Students 'should study overseas'

27 July 2011 Last updated at 10:44 GMT By Katherine Sellgren BBC News education reporter David Willetts wants to see students being able to study at overseas campuses of English universities More students from England should be able to study abroad, says the Universities Minister David Willetts.

He said it should be easier for English students to gain credits towards their degree while studying overseas.

There should be "greater mutual recognition" of qualifications between countries, he suggested.

With many students in England facing tuition fees of ?9,000 a year from 2012, study at foreign universities could become more popular.

Speaking at a Westminster Education Forum event on higher education, Mr Willetts, minister for universities in England, said: "I would like to see British universities with more of a presence abroad.

"I would like to see them be able to raise enough funds to set up more operations abroad.

"I would like to see greater mutual recognition of qualifications so that a student born in Britain can build up credits for a British degree while studying abroad.

"And that may be a way in which we see rather more British students studying abroad."

Such a move could see more students working towards their degree while studying at a foreign university or an overseas campus of an English institution.

Martin Davidson, chief executive of the British Council, said the reality of globalisation was that education was borderless.

"Supporting outward mobility is as important an economic investment as investing the infrastructure of the UK," he said.

"Not only does this build cultural fluency, the ability to work in differing environments, but it also generates wide networks that form the basis of long term partnerships."

University fee waivers

The Westminster Education Forum was also addressed by the National Union of Students.

President Liam Burns expressed concern that fee waivers, which reduce tuition fees for students from low-income families, were "an elaborate con trick and a national disgrace".

Mr Burns said ministers had a vested interest in fee waivers to keep government borrowing down - the state pays the fees initially until students start repayments once they are earning ?21,000 or more.

He also said universities were turning to reduced fees for poorer students rather than "cash in their pockets", in the form of bursaries.

"The government has a vested interest in them because they help to subsidise the treasury, and institutions have a vested interest in them because they help to make the sticker price look higher than the real price and thus play as trumps in the games of prestige that so contaminate our system.

"I want to see solid evidence that waivers have an effect on the choices of those from the poorest background. Until we do, far from being encouraged, they should be banned."

View the original article here

Study divide

8 July 2011 Last updated at 01:37 GMT By Sean Coughlan BBC News education correspondent Are "intensively parented" London teenagers grabbing all the places? Social mobility and university access are under the microscope again, with the Sutton Trust looking at whether independent school pupils are disproportionately dominating places at top universities.

But what happens if instead of looking at the type of school students come from, you look at where they live?

Admissions figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency and individual universities show that youngsters from London and south-east England are more likely to gain places at England's top universities than their northern counterparts.

Figures for Oxford and Cambridge show that more southerners apply and a higher proportion get places.

In terms of comparable populations, three times as many places go to students from London and the South East as from the North.

When the data is broken down even further, there are some stark figures. At Oxford University more students from China gained places than from north-east England.

Does this mean that the pushy southerners are grabbing all the places? Or is it a case of what's diplomatically described as "intensively parented" London teenagers taking all the prizes?

Top universities, which spend large amounts of time, money and goodwill trying to "widen participation", are likely to sigh wearily at another round of accusations of being socially exclusive.

But what about regional exclusivity? What do the figures tell us about the map of modern England and the wider UK?

In terms of who gets university places, "geography is a better predictor than social class or income", says Professor Danny Dorling of the University of Sheffield and an expert on the north-south divide.

"You're more likely to be able to tell a pathway from a postcode."

Outnumbered

In terms of the overall population of the UK, about three quarters live outside London and south-east England.

But when it comes to getting places at some top universities, the majority becomes a minority.

At Bristol, Cambridge, Imperial, King's College, Oxford, Southampton and Warwick, students from outside the capital and South East are in a minority, according to figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency.

A higher proportion of top A-level results are gained in London and the South

Overseas students are also now a major part of the student population, overtaking numbers of northern students in some top universities.

At the London School of Economics, UK students from outside London and the South East make up less than 25% of the undergraduate intake. More than 40% are international students.

