access provision. In particular, its funding position as 'other provision', under the terms of the Learning and Skills Act (2000), gives Access provision second-order status, and some providers feel under pressure to offer instead other qualifications for which funding eligibility is more secure.

10 As adults, Access students are, in principle, liable for the payment of course fees but are generally ineligible for financial support. Most Access students are financially reliant on either employment or government benefits, both of which place constraints on the way in which they are able to pursue their studies. Both the funding of programmes and the funding of students appear to represent barriers to increasing participation in Access.

Recommendation 3

Funding arrangements should ensure security of funding for Access programmes at an appropriate level to support the needs of the provision; provide incentives for the development of new programmes to meet identified needs; encourage the development of innovative models with more flexible methods and structures for delivery to attract new target groups; and provide financial support for students following Access programmes.

Mechanisms for development and innovation in Access programmes

11 The development of new Access pathways usually occurs as a result of identification of potential demand by individual providers. There are no particular, identifiable means by which innovation occurs, and there are few strategic drivers which encourage such work to any significant extent. The few examples of developments in Access which extend beyond work on individual programmes, identified through this project, occurred primarily as the result of specific initiatives involving local HE institutions or adult education services. Innovation and developments in Access can be limited by particular institutional constraints, as well as by aspects of the general funding model.

12 Most FE-based Access provision operates within the QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE and in most respects the Recognition Scheme is sufficiently flexible to support innovation. While there are some FE-delivered courses designed to prepare students for HE which exist outside the Recognition Scheme, the numbers are not significant. Some short 'top-up' programmes, however, have essentially the same purpose as the mainstream Access qualification and there is support for the development of a model for such programmes, which could be brought under the aegis of the Recognition Scheme and be recognised within the QAA framework.

Recommendation 4

There should be a broader range of programmes, which makes Access provision available in a wider range of venues and through more flexible modes of delivery to a wider range of target groups. The QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE should promote the role of AVAs in the development of innovative Access provision, and should encourage fuller use of the current potential for flexibility in provision.

Consistency of academic standards

13 The variation in credit requirements for the award of the Access to HE certificate is a major cause of confusion and concern. The situation presents difficulties for maintaining fair HE admissions practices, and raises questions about consistency of the required standard of achievement for the award, resulting in a reluctance to consider Access candidates in some areas of HE. Access programmes are not routinely subject to rigorous standardisation mechanisms, and, while Access students are generally regarded as adequately prepared for HE, there are concerns about the robustness of moderation on some Access programmes.

14 There is support for the introduction of benchmarking in Access, both at qualification and subject level, in order to assist in assuring national consistency of standards.

Recommendation 5

The standards required to achieve the Access qualification should be clear, common and consistently applied; should be able to accommodate diversity of programmes; and should recognise student achievement within a common national framework.

Description of student achievement

15 The problems associated with inconsistent requirements for the award of the Access certificate are exacerbated by the use of several different systems of credit, although the benefits of a common credit framework for Access are widely accepted.

16 Recognition of individual student achievement also raises the issue of developing a system of grading for Access. The current position, in which the Access certificate identifies only a threshold level of achievement, makes it difficult for HE institutions to provide transparent selection criteria in relation to Access and maintain equity in admissions procedures. This creates a particular problem for Access students applying to institutions and departments where there is a high demand for places, because there are no common, reliable means for identifying differentiated individual levels of achievement.

Recommendation 6

The method of description of achievement on Access programmes should be standardised, so that equivalence is demonstrable and transparent. There should be common criteria and mechanisms to allow partial achievement to be acknowledged and transferred; and to ensure that differential individual achievement, in terms of both volume and level, can be recognised.

The continuing enhancement and development of Access provision

17 There is no clear location of responsibility for the enhancement and development of Access provision. There is no focal point or national forum for addressing common concerns or sharing and building on good practice. The absence of any such forum is unhelpful in maintaining the position of the Access to HE certificate as a mainstream, national qualification or promoting a strong national identity for Access.

Recommendation 7

There should be a body or forum with the designated remit for the continuing enhancement and development of Access as national provision leading to a nationally recognised qualification.

Conclusion

18 The Quality Assurance Agency believes that Access to Higher Education should be seen not as an adjunct to the rest of the education system - something which operates at its margins to mop up its failures and missed opportunities - but a central and integral part of the structure of educational opportunity which can respond to the complex and varying patterns of people's experience. We need to ensure that individuals can leave education when they need or wish to, with the certain knowledge that the structures exist for them to re-enter the system and take full advantage of the opportunities of higher education at a later stage, without difficulty or prejudice.

19 This project has reflected on the core business of Access to HE and has placed an emphasis on the achievement of greater consistency in order to enhance the national status of the award. The further development of Access must be able to ensure that successful Access students enjoy the same opportunities as successful A level students and are properly equipped to take up the higher education opportunity which best reflects their aspirations and abilities; if it does not, Access will have failed in its core business.

20 The recommendations arising from this project represent the basis on which Access to HE can continue to be a successful route into higher education for adults; can continue to attract students from under-represented and disadvantaged groups; and can thus continue to make a major contribution to a national agenda for widening participation in higher education.

Section 1: Aims and objectives

1 The overarching aim of this project was provided by the White Paper, The Future of Higher Education (2003), in which the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education was invited to 'come forward with proposals to modernise the criteria for Access Courses so that they are sufficiently flexible and attractive to meet the needs of today's adult learners'. In response to this invitation, the Agency established a research project to inform the development of its proposals. The specific aims of the research were devised to assist in identifying:

a viable and attractive model or models for the development of Access to HE that would increase the scope of the current Recognition Scheme and make the Access to HE qualification accessible to a wider range of potential HE applicants, particularly those currently under-represented in HE;
proposals that would maintain assurance of the quality and academic standards of courses;
information about the steps required for the implementation of a revised model.

2 The initial objectives of the research project, developed to meet these aims, were:

to identify access courses which currently sit outside the Recognition Scheme, and any changes required to allow them to be brought within it;
to propose revisions and additions which might extend the current scope of Access provision and which have the potential to increase the numbers attracted to this route;
to develop a possible revised model for the Access qualification which responds to the changing needs of higher education, while maintaining and improving the recognition and acceptability of the qualification;
to assess the feasibility and the potential demand for such a qualification;
to explore issues, including a risk analysis, related to the implementation of proposals;
to consider the place of regulation in ensuring the continued quality and standards of recognised Access courses.

Section 2: Background and context

Background

3 The first Access to Higher Education courses were established in the late 1970s. Most of these led to single HE courses in specific institutions, and there was no national recognition or portability for the qualifications gained. In 1987, the White Paper, Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge, set out a revised policy on widening access in higher education, including an objective to increase the number of adults, particularly from under-represented groups, participating in HE. The Committee for Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Council for National Academic Awards were invited to develop a national framework for Access recognition, and this was launched in 1989. Responsibility for managing the scheme passed to the Higher Education Quality Council in 1992 and, in 1997, to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

4 In 1998, QAA launched the QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to Higher Education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which confirmed the structure of the framework of authorised validating agencies (AVAs), the predominantly HE/FE consortia which are licensed by QAA to recognise Access programmes and award nationally-recognised Access certificates. The revised Recognition Scheme also introduced a modified system of AVA review and introduced new monitoring systems, including, for the first time, the collection and publication of standardised statistical data about Access to HE.

The present context

5 There are 26 AVAs, whose work extends across England and Wales. In 2002-03, there were 416 providers, most of them FE colleges, involved in the delivery of the 1,568 recognised Access to HE programmes. AVAs vary in size, with the smallest recording fewer than 300 registered Access students, and the largest recording more than 4,500.

