Ipsos | Uni Connect Phase 3 : Attainment-raising Activity – Final Report
25 and often chose to safeguard their own academics for the development of internal attainment-raising programmes to avoid “ stretching them too thinly ” ( quote sourced from partnership delivery staff interview ). Leads felt that engagement from HEPs was generally low , with the misaligned timings of Access and Participation Plans one reason for this . Partnerships also recognised that HEPs face other pressures that demand significant resource . Partnership leads seemed confident that HEPs were interested in the attainment-raising strand within Uni Connect but could not commit to the development or delivery of attainment-raising as there was no “ incentive ” for them to do so ( quote sourced from partnership delivery staff interview ). Partnership teams that are based within their local HEP found this closer proximity eased communication and facilitated engagement , however HEP engagement remained a significant challenge .
“ I ’ m really lucky , our university is brilliant . However , there is a massive shortfall [...] in the university ’ s finances for the coming year . They really see our value , they want to help us , however there ’ s just no resource there .” ( Partnership lead )
“ I think it ’ s the interface between higher education and secondary education , because higher education doesn ’ t see it as their role . Secondary education doesn ’ t see it as higher education ’ s role . It may be worth looking at where it can be of benefit to the higher education provider as well to increase buy-in .” ( Stakeholder )
Despite these challenges , some partnerships developed several programmes with local HEPs that were co-delivered by the partners within university buildings . Two case study partnerships were able to adapt and expand delivery of pre-existing attainment-raising activities already run by HEPs . These examples of collaboration supported partnerships , but HEP staff also reflected that the programme content itself benefitted from collaboration and more schools were reached as a result too . Though examples of integrated collaboration were apparent , this was not the case for all partnerships .
Instead , HEP support for delivery was more commonly in the form of resources , including access to university facilities and provision of learner and / or graduate delivery staff . Access to facilities under the attainment-raising strand was for campus days , summer schools and other activities that sought to promote both attainment-raising and ambition-raising amongst learners . Activities that were delivered in university sites were popular amongst school staff and learners , and school staff particularly favoured the exposure to university environments these opportunities provided to learners . Partnerships also benefitted from HEPs providing delivery staff ( e . g . undergraduate learner ambassadors , graduate interns , postgraduate and PhD learners ) to support with delivery , such as small-group subject tuition and buddy mentor schemes .
Case study example : drawing on HEP expertise
University ‘ B ’ have a strong portfolio of attainment-raising outreach programmes , developed for their local area ( categorised as a Priority Education Investment Area ). They previously established an attainment-raising programme ( Programme ‘ B ’) four years ago ( 2019 ) that was developed and researched internally . The programme has a focus on metacognition informed by Education Endowment Fund ( EEF ) guidance . This metacognition skills-based programme is delivered oncampus to 50 learners at a time . Schools are requested to select mid-to-high attainers that are academically engaged but lack confidence in their learning and revision skills . It was designed for
20-048464 | FINAL | Public | This work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for Market Research , ISO 20252 , and with the Ipsos MORI Terms and Conditions which can be found at http :// www . ipsos-mori . com / terms .