London and the South East are similar in population size to the combined northern regions of the North East, North West, Yorkshire and Humberside.

But according to entry figures for 2010, northern applicants gained just over 800 Oxbridge places, compared with almost 2,700 taken by students from London and the South East.

There are also over-representations compared with the wider university population. About 26% of university admissions are from London and the South East, but the Oxbridge figure is above 40%.

Regional A-level gaps

There are reasons for such an imbalance. The top universities draw their students from among those with the highest exam grades.

Oxford University has argued that it can only choose from the best candidates who apply - it can't put right the inequalities in the school system.

Oxford University has outreach projects, summer schools and spends ?8m a year in support schemes - and still gets bashed every year for recruiting too narrowly.

It even gets blamed for using the figures it publishes to show that it is transparent in its admissions.

And the figures show the regional geography of educational winners and losers.

In London and the South East a higher proportion of pupils achieve three A grades at A-level - and it follows that pupils from this part of the country will gain more of the most sought-after places.

According to figures from Oxford, about 6,000 students in the North get AAA grades at A-level each year, together with 3,700 in the Midlands - compared to 15,700 from the South and East.

Oxford also points out that many students prefer to attend a university reasonably close to home.

There is also a well-established link between family income and academic achievement - so the greater concentration of wealthier families in the South East and London is reflected in university admissions.

Fitting in

But are there other cultural barriers as well? Perceptions about "fitting in" can be very influential, suggests Frank Furedi, author and professor of sociology at the University of Kent.

He describes a "phenomenally bright" student he knew from north Wales who was offered a place at Oxford but turned it down because "she thought she wouldn't feel comfortable... that it was for southerners".

More students from China got Oxford places this year than from north-east England

Applying to the top universities can depend on "cultural capital", he says. And this can blur the boundaries of state and private education.

"There might be Islington parents with very strong views on independent schools - but who are still part of the mushrooming of private tuition."

These families, with their "intensive parenting", prepare their children to succeed in exams and find university places, he says.

There are other population shifts widening the north-south gap.

The employment market, with more graduate jobs in and around London, brings young university-leavers southwards.

When these graduates settle down and have families, they in turn influence the ambitions of their children, says Professor Dorling.

"Graduates want their children to go to university - and in London and the South East there are a lot of graduates' children," he says.

Aspiring immigrants

Another driving force is that immigrants coming to London, regardless of their own income, are more likely to have aspirations to get their children into university.

And at the top end of the wealth bracket in London, there is a highly-ambitious metropolitan elite leading the chase for the most sought-after places for their children.

Looking at social mobility in terms of private and state schools can also overlook competitive, league-topping, oversubscribed state schools - the type that ring London and its commuter belt.

The admissions data from the Sutton Trust shows some comprehensives in London and the home counties are much more successful than many independent schools at getting pupils into the top universities.

Looking at the comprehensives gaining the most places at the most selective universities, seven out of the top 10 are in the London and the surrounding area.

Among grammar schools getting the highest proportion of places in the most selective universities, nine out of the top 10 are in southern England.

The Sutton Trust says state pupils in Reading, Hammersmith and Fulham, Sutton and Buckinghamshire are more than 50 times as likely to be accepted at Oxford or Cambridge than pupils in Rochdale, Knowsley or Sandwell - and also the inner-London borough of Hackney.

Bucking the trend

But it is not a one-dimensional picture.

There are leading northern universities where the southern contingent is lower than their proportion of the national population, such as Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds.

There is also a distinctly different pattern outside England, with universities such as Glasgow and Queen's Belfast drawing students from Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Social Mobility Foundation's chief executive, David Johnston, said that young people from under-represented backgrounds face similar barriers, wherever they live.

"As with all under-represented groups, if you have fewer people from your particular background who are students or academics at such universities, you have fewer people who can share how they made it."