6 Since 1997-98, when QAA started collecting data on Access, there has been an increase in the number of students registered on recognised Access programmes (from 32,600 in 1997-98 to 40,218 in 2002-03) and a rise in the number of Access certificates awarded (from 13,844 in 1997-98 to 18,393 in 2002-03)¹.

Year on course	Students on QAA-recognised Access programmes	Students awarded Access to HE certificates
1997-98	32,600	13,844
1998-99	36,132	15,276
1999-00	37,729	17,706
2000-01	38,684	16,404
2001-02	40,484	17,085
2002-03	40,218	18,393

7 Access students present a distinct student profile which is indicative of its focus on targeting particular groups. Consistent with the specific intention of Access provision to meet the needs of adults, students are mature. They tend to be relatively young adults, and in 2002-03, 43 per cent of Access students were under 30, with the next biggest group, representing 33 per cent of the total, being those between the ages of 30 and 39.

8 Ethnicity data shows a quite different picture for Access students in comparison with students from other progression routes. HESA data shows that, in 2002-03, of undergraduate entrants with a QAA-recognised Access qualification, 26 per cent were from minority ethnic groups. This compares with 20 per cent from minority ethnic groups among all other undergraduate entrants. There is a still sharper contrast in relation to some groups which are particularly under-represented in HE. Black ethnic groups, for example, make up approximately 14 per cent of the total cohort of former Access students, in contrast with the 4 per cent of those progressing through other routes.

9 Socio-demographic indicators also present a clear contrast in the profile of students coming through Access and those coming through other routes. Analysis of UCAS data, using the MOSAIC lifestyle analysis (which classifies postcode areas into social types, using census, electoral roll, housing and financial data), produces the pattern illustrated below. This shows, for example, that the categories of 'low rise council', 'council flats' and 'Victorian low status', together represent 39 per cent of Access applicants, but only 20 per cent of other applicants. The reverse proportions apply in relation to the categories 'high income families' and 'suburban semis', which together account for 17 per cent of Access students applying to HE through UCAS, in contrast with 34 per cent of other applicants.

Mosaic lifestyle groups

(UCAS - 2002 entry)

10 Since 1998, although registrations on QAA-recognised Access programmes and numbers of Access certificates awarded have increased, the number of Access students applying to and being accepted to HE through UCAS² show a more uneven pattern. (The apparent increase in UCAS data in 2002 may be related to a difference in data categories. In that year, UCAS discontinued classifying students according to 'highest qualification' only, which sometimes masked Access applicants who held an A level, and has since recorded all students who hold an Access certificate.) Numbers applying and being accepted through the Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service (NMAS) have risen, however. HESA³ data shows a slight increase in former Access students registering in HE over the period.

Year of entry to HE	Access students applying through UCAS	Access students acceptances through UCAS (and NMAS)		Ex-Access students on yr 1 HE courses in HEIs (HESA)
1998	18,380	12,208	(1,149)
1999	17,013	11,269	(1,377)	12,330
2000	17,057	11,402	(1,698)	13,420
2001	16,139	11,070	(1,970)	13,670
2002	18,292	13,030	(2,082)	13,665
2003	18,215	12,856		Not currently

11 During this period, the proportion of all mature applicants (including Access students), as a percentage of all UK UCAS applicants has fallen from 24 per cent (1997) to 22 per cent (2001). Within this, the proportion of Access students, as a percentage of all UK UCAS applicants, has fallen from 5 per cent to 4 per cent.

12 Acceptances as a proportion of applications, recorded by UCAS, have risen across the board, but whereas the average overall rate for all applicants in 2002 was 82 per cent, the rate for Access students was 71 per cent, reflecting a continuing difference of at least 10 per cent between these categories over the last six years. When the ratio for Access applicants is compared with that for other mature students, while the gap is smaller it appears to have increased.

Year of entry to HE	Proportion of all UK acceptances to applications (mature, non-Access)		Proportion of acceptances to applicants (Access)
1997	76%	(68%)	66%
1998	77%	(69%)	66%
1999	78%	(71%)	66%
2000	79%	(72%)	67%
2001	81%	(75%)	69%
2002	82%	(71%)	(N/A)

13 Of entrants to HEIs in 2002-03, HESA reports that the subject areas in which students with an Access qualification were registered in greatest numbers were subjects allied to medicine (primarily nursing); social studies; biological sciences; education; and computer science.

14 HESA statistics also show that most Access students progress to post-92 HE institutions. Of the 17 institutions which registered the highest numbers of former Access students on first year undergraduate programmes in 2001-02, 16 were post-92 universities which together accounted for about 40 per cent of all registrations by former Access students in HE.

15 The average non-continuation rate for all mature full-time first degree students after their first year in an HE institution between 2000-01 and 2001-02 was 14 per cent. The non-continuation rate for Access students was also 14%. Overall, in 2001-02, proportionately fewer former Access students (50.9 per cent) were awarded first and upper second class degrees than were awarded to those who entered HE with other known qualifications (55.7 per cent).

16 From the available statistics, it would appear that numbers on Access programmes and numbers progressing to HE over the last five or six years have increased, although the rate of that increase has been less than the rate of the overall increase in student numbers. There has been some shift in the balance of numbers progressing into different subject areas, with progression into HE nursing courses featuring particularly strongly in recent years. While Access remains a popular route into higher education for mature students, it is a cause for some concern that the rate of acceptance to application shows a significant difference between those applying with an Access qualification and those with other qualifications.

Statistics quoted in this section are derived from data supplied by AVAs, UCAS, HESA and HEFCE and are available, with further detail, on the QAA web site (www.qaa.ac.uk).

Section 3: Research organisation and methods

17 A steering group was appointed to oversee the project and, in the light of research findings, to develop proposals which might go forward as formal recommendations. Responsibility for the research itself was shared between QAA and a team from the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA), under the management of Dr Maggie Greenwood. The LSDA team was appointed to carry out research on FE and AVA perspectives and analyse data about Access provision. Some of this data was collected by the LSDA team specifically for the purposes of this project, and some was supplied by QAA. QAA's research focused primarily on surveying views on Access of those from HE, and from representative bodies with a specific interest or responsibility for HE admissions or widening participation policies. QAA was also able to review and analyse data about Access which it gathers as part of its routine Access responsibilities and in its work with other data-collecting organisations.

18 Research activities were devised to provide information in a number of key areas, in order to meet the project's aims and objectives. The principal areas of investigation and the specific individual research activities undertaken to provide information about each area are listed below. Each research activity has been given a reference code, indicated by the prefix 'LSDA' or 'QAA' and a number in bold. These are used to refer to the specific pieces of research throughout this report.

a The nature of 'access' programmes which currently sit outside the QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE, and alterations which would be required to accommodate them within the Recognition Scheme:

LSDA 3: comparison and analysis of the LSC's Learning Aims Database and the Access Courses Database (held by UCAS), and follow-up telephone calls to providers.

b The current degree of flexibility in QAA-recognised Access provision, and the extent and nature of variations to dominant models:

LSDA 4: postal survey of AVAs, requesting information about QAA-recognised provision, and analysis of data received.

c Current models of innovation in Access and their potential for wider application:

LSDA 2: postal request to AVAs about innovative developments in which they were engaged and analysis of responses.

d Factors that affect adult participation in education, particularly as they may relate to the take-up of Access provision, and changes that might make Access more attractive to potential students:

LSDA 7: focus group discussions with Access students using semi-structured interview schedule;

LSDA 9: literature survey and review;

QAA 4: analysis of information gathered from former Access students in AVA review meetings.

e Perceived barriers to development and innovation in Access, and proposals for revisions which would encourage development while maintaining the assurance of quality and standards of Access provision:

LSDA 1: structured focus group discussions with mixed groups of practitioners, AVA officers and stakeholder representatives;

LSDA 5: telephone interviews with sample of AVA chief officers;

LSDA 6: unstructured interviews with groups of Access practitioners in FE colleges;

LSDA 8: postal questionnaire to all AVAs;

QAA 1: 'round-table' discussion groups held with admissions staff from a range of HEIs;

QAA 2: semi-structured discussion with those from a range of HEIs with a strategic involvement in institutions' widening participation work;

QAA 3: one-to-one, semi-structured discussions with representatives of national organisations with a close involvement and interest in the development of Access, and an awareness of broad policy matters relating to widening participation.

