The Impact of COVID-19 on Fair Access To Higher Education

This interim report from the Commissioner for Fair Access on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on fair access to higher education considers both the direct impact of the public health measures that have had to be taken and indirect impact of actions taken by colleges and universities to mitigate the worst effects of these measures.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the public health measures taken to combat it, have the potential to deliver a serious check to the impressive progress that Scotland has made towards fair access to higher education. Although Colleges and universities have worked very hard in adverse circumstances that could have not been imagined a few months ago to mitigate the most damaging effects, it is almost impossible to exaggerate the negative impact of COVID-19.

This interim report looks at fair access to higher education - both the direct impact of the public health measures that have had to be taken and indirect impact of actions taken by colleges and universities to mitigate the worst effects of these measures.

Key Findings:

• COVID-19 has exposed, and exacerbated, existing inequalities of access to higher education.
• The number of infections, hospital admissions and deaths has been higher in areas of social deprivation. Public health interventions as a result have been more restrictive. There has been more disruption to schools. The impact on jobs and incomes has been greater.
• Pupils, and potential and actual students, from more socially deprived homes have found it more difficult to engage with the shift to more online delivery. Their access to IT, reliable Wi‑fi and secure study space has been limited compared to that enjoyed by their more socially advantaged peers.
• All institutions have worked hard to mitigate the impact of COVID-19. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Funding Council have also made welcome interventions. But the greatest burden has fallen on those institutions that have the highest proportions of students from disadvantaged areas but also the most limited resources
• The cancellation of National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher examinations in the summer and replacement by teacher assessments led to an increase in the number of qualified university applicants, which was met by the provision of additional funded places by the government. It is likely that, because of the limited supply of qualified applicants from socially deprived communities and other disadvantaged groups, a majority of these extra places were filled by applicants from more privileged social groups.
• The abandonment of the SQA’s proposed algorithm for moderating teacher assessed grades avoided some negative consequences for fair access. But it is still unclear whether teachers tended to give lower grades to pupils from more deprived social backgrounds.
• The unplanned inflation in Higher grades and increase in the number of first‑year places led to students being admitted to university who in previous years would probably have been enrolled on Higher National programmes in colleges.
• In the first phase of the pandemic schools were closed, with almost all learning online. This disadvantaged pupils from deprived communities because of limited access to suitable IT and study space. Despite the best efforts of schools and local authorities efforts to close the attainment gap will have suffered a set-back.
• The pivot to online had an immediate impact on outreach activities, and also summer schools and other bridging programmes. Although this has allowed more students to be involved, it has probably undermined their effectiveness.
• ‘Digital poverty’ has been a major issue for students from more socially deprived and economically challenged backgrounds.
• Linked phenomena are ‘digital literacy’, which is different for the purposes of learning than for social media, and also ‘digital fatigue’, which may have handicapped in particular the efforts of institutions to reach out to prospective students while still at school.
• In addition to the pivot from face-to-face teaching to online learning induction, as well as enrolment, has had to be moved online. In the case of universities in particular it has been difficult to reproduce the full ‘first year’ experience which for all students, but especially for those from more deprived communities who are least familiar with university life, provides a key transition from school to higher education.
• Financial hardship has increased among all students, but especially for students whose parents cannot subsidise their studies and who must support themselves by taking part-time jobs that has now been curtailed by public health measures.
• The impact of COVID-19 on mental health has been severe. While some students have settled comfortably into learning online, most are suffering higher levels of stress and depression.
• Continuation rates do not appear to have been adversely affected by the pandemic. But there is uncertainty about whether students facing the greatest challenges and suffering the greatest disadvantages will be able to stay the course.
• An inevitable result of the pandemic is that school performance has been disrupted. Pupils who took National 5 and Highers in the summer gained better‑than‑expected grades, which may happen again in 2021 if next year’s school leavers are not to be disadvantaged.
• The impact on staff so far has received limited attention. Most have risen to the challenge of moving their face-to-face teaching online, and supporting their students. Adjustments that would in normal times have taken years have had to be achieved within weeks. It is hardly surprising that morale is fragile, with some staff feeling dissatisfied with the quality of what they are able to provide.
• The overall national target, that 16 per cent of higher education entrants in 2021 should come from the 20-per-cent most deprived communities as measured by SIMD, has probably not been in serious doubt despite the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of COVID-19 the 2026 target, of 18 per cent of entrants from SIMD20 areas, may be more challenging – confirming the conviction that this is not the time to ease off on efforts to achieve fair access.

Conclusions:

• Outreach activities targeted at under-represented social groups and individuals have had to delivered almost entirely online, undermining the personal hands-on experience that is so often key to their success in raising aspirations and reducing barriers, real and imagined;
• ‘Digital poverty’ has put students from more socially deprived backgrounds at a serious disadvantage because they lack the tools of effective learning – IT, connectivity and quiet space – in an predominantly online environment;
• The same students are experiencing unprecedented levels of financial hardship, as a result of the shortage of part-time jobs and their inability to fall back for help on parents and carers (who themselves are often being exposed to unprecedented levels of economic strain);
• All students are experiencing an impoverished learning, and social, experience and also increased levels of poor mental health. But deprived and disadvantaged students, with more limited familiarity with university life, are suffering worst;
• There is a real risk the attainment gap between pupils in the most advantaged and most deprived schools will widen as a result of interruptions which have been greatest in areas of the greatest social disadvantage;
• The, perhaps illusory, ‘gold standard’ of National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher grades has been called into question by the cancellation of examinations. The uncertainty could destabilise carefully calibrated systems of contextual admissions which have benefited applicants from socially deprived communities.

<--- The article continues for users subscribed and signed in. --->