19 During the course of the research project, and through the variety of means described above, views were sought from Access students; former Access students now studying in HE; Access tutors and managers; AVA officers; HE admissions tutors; HE staff involved in widening participation activities; and representatives from a number of national bodies with an interest in this area.

20 Further description of the research methods, together with a detailed account of the outcomes of each activity, are provided in the full research reports, and are available on the QAA web site (www.qaa.ac.uk).

Section 4: Research outcomes and findings

21 In relation to the five principal areas outlined above (paragraph 18), the research produced the following outcomes and findings.

a The nature of 'access' programmes which currently sit outside the QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE, and alterations which would be required to accommodate them within the Recognition Scheme

22 Data from the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), reported in previous research, had apparently suggested that there were substantial, and perhaps increasing, numbers of 'access' courses in FE, which were not QAA-recognised, and that the nature of the QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE could itself be a significant cause for this. One hypothesis was that the requirements of the Recognition Scheme may have created barriers for providers who wished to develop innovative forms of access provision, thus leading to increasing numbers of programmes being developed outside its structure. If correct, such a situation would disadvantage students, making them ineligible for the award of the nationally recognised Access to HE Certificate and thus affecting their progression prospects. In addition, there was the perceived danger of a proliferation of non-recognised courses which would not be subject to any national standards or requirements for external quality assurance.

23 Research undertaken by LSDA for this project (LSDA 3) involved comparing the Access Courses Database of QAA-recognised courses (held by UCAS) with the LSC's Learning Aims Database (LAD). Although QAA-recognised programmes are 'flagged' on the LAD, the research team experienced some difficulty in mapping the two data sources because coding was currently not compatible. In addition, information taken from the LAD proved to be somewhat difficult to interpret in a number of ways. The research team was unable to identify the full reasons for this, although a number of explanations were proposed, including possible confusion about QAA recognition at institutional level, coding errors on the LAD, and the use of old qualification codes by providers. This use of old codes has already been recognised as a problem by the LSC, which continues to encourage providers to use up-to-date codes and has taken some steps to remove old codes from the LAD.

24 The presence on the LAD of programmes with their old codes, as well as the same programmes with up-to-date codes, results in duplication where only the programme's name, method of organisation, or name of the awarding body (the AVA) has changed. Although the scope of the present research was unable to quantify the extent of this, the retention of old codes, alongside new codes for the same programmes, suggests that there are larger numbers of programmes on the LAD than actually exist. This was confirmed by the LSDA team's attempts to contact providers with Access programmes on the LAD on which no student registrations were recorded. On each of 62 occasions (see LSDA 3, Appendix 3), the provider reported that it did have students registered on a QAA-recognised Access programme. It is likely that these students were registered on a programme which was the same as that listed with no registrations, but with a different code.

25 In addition to this issue of duplication, the research also noted that the use of the term 'access' is so widespread that programmes with quite different purposes and outcomes, for example those relating to Microsoft applications, may be included in a general 'access' category on the LAD. The LAD also includes under 'Access' programmes some which are of a lower level, for example, 'Access to FE' programmes.

26 This research (LSDA 3) was unable to identify significant numbers of FE-delivered courses designed to prepare students for HE which existed outside the QAA Recognition Scheme. This topic was also addressed, and a similar position confirmed, through some of the other research activities. The LSDA 8 questionnaire to AVAs, for example, reported that only two AVAs had approved access programmes that were not QAA-recognised. The survey of AVAs in respect of innovation (LSDA 2) also asked AVAs to identify any courses they were aware of within their region which were designed as HE preparatory courses but which were not QAA-recognised. Those that responded identified a small number of programmes designed for HE progression outside the QAA framework.

Commonly, these were:

'youth access' programmes;
programmes for international students with a specific focus on language skills;
specific feeder programmes with very tightly defined progression routes;
short 'top-up' programmes (including summer schools), generally for students with HE entry qualifications but needing to update and consolidate study skills.

27 Of these, only the 'top-up' programmes have essentially the same purpose as the mainstream Access course and could be brought under the aegis of the Recognition Scheme. In summary, however, the research did not indicate that there were a significant number of access-related programmes which were operating outside the Recognition Scheme. In most cases, such programmes had been designed for very specific markets or to develop particular skills, and would not in themselves provide an entry qualification for higher education.

b The current degree of flexibility in QAA-recognised Access provision, and the extent and nature of variations to dominant models

28 The data gathered from AVAs through the LSDA 4 survey suggests that the predominant model of Access provision has the following characteristics.

It is delivered in FE colleges.
FE colleges are overwhelmingly the major providers, delivering over 80 per cent of Access programmes. This compares with 6.8 per cent in HE and 3.2 per cent in adult and community education. None of the other categories (sixth-form colleges; voluntary organisations; private training organisations; schools; or employers) accounted for more than 2 per cent of the total in this survey, although the very small proportion that were categorised as 'others' included a prison, a residential college, a primary health care trust and an education service linked to a trade union.
It offers programmes in a range of subject areas, with particularly large numbers of programmes in 'subjects allied to medicine', but with some notable gaps.
The subject focus of Access programmes is not always easy to identify because many are classified as 'general' or 'combined', although they often provide specialised pathways within the programme. Excluding these 'combined studies' programmes, the most common areas in which Access programmes are available as defined single routes are subjects allied to medicine (most of these lead to HE programmes in nursing); social studies; creative arts and design; business and administrative studies; mathematics and computer studies; and education. It would appear that single science subjects, languages and linguistics, technologies and engineering subjects are relatively uncommon as the main focus of Access programmes. The widening participation representatives from HE (QAA 2) noted the substantial growth in 'Access to Nursing' programmes, and the ability of Access to respond quickly in developing new programmes. It was also noted that there were some vocational areas which had apparently received very little attention such as hospitality and new media.
It employs a range of curriculum and organisational structures.
Most Access programmes exist within a structured framework which allows flexibility in terms of subject options, and creates a range of possible pathways. This is often managed through a modular, unitised curriculum (LSDA 6) which can accommodate students studying full-time or part-time on the same programme. The options are generally determined according to students' specified progression intentions. Programmes in which all elements are common to all learners are relatively rare (6.5 per cent). Also relatively uncommon are models where the Access routes are a part of a broad framework of provision which includes routes other than Access (8 per cent), and frameworks which are based entirely on individually negotiated pathways (2 per cent). The LSDA study does not reveal why programmes have been differently organised (nor does it detail the large number recorded under 'other'). However, other sources (QAA 3) suggest that flexibility is likely to be used to sustain programme viability. By offering as many options as possible, the provider can meet a range of student progression intentions as well as responding to its own institution's model of curriculum organisation.
Most programmes have a September start, run for at least one academic year, and students are required to complete their studies within two or three years.
AVAs reported that 87 per cent of recognised Access programmes had a single annual start date in September. Most programmes (about two thirds) are designed to run for at least one year, with varying permitted times for completion. About a quarter of all programmes, however, have no stated expectation in relation to length of period of study. Access programmes are very unlikely to be available as short courses: only six programmes were offered in anything less than one year's study, and all of these fell into the categories offering least flexibility in terms of optional elements to the programme.
Delivery is most commonly classroom based and, while programmes are often made available either in the day or evening, most programmes are available in the daytime only.
Over 97 per cent of programmes are classroom-based, with the remainder being delivered through various different models of distance learning. Sixty-four per cent of programmes are delivered in the daytime only, 33 per cent are available as daytime or evening provision, with 2 per cent being delivered only in the evening.

29 The statistics themselves indicate a strongly dominant pattern modelled on the one-year, September start, classroom-based programme. Where there is greatest flexibility, it lies in the internal college organisation of provision. A small number of AVAs noted a trend towards more flexible delivery, and others referred to 'discussions' taking place about developments. It would appear to be a priority to encourage such trends and discussions to ensure that Access is reaching all of its potential markets. In particular, and taking into account the findings related to Access and full-time employment (see paragraph 48 below), more part-time, mixed-mode and evening-only opportunities may need to be provided. The preponderance of single start dates in September perhaps indicates an inflexibility in provision which merits further consideration. The provision of Access courses through flexible and distance learning methods is currently insignificant. Whilst many believe that part of the essential ethos of an Access programme is its provision of tutor contact and peer student support, this should not prevent the development of flexible or distance learning versions of Access for those students who are unable to enrol for classroom-based study or who may prefer other approaches to study. There are also some vocational subjects which are currently not well represented in Access provision and where appropriate programme development would serve to increase opportunities for students.

c Current models of innovation in Access and their potential for wider application

30 Few examples of innovative development were identified through the LSDA 2 survey. Reference was made to: the development of short or top-up programmes; an extended period allowed for programme completion; off-site or work-based provision, particularly in relation to the development of vocational pathways; and stronger links with programmes providing lower-level awards. However, few of these ideas had been worked through or fully implemented, and several had not progressed beyond initial discussions. This was a disappointment for the project, which had expected to identify sufficient examples of innovative practice to make recommendations about how these could be extended more widely. It is possible that pockets of innovation exist in organisations other than those that responded to the survey, and the current diversity of provision and AVA practice may result in different expectations about what should be considered 'innovative'. It was clear from the LSDA 2 survey, for example, that what some regarded as 'innovative' was considered the norm in other AVAs. This in itself raises issues about the adequacy of mechanisms for the transmission of what might be regarded as 'standard good practice'. It may also be indicative of the insularity of some AVAs and providers.

d Factors that affect adult participation in education, particularly as they may relate to the take-up of Access provision, and changes that might make Access more attractive to potential students

31 The LSDA 9 literature review provided an overview of recent research findings in this area, in order to provide a contextual background for recommendations about measures that are most likely to have any impact in seeking to increase adult participation in education. The review comments on the limitations of research in this area.

32 The literature review emphasised the importance of cultural, social and economic factors in the participation of adults in education, and the primacy of social class and family background - and their influence on individuals' social capital - as key determinants. Some therefore conclude that it is necessary to change the cultural environment of the educational experience in order to increase participation, although there are, apparently, few specific suggestions in the literature of changes that might have this effect.

33 Parental influence and attitudes, and parents' own educational achievement, are noted as having a particularly strong influence. The report notes that 'if a family is ignorant about the benefits of education, having a friend, or acquaintance who participates can be crucial'. In terms of factors which bring adults to education, the review notes that a change in life circumstances, such as a new partner, redundancy or children leaving home may precipitate a return to education. This is linked to a sense that the return to education is itself perceived as a transformative experience, which is associated with the life-changing experience that provided the prompt to re-engage with education.

34 Self-belief is also important, and an individual's prior success in education is a significant factor in determining their likely future participation. Those who have not been successful are likely to perceive education as something for 'others', and the review reports the research finding that 90 per cent of those who have no formal qualifications say they would definitely not enter formal education. Such a statistic is a measure of the challenges which face Access and the whole of the widening participation initiative.

35 The literature review summarises researchers' conclusions about factors they considered influential in successfully engaging adult groups in education, including curriculum content, organisation and delivery; staff development; local and small centres; timetabling which is sympathetic to students' other responsibilities; small group teaching; duration of learning; and relationship of learning to students' interests, skills and prior knowledge. It also draws attention to the need to help potential students overcome feelings of intimidation and alienation on entering educational institutions and to provide support structures, including individual support, and appropriate advice and guidance.

36 Finally, the review notes research findings that indicate that the costs of education can be a barrier to participation, particularly for low-income prospective students, and that financial aid increases participation at this level.

37 The LSDA 7 study looked at factors relating to the attraction and retention of students to Access programmes in FE. It noted that students are currently attracted through a range of means, including formal advisory services, colleges' publicity and promotional materials, and word of mouth. It also noted that people were likely to come to Access following a change in their life circumstances. Examples included those returning to education when children had started school, or those who had been involved in accidents or been made redundant, reinforcing the research findings reported in paragraph 33, above. While some were specifically seeking a career change, it usually required some other factor to prompt a decision to undertake an Access course. Although the survey was conducted early in the academic year, most students apparently had clear progression intentions, with decisions not only made about intended HE progression but also with careers already in view.

38 However, the survey of former Access students (QAA 4) indicated that large numbers come to Access without clearly developed progression intentions, perhaps suggesting that much work has to be done with students either pre-entry or in the first few weeks of the course, when some flexibility in provision will be required in order to ensure that students undertake a programme of study which is most appropriate to their needs. This survey also suggests a very low level of general awareness of the existence of Access provision, and the role of others in providing advice, whether through formal referral and advice services or through word-of-mouth recommendation.

Strategic context

39 Representatives from HE involved in widening participation (QAA 2) noted the absence of a clear strategic context to support and drive the development of Access, and linked this with the lack of significant growth in this area in recent years. They considered that Access needed to be more clearly related to other widening participation initiatives and concluded that the link should be made at national level through a formal relationship with Aimhigher. This view was widely held among other stakeholders and national bodies (QAA 3) as being the mechanism most likely to bring about development and growth in Access. While some hesitation was expressed because of Aimhigher's predominant emphasis on young people rather than adults, it was generally felt that Access would benefit from the policy focus, and related financial support, brought by a high-profile, long-term campaign of this kind. In illustrating the policy coherence of such a move, participants emphasised the growing proportion of Access students aged between 19 and 30; the success of Access in attracting those from certain groups which are under-represented in HE; and the importance of adults, particularly parents, from communities with a low HE participation rate becoming role models through gaining HE qualifications, thus producing an increased likelihood of participation by their children.

40 The widening participation group drew attention to the contribution of AVAs as FE/HE consortia, primarily operating at a regional or sub-regional level, as an established model for effective cooperation between FE and HE institutions (QAA 2). They noted that although AVAs in some areas already facilitated development for Access in this way, the picture was not consistent, and better mapping of AVAs to established government regions could improve their impact. Regional cooperation was also considered important in providing a more strategic approach to the provision of different Access pathways and types of delivery within an area, and the development of a strategic response to identified gaps in Access provision. This group also suggested that a more developed regional approach could help to address current difficulties in the admission of Access students to particular HEIs and types of courses, by ensuring that Access programmes were able to meet the needs of the range of institution types within a region and ensuring that programme information presented in a common format was made available to HEIs.

Promotion and marketing

41 Access tutors (LSDA 6) considered that there was an urgent need for the profile of Access to be raised through a national campaign, with the absence of any strategy for promotion or recruitment being a cause of frustration. HE admissions staff (QAA 1) also felt that the absence of marketing was a weakness, as did the widening participation representatives (QAA 2) and national bodies (QAA 3), who pointed to a 'lack of visibility' for Access. The point was illustrated in the survey of former Access students (QAA 4), almost none of whom had any awareness of Access before it was drawn to their attention. It was also pointed out (QAA 3) that relying on word-of-mouth for promotion of Access was not only inefficient in creating any significant expansion, but was likely to be ineffective in targeting new groups, since word-of-mouth promotion resulted, primarily, in the recruitment of more people from the same social groups.

42 There were differing views about the current perception of Access. Whilst its image remained generally positive, it was generally felt that it had a 'weak profile' in HE (QAA 3), and that this reflected the lack of clarity about the strategic context for Access and its separation from other widening participation initiatives. Admissions tutors (QAA 1) felt that there should be a stronger national identity for Access in order to emphasise its position as a mainstream qualification. It was thought that dealing with other issues related to common national standards (see paragraphs 59-64 below), would also help to provide a clear and strong identity for Access. On the whole, it was felt that Access did not need to be 're-branded' but did need to be re-positioned in strategic terms and to be further developed to secure its status as a national qualification. A specific national marketing initiative would also be helpful in achieving these aims.

43 It is also worth noting that there is no national forum with a specific remit for the development and enhancement of Access. Although some measure of quality enhancement arises naturally from the annual review activities of the QAA, the Agency itself - with its current remit for Access, and its role as the licensing body - cannot easily assume a direct development function without compromising its essential quality assurance role. This lack of a national development forum does not help to maintain the position of the Access certificate as a national qualification. Such a forum might also be instrumental in the implementation of some recommendations which may arise from this project.

Funding and student financial support

44 Several groups identified the current funding regime as likely to create barriers to innovation. The LSDA 8 survey of AVAs, for example, produced 'strong concerns about funding innovative programmes', with one AVA noting that 'uncertainties of funding are of critical importance'. As Access to HE is currently located as 'other provision' for funding purposes, under the terms of the Learning and Skills Act (2000), colleges feel under pressure to reduce such provision and replace it with qualifications approved under Section 96/97 of the Act, for which the eligibility for funding is secure. This situation is exacerbated by the absence of LSC targets relating to Access to HE provision. AVAs also reported (LSDA 5) that local LSCs were sometimes uncertain about funding Access and could be inflexible in their interpretation of national LSC guidance. Curriculum managers responding to the LSDA 6 survey also suggested that current LSC funding arrangements are not sufficiently flexible to support part-time programmes or provision for students who complete programmes over several years, on an equivalent basis to that for one-year full-time students.

45 Some of the representatives of national bodies (LSDA 3) reiterated these points and also raised the following concerns:

because the funding model is based on common traditional patterns of programmes, funding radically different kinds of provision can present difficulties;
for financial viability and sustainability of programmes, providers are likely to develop more traditional models, in which large numbers of students are in the same place at the same time doing as many hours as needed to qualify for full-time funding;
models with fewer hours (including those which encourage APEL) are likely to prove less popular because they attract less funding;
models with additional hours are likely to prove unpopular because of the expense of staff time with no additional funding;
the absence of targets which relate obviously to Access to HE provision, and the emphasis on meeting targets for the under 19 age group in FE, discourages providers from putting resource into developing Access;
the absence of national guidance about how Access may contribute to other LSC targets results in uneven understanding and differing degrees of willingness to fund Access by local LSCs, and much time has to be given by providers and AVAs to making individual cases to support the funding of any new Access provision;
the absence of LSC funding for growth in adult provision means that there is a disincentive to develop new Access provision in FE, even where there may be an identified need, and providers are then likely to look to other sources for funding (for example, P4P funding) for the development of any new and innovative forms of provision for students seeking progression to HE.

46 Several respondents, including representatives of national bodies (QAA 3), drew attention to what they regarded as an anomalous position for Access students, in which students were liable for the payment of course fees but most were ineligible for financial support. The distinction made between those under 19 and those aged 19 or over within the funding regime has a number of negative consequences for Access students. Because they are, by definition, 19 or over, Access students will, in principle, be expected to pay course fees. For a one-year, full-time Access to HE course, the 'assumed fee' is just under £700, although the actual fee varies between different providers. In many instances, Access students come into categories of disadvantage which lead to the fee being either partially or fully remitted by the provider, at whatever level it has been set. However, because the criteria for, and level of, remission depend on individual college policies, as well as individuals' particular circumstances, it is difficult for any potential student to know whether, and how much, they might have to commit financially, without detailed individual financial advice from the college which they are going to attend. Financial assistance is sometimes available to students through college Access funds, to support specific needs, such as travel or a contribution to childcare (LSDA 7). However, the availability of, and criteria for, such funds vary; amounts are generally small; and an allocation of such funds may not be made until after a student has registered on a course. This simple uncertainty, in relation to the necessary costs of study, makes it difficult for a prospective student to make financial plans for their study, and can act as a disincentive to embark on a course of study for those on low incomes.

47 As adults, Access students are not eligible for the Education Maintenance Allowance payable to those aged 16-19 from lower-income families. Those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance may be eligible for payments under the New Deal for Young People, but only if they are under 24. The recently announced New Deal for Skills will provide financial assistance to adults working towards qualifications at level 2. However, it appears that, because the Access certificate is classified as a level 3 qualification, Access students may not be eligible for this, even if they do not have a prior qualification at level 2.

48 Access tutors referred to the high percentage of students who were entirely reliant on low-paid employment to support all their needs while studying (LSDA 6), and whose continued study therefore depended on the vagaries of employment which could be insecure and employers who were not necessarily supportive of students' aims to move out of that employment. Many faced difficulties with the competing demands and priorities of study, employment and childcare, and tutors related this situation to problems with retention. Tutors also identified a trend of increasing numbers of students choosing to take the Access programme on a part-time basis in order to manage these competing demands. In response, providers had attempted to make programmes more flexible and to develop more part-time provision, but had encountered the funding difficulties reported above.

49 Students who are not employed are likely to be in receipt of benefits to meet their financial needs, often Jobseeker's Allowance, and tutors report that Department of Work and Pensions regulations can sometimes create difficulties for these students. Access tutors and students commented, in particular, on the disruption to study that can be caused by requirements to attend the Jobcentre at particular times and the apparent variation between Jobcentres in the extent to which the times for such interviews can be negotiated. There can be no certainty of completing an Access programme and progressing to HE for those who start on a programme while supporting themselves through Jobseeker's Allowance: because the benefit requires them to be 'available for work' and to demonstrate that they are 'actively seeking work', they normally have to give up their studies and their ambitions if offered a full-time job, regardless of the nature of the job or the career which they hoped their Access studies would lead to. These points were echoed in the survey of students' views (LSDA 7), in which students also reported difficulties caused by other external factors, chiefly in managing childcare responsibilities, and negotiating with unsupportive partners.

50 Tutors also noted the deterrent effect of the media debate about university fees and levels of student debt (LSDA 6), and considered that more could be done to counter this through the provision of information about the position for adults on low incomes.

51 From the evidence gathered by the research reports, it is apparent that the funding of programmes and the funding of students represent barriers to participation in Access.

Mechanisms for the development of innovation in Access programmes

52 Responsibility for developing new Access provision generally lies with providers, that is, for the most part, with FE colleges. The means by which demand for a new programme is demonstrated differ (LSDA 8): some AVAs require external evidence of identified need, such as market research, and others depend on 'discussions' with Access tutors. One AVA reports a method of 'supply chain management...evaluating demand with HEIs and the LSC and brokering a supply chain solution', but this is not typical. Mechanisms to ensure that programmes are appropriate to target groups' and HEIs' needs vary widely in style and rigour and few AVAs play a developed strategic role.

53 HE widening participation representatives acknowledged that developments in Access were limited by FE funding and institutional constraints, but suggested that there was a tendency for providers to think first in terms of a traditional model, and then make variations from that essential model, rather than innovating from a different perspective (QAA 2). AVA chief officers reported a tendency for Access practitioners to work in isolation, with staff not being involved with colleagues working in other areas on curriculum or pedagogical development (LSDA 5). This isolation could result in a defensiveness and resistance to suggestions for change. The effect of the 'special place' for Access was also commented on by those representing some national bodies (QAA 3), with the same concern being repeated that this contributed to an isolation from other areas of development. This was echoed by Access tutors themselves (LSDA 6), some of whom also reported that they were working in isolation and expressed a wish for more regional cooperation and sharing of successful practice.

54 There is a view held by some AVAs that there should be 'different sized Access awards' (LSDA 5) and that 'the certificate should be differentiated in some way, or broken up more'. (LSDA 8) Some suggested that this might support admission into a wider range of HE programmes, including HNDs and foundation degrees. The notion that a smaller volume award would provide a mechanism for increasing progression to foundation degrees was considered by a number of representatives of national bodies (QAA 3). They contested the proposition that foundation degrees needed preparation at a lower level, arguing that students must be ready to cope at HE Level 1, whatever the qualification intention. There was also concern about the implications for limiting students' progression opportunities, especially if they wished to transfer to an honours degree programme with professional body requirements. Some were anxious that students might be misled if this were advertised as a route into a profession that needed more developed pre-HE qualifications.

55 The proposal for smaller volume Access awards was also explored in some of the round-table discussions with admissions staff (QAA 1). Here, the dominant view was that such a move would not support recruitment into HE; that 'the integrity of the Access certificate was important for its credibility'; and that fragmentation of the award could lead to a dilution of standards. The main view expressed was that while there may be some concerns about what was represented by the achievement of the Access certificate, to develop further variations and permutations of different numbers of credits for the achievement of a recognised award would add to current confusion. Improved progression to foundation degrees through Access was thought by several groups, including some of the representatives of national bodies (QAA 3), to require the development of effective connections with employers and partnership models which included work-based learning.

56 Several groups thought that there was potential for further development of vocational Access routes, and while the widening participation group (QAA 2) identified several areas which were currently not well served by Access, they also cautioned against the over-specialisation of programmes, and the problems that might be created for students who needed a broader programme. This group also raised the question of whether small providers with small cohorts could provide adequate subject coverage for a range of specific progression routes which had specialised requirements. Some HE admissions staff (QAA 1) also questioned how closely an Access pathway's curriculum should mirror the content of a vocationally based HE degree course to which it provided progression.

57 However, there was support from a number of the groups surveyed for the development of a short 'top-up' Access programme, which would also be located and recognised within the QAA framework. Such a programme would be strongly based on the acquisition of HE study skills, for those who already held level 3 qualifications, or equivalent, but who had been out of education for some time. It was felt that there may be a different market for such a qualification (QAA 1), which could more easily be delivered over a shorter period than other Access programmes.

58 In general terms, there was no evidence to support the view that the current Recognition Scheme was too inflexible to support innovation. The LSDA 8 survey asked AVAs to identify restrictions to development within the Recognition Scheme, or to make suggestions for change. This elicited very few responses from AVAs, with some stating, in relation to restrictions, 'essentially there are none' or 'no significant problems...have been able to work within the scheme and innovate'. The HE representatives with responsibilities for widening participation (QAA 2) commented on the likelihood of the perception, rather than the reality, of restrictions being the cause of problems. They noted that, in their own development work, they had found the Recognition Scheme to be more flexible than they had anticipated.

Consistency of academic standards

59 The LSDA 8 questionnaire confirmed the much-reported variation in credit requirements for the award of the Access to HE certificate, from the national minimum for AVAs which are Open College Networks (OCNs), of 16 credits with 12 at level 3, to 22 credits required by one AVA using the same credit framework. Other work in this area suggests the upper limit of requirements for the award of the Access certificate is higher still for some courses. Virtually all the groups consulted during this project considered that this area required priority attention for the successful further development and national acceptance of the Access to HE certificate.

60 This inconsistency in the requirements for the award of the Access certificate was the major cause of concern for HE admissions staff (QAA 1), who commented on the implications for consistency of offers when the variability between programmes' requirements was so great. One result, reported by AVAs (LSDA 8), is that admissions staff sometimes make offers which may not be applicable for students on all courses, asking for grades where grades are not awarded, or requiring more credits than are available to the student. Some AVAs and programme providers continue to believe that more substantial training of HE admissions tutors is required. However, admissions staff contributing to the QAA 1 discussions demonstrated a detailed understanding of the system and its complexities, but were experiencing difficulties in applying fair admissions procedures in a situation of extremely diverse requirements and regulations. They commented that detailed information about individual programmes was required and although information was usually willingly supplied when requested, it was not readily available, and they inevitably came to know the requirements of local programmes better. They suggested that the current position could create barriers for students who were not local to the HEI to which they were applying, and that it undermined the status of the Access certificate as a nationally recognised qualification.

61 Furthermore, admissions staff (QAA 1) were concerned that these differences in descriptions of requirements for the award of the Access certificate could indicate a more fundamental variation in the actual required standard of achievement for the award of the Access to HE certificate, and that this produced a reluctance, in some areas of HE, to consider Access candidates. Discussions with national bodies also noted a concern about 'the relatively small proportion of Access entrants to pre-92 universities', which led to the suggestion that this may indicate a 'lack of recognition or confidence in the qualification'. The acceptance of the Access to HE certificate as a robust, nationally recognised qualification is a matter of priority if those students who choose this route into higher education are to be able to apply successfully to all universities, whether pre- or post-1992.

62 The LSDA 8 survey suggested that, beyond the use of internal and external moderation procedures (which focus primarily on consistency within programmes), AVAs do not have well-developed standardisation mechanisms. In relation to measures taken to ensure consistency across programmes, one AVA expressed the view that 'this is a weakness in both this AVA and the scheme'. Concerns about the robustness of moderation of Access programmes were also raised by HE admissions staff (QAA 1), some of whom felt that there was insufficient emphasis on standards of achievement.

63 Some AVA officers considered that there was a need for standardised levels of achievement (LSDA 5), and that QAA should take the lead on this. Support for subject benchmarks was indicated by admissions staff involved in the QAA 1 discussions, who noted that, with programmes being individually developed by centres, there was a need for 'national pegs to hang programmes on', in order to ensure some national consistency of standards. A number of stakeholders (QAA 3) also argued for the establishment of benchmarks, both at qualification and subject levels. Some AVA chief officers (LSDA 5) expressed the view that there should be national benchmarks for academic standards, pointing out that the lack of such benchmarks may leave students at a disadvantage, especially when applying for over-subscribed courses. Some also cautioned against a too prescriptive approach and emphasised the need to maintain the flexibility of Access to respond to local contexts. Access tutors (LSDA 6) also stressed the need to maintain flexibility, but noted the problems which can be created for students' progression into HE because of the lack of standardisation.

64 The LSDA 8 survey of AVAs produced a suggestion for 'introducing a common core into all Access programmes'. Support for a common core (or common core elements) for QAA-recognised Access programmes was voiced by admissions staff in the QAA 1 survey. The same idea was endorsed by some stakeholders (QAA 3) and those working in widening participation in HE (QAA 2), who proposed the development of a suite of core units which could be used with some agreed flexibility, according to the needs of different progression pathways. This group also stressed the need to preserve the responsiveness of Access.

Description of student achievement

65 The problems associated with inconsistent requirements for the award of the Access certificate are exacerbated by the use of several different systems of credit as well as the methods used for describing achievement by AVAs which are not OCNs. These AVAs do not use the formal NOCN credit framework, but are nonetheless part of the QAA Recognition Scheme. Tutors also noted the problems for progression caused by the use of different, and not necessarily compatible, credit systems and the difficulties this caused for HE admissions staff (LSDA 6). Opinion was reported as being divided on the desirability of the national adoption of any particular credit scheme. Although the study did not reveal the reasons for this, it did report dissatisfaction with systems that were considered 'too bureaucratic'. This seems to be linked with other criticisms made by providers (LSDA 6) that some AVAs were 'becoming both more prescriptive and more unpredictable in outlining the criteria for unit writing', and that 'we end up writing units with too many learning outcomes that we can't really keep to in practice'. There was also some concern that AVAs were reliant on over-bureaucratic systems: some admissions staff, for example, made reference to quality assurance systems operated by AVAs (particularly in relation to programme recognition) being 'too bureaucratic' (QAA 1).

66 While the need to adopt a common credit framework and common credit requirements is now widely accepted among most AVAs, there is not, as yet, agreement about what the common requirement should be (LSDA 8). Indeed, there are differing views about whether all Access programmes should have the same credit requirements for the award of the Access certificate. There seem, in particular, to be different views as to whether Access can best respond to HE's requirements by having a single, standard credit target for all programmes, or whether credit requirements should somehow reflect the demands of different HE programme types for different entry requirements.

67 Information about individual student achievement was raised as an area for further consideration. While some referred to the need for improved information through references and individual transcripts of achievement, for most this was a debate about the desirability of developing a system of grading for Access. There remain those for whom such a move would be 'against the whole ethos of Access'. However, many HE admissions staff (QAA 1) and some of those working in the area of HE widening participation (QAA 2), reported that the current position, in which the Access certificate, as an undifferentiated award, identifies only a threshold level of achievement, makes it difficult to provide transparent selection criteria in relation to Access and maintain equity in admissions procedures. Some consider that the current position of the Access Certificate outside the UCAS Tariff reinforces these difficulties.

68 Those from HE institutions and departments where there is a high demand for places identified this as a particular problem, and were concerned that even the most able Access students may be effectively barred from progressing to these degree courses because there is no common, reliable means for identifying differentiated individual levels of achievement. It was argued by some representatives from national bodies (QAA 3) that 'the language of "competencies" is insufficient for the reality of differential achievement: students are disadvantaged by a competency-based qualification'; perhaps reflecting the frustration felt by an admissions tutor, who considered that it was 'absurd that you can't distinguish between the stars and those who have just scraped through'. It must be a priority to enable those extremely able students who have chosen the Access route to apply successfully for entry to high demand courses and institutions.

Section 5: Recommendations

69 The following recommendations are based on a review of the research findings summarised in Section 4, and provided in detail in the full research reports. QAA's final proposals, presented below, have been developed from the outcomes of this research to provide a coherent programme for the development of Access to HE provision as an effective, valued and high-quality means for widening participation in higher education.

Recommendation 1: Strategic context

Aim

Methods

a Access to HE should become a specific strand for development within Aimhigher, or an equivalent vehicle for strategic development, which HEIs and P4P groups (and their successors), working with AVAs at the regional and sub-regional level, are specifically encouraged to include in their own widening participation strategies.

b This regional structure should provide the mechanism for the development of coherent and responsive regional strategies for Access, and for the sharing and dissemination of good practice.

c QAA should reconsider the AVA licensing criteria as they relate to size and regional responsiveness, with a view to encouraging the development of fewer, stronger AVAs, which will have the capacity to support innovative development more fully, as well as maintaining and developing quality assurance and academic standards.

d Statistical data on Access to HE provision and students should be further developed to support informed strategic development.

Lead responsibility: DfES

Recommendation 2: Promotion and marketing

Aim

Methods

a A dedicated national campaign to promote and market Access to HE should be developed. The campaign should be led by the DfES with appropriate budget and support, and managed in association with other current widening participation initiatives.

b The campaign should aim to increase recruitment to Access to HE programmes and develop the national image of Access, while maintaining the emphasis on responsiveness to individual needs through the use of case study material, illustrating successful individual stories from a range of types of former Access students.

c QAA should revise the Recognition Scheme to be consistent with the development of a national brand for Access, and ensure that AVAs and providers can make use of this brand in their own promotional materials.

Lead responsibility: DfES

Recommendation 3: Funding and student financial support

Aim

Funding arrangements should secure eligibility of funding for Access programmes at an appropriate level to support the needs of the provision; provide incentives for the development of new programmes to meet identified needs; encourage the development of innovative models with more flexible methods and structures for delivery to attract new target groups; and provide financial support for students following Access programmes.

Methods

a Mechanisms for effective long-term funding of Access provision should be examined, including consideration of how Access to Higher Education provision may be approved under Section 97 of the Learning and Skills Act; and exploration of the possible advantages and implications of transferring responsibility for funding Access to HE provision from FE to HE funding bodies.

b Funding should not rely on a single model of delivery, should support new provision which meets identified gaps in progression routes to HE, and should reward innovative developments which meet the needs of new target groups.

c The DfES should consider mechanisms to improve the availability of financial support for Access students, with a view to providing equity of eligibility for support with adults on Level 2 programmes and young people pursuing level 3 qualifications in FE.

d Detailed written information about the financial position for adults in HE on low incomes should be developed and provided for all applicants to Access courses.

Lead responsibility: DfES

Recommendation 4: Mechanisms for the development of innovation in Access programmes

Aim

There should be a broader range of programmes, which makes Access provision available in a wider range of venues and through more flexible modes of delivery to a wider target group. The QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE should promote the role of AVAs in the development of innovative Access provision, and should encourage fuller use of the current potential for flexibility in provision.

Methods

a QAA should revise the Access Recognition Scheme to clarify the flexibility it permits and the responsiveness it encourages, and to make the development responsibilities of AVAs more explicit.

b QAA should revise the AVA licensing criteria to encourage AVAs to engage fully with developmental activities, working with other AVAs, and the FECs and HEIs within a region.

c A template for a separate 'top-up' Access award should be developed, and the Access Recognition Scheme revised, as necessary, to accommodate this.

d AVAs should encourage, as part of a clearly articulated development agenda, the growth of further part-time and mixed-mode Access programmes, the introduction of 'rolling' rather than single annual starting points, and the expansion of vocational routes in Access courses, with particular reference to the opportunities for progression to foundation degrees.

Lead responsibility: QAA

Recommendation 5: Consistency of academic standards

Aim

Methods

a A common credit target for the Access to HE certificate should be established. Any necessary variations to common successful completion criteria, (for example, in relation to the requirements of particular professional bodies), should be nationally agreed.

b A published generic description of required outcomes on recognised Access to HE programmes should be established, which provides a clear statement of the threshold achievement requirements for the award of the Access qualification. This statement should provide a benchmark and required reference point in the programme recognition process for all QAA-recognised Access to HE programmes.

c Following the establishment of this generic statement, there should be a programme of exercises to develop subject benchmarks for the major Access programme areas and progression pathways. The subject-based benchmarking groups should include representation from AVAs, FE, HE and professional bodies (where relevant). Subject benchmarks should provide necessary reference points in the recognition process for Access to HE programmes with named progression routes in all of the main defined areas. Benchmarks should be developed to be in line with the descriptor for the current level 3 of the national qualifications framework and, in their development, should make reference to benchmarks established at level 1 of the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

d The QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE, and its structures and procedures for monitoring and reviewing AVA activity, should re-emphasise the need for effective mechanisms to assure consistency of academic standards on Access programmes. There should be a focus on effective moderation systems both at provider and AVA levels. There should also be the demonstrable involvement of higher education staff in programme development at the curriculum level, as well as in programme validation.

Lead responsibility: QAA

Recommendation 6: Description of student achievement

Aim

Methods

a A common system of credit should be adopted for the Access qualification, which can describe different volumes of learning, at different, commonly defined levels and provide for the accumulation and transfer of credit. The credit system adopted should be developed to be consistent with credit-based qualifications within the common credit framework for adults, as proposed in the July 2003 White Paper21st Century Skills and currently under development.

b In addition to revised common definitions of levels and a common credit specification for the award of the Access certificate, there should be common principles for rules of combination and commonly agreed mechanisms for the recognition of partial and individual achievement by volume of credit.

c A national system of grading for the Access award should be developed for use on all QAA-recognised Access certificates, through which different levels of individual final achievement can be readily and reliably identified.

d Following these developments in the description of student achievement, the Access to HE qualification should be included in the UCAS Tariff system.

Lead responsibility: QAA

Recommendation 7: The continuing enhancement and development of Access provision

Aim

There should be a body or forum with the designated remit for the continuing enhancement and development of Access as national provision leading to a nationally recognised qualification.

Methods

a Such a body or forum should be in receipt of sufficient funding for it to be able to undertake its designated purpose.

b This development function should not be confused with the licensing and regulatory responsibilities of the QAA (although the development function might well be otherwise located within, or managed by, the QAA).

Lead responsibility: QAA

Section 6: Conclusions

70 As this project has developed, a number of key themes have emerged which have informed the recommendations made in Section 5 above. These might be summarised as:

a concern to make Access a part of national strategies for widening participation;
a drive towards ensuring the viability and robustness of Access provision through strengthening AVAs and through greater regionalisation of provision;
the confirmation of the Access to Higher Education certificate as an acknowledged national award;
the need for security of funding for Access provision, and sufficiently flexible funding to accommodate innovative provision;
a concern for the continuing development of new and innovative Access opportunities;
the achievement of consistency in the structure of the Access qualification;
the achievement of consistency in the description of student performance on Access programmes.

71 It has been instructive to reflect on some basic issues and, above all, to recognise that the core business of Access to Higher Education is, put simply, providing access to higher education. Since the first Access courses were established, higher education - and admission to it - has changed considerably. It is the responsibility of those involved in Access to ensure that those students who benefit from Access programmes are properly equipped to take up the higher education opportunity which best reflects their aspirations and abilities. The further development of Access to Higher Education must be able to ensure that successful Access students enjoy the same opportunities as successful A level students; if it does not, Access will have failed in its core business.

72 Partially for these reasons, the proposals which have emerged from this project have stressed consistency as much as flexibility. Diversity in the provision of Access programmes is desirable, but diversity should not be an end in itself. A sense of consistency must take precedence if it is clear that higher education, the recipient of Access students, is emphasising the importance of guaranteed, recognised and consistent standards. Likewise, innovation is not important for its own sake, but it is vital that Access recognises that there are markets which it is not currently serving as well as it might, and that there are barriers to participation which it can help to dismantle.

73 In respect of the feasibility of the recommendations which are made in this report, there is every confidence that they are responding appropriately to the thinking of the major stakeholders in Access provision. The research project has involved consultation with those most directly affected by the changes to the nature of Access provision, and their views have all been taken into account in the preparation of the final proposals and this report.

74 Next steps will include the development of detailed implementation plans, and associated risk analysis, for those with responsibility for individual developments. In some sense, there is no absolute risk involved in the proposals since they do not involve the launch of an entirely new qualification or award, but the development and enhancement of provision which is already acknowledged as successful.

75 In conclusion, the recommendations arising from this project represent the basis on which the QAA believes that Access can continue to be a successful route into higher education for adult learners; can continue to attract students from traditionally disadvantaged or under-represented groups; and can thus continue to make a major contribution to the national agenda for widening participation in higher education.

Section 7: Options for further investigation and development

76 The above recommendations are presented as a plan of action and development which could reasonably take place in the short to medium term. There are some options arising from the project which might be signalled for longer-term investigation and development. These are listed below.

Option 1: Strategic context

In the further development of Recommendation 1d), the concept of a very limited number of large regional AVAs should be investigated. These AVAs might be mapped onto the current RDAs and/or HEFCE regions to encourage greater cooperation and coherence. The purpose of this consolidation would be to encourage the creation of viable and robust curriculum structures with a critical mass capable of offering a broad range of general and specialist opportunities across a region. Such a regional AVA should also be able to facilitate the provision of routes through partnership between a number of providers, offering assistance to smaller rural providers and the students who register with them.

Option 2: Mechanisms for the development of innovation in Access programmes

In the further development of Recommendation 4d), a funded project, coordinated at national level and managed at regional level, should be established to encourage the development of new vocational and professional Access programmes and pathways, work-based Access opportunities, and Access programmes using innovative modes of delivery. This might include a feasibility study for a single flexible and distance learning Access programme offered nationally by a proven high quality provider with local support from regional AVAs.

Option 3: Consistency of academic standards

A suite of common core units, or unit specifications, should be developed and nationally approved, together with standard rules of combination, for use on all Access programmes. These units should focus specifically on core skills and, in particular, provide satisfactory and robust GCSE equivalence for English, mathematics, and science, and should also include competence in the use of ICT. It should be a major objective to ensure that Access students are properly prepared to enter higher education maths and science-based higher education programmes.

¹ Student registration data includes students on the first year of a two or more year programme, who will not be aiming to achieve the certificate within the same year as registration. Reliable achievement rates cannot, therefore, be calculated from comparing these two sets of data (back to report)

²UCAS data does not include Access students applying for part-time study or those who apply directly to HE institutions. It includes those registered on QAA-recognised Access programmes and those progressing from other 'access' programmes. (back to report)

³ HESA data includes full-time and part-time registrations, but does not include Access students who progress to HE courses in FE institutions. It includes those progressing from QAA-recognised Access programmes and those from other 'access' programmes. (back to report)

ISBN 1 84482 070 X

Access to Higher Education Development Project May 2004

Report prepared by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education on a project commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills

Contents

Foreword

Executive summary

Purpose

Current Access to HE provision

Key themes of findings

Summary of research findings and recommendations

Strategic context

Promotion and marketing

Funding and student financial support

Mechanisms for development and innovation in Access programmes

Consistency of academic standards

Description of student achievement

The continuing enhancement and development of Access provision

Conclusion

Section 1: Aims and objectives

Section 2: Background and context

Background

The present context

Section 3: Research organisation and methods

Section 4: Research outcomes and findings

Strategic context

Promotion and marketing

Funding and student financial support

Mechanisms for the development of innovation in Access programmes

Consistency of academic standards

Description of student achievement

Section 5: Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Strategic context

Aim

Methods

Recommendation 2: Promotion and marketing

Aim

Methods

Recommendation 3: Funding and student financial support

Aim

Methods

Recommendation 4: Mechanisms for the development of innovation in Access programmes

Aim

Methods

Recommendation 5: Consistency of academic standards

Aim

Methods

Recommendation 6: Description of student achievement

Aim

Methods

Recommendation 7: The continuing enhancement and development of Access provision

Aim

Methods

Section 6: Conclusions

Section 7: Options for further investigation and development

Option 1: Strategic context

Option 2: Mechanisms for the development of innovation in Access programmes

Option 3: Consistency of academic standards

Access to Higher Education Development Project
May 2004