View the original article here

EMA grants study 'misinterpreted'

9 June 2011 Last updated at 16:24 GMT The scrapping of EMA became part of the wave of student protests during the winter Ministers "misinterpreted" research they cited to justify axing education grants for low-income English 16-19 year olds, the study's author has said.

The government axed the Education Maintenance Allowance of up to ?30 a week, saying 88% of money spent on it was ineffective or "deadweight cost".

But Thomas Spielhofer, who led the study on which the claim was based, told MPs this was a misinterpretation.

The government said its decision was not based on just one study.

The ?560m EMA scheme provided means-tested grants to help young people stay on at school or college.

Students protested when ministers scrapped the scheme and replaced it with a ?180m bursary fund to be allocated mainly by colleges, which it said would be better targeted at the poorest students.

The government has frequently cited Mr Spielhofer's study, done for the National Foundation for Educational Research, in defence of its decision.

The study questioned 2,029 students, of whom 838 said they received EMA.

When asked whether they would have remained in education or training if they did not receive EMA, 88% of the 838 said "yes", while 12% said "no".

'More cost effective'

Giving evidence to the Education Select Committee, Mr Spielhofer said: "You can interpret that in different ways. You can interpret it quite negatively, and say that for 88% that was wasted money, but I don't actually see it that way, I think it has been misinterpreted in that sense."

He said that for some of the 88%, the EMA payments would have "made no difference", but for others, finance would have been a consideration, and the fact that they would have stayed on showed "resilience".

Asked whether he was "happy with the concept that EMA has a deadweight cost of 88%", he said "no".

He also replied that it was "completely correct" when asked if he was unhappy that the change in government policy had been based on his research.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said the decision to replace the EMA with "a far more cost effective and targeted scheme" was "not made on the back of one survey".

"There is a range of evidence which shows that the bulk of the money was not getting to those who most needed it and that initial gains in participation had reached a plateau," the spokesman said.

"We can no longer afford the luxury of paying substantial incentives to young people who would have stayed on anyway."

The Conservative Party pointed out that Mr Spielhofer's report also said EMAs should be targeted at the young people most in need.

In a report in December, The Institute for Fiscal Studies said its own estimates were consistent with an 88% deadweight cost, but argued that these costs were "completely offset" by the benefits of the policy.

They also argued that there may be further benefits of receiving EMA for those who would have continued in education without it, such as improved attendance, or more study time for students who did not need to top up their income with part-time work.

The University and College Union said the government had "clearly cherry-picked one statistic from one report in order to justify scrapping an entire system of financial support for young people".

It said the EMA made a "huge difference in keeping young people in education".

James Mills, leader of the Save EMA campaign, said the government had "corrupted the evidence to pick the pockets of the poorest teenagers in this country during the worst possible time".

He called on the government to produce their evidence for scrapping EMA "as this report was the cornerstone of their entire argument".

Shadow education secretary Andy Burnham said: "These damning comments demolish the entire basis of the government's justification for scrapping EMA.

"[Education Secretary] Michael Gove needs to learn to listen and think twice before pursuing an ideological agenda that flies in the face of all the evidence about what works," he said.

View the original article here

Study reveals teenage knife use

19 May 2011 Last updated at 12:28 GMT By Dominic Casciani BBC News home affairs correspondent Thirteen per cent of 13 to 15-year-olds know someone who has carried a knife for protection, a survey has suggested.

The research estimates that overall 1% of those in the age group carried a knife between 2009 and 2010 - lower than other estimates.

The figures for England and Wales suggest a fifth of 10 to 15-year-olds were bullied in the last year.

The statistics are an attempt to better understand the effects of crime on children and how safe they feel.

The report focuses on a wide range of questions relating to young people's perceptions of crime and personal safety, rather than the number of them who have actually been victims.

The results are drawn from the 2009-2010 British Crime Survey, a rolling programme of interviews designed to record experiences of crime beyond incidents reported to the police. Some 3,700 children were interviewed.

According to the figures on knives, almost 70% of those aged between 13 and 15 said that carrying a knife meant they would be more likely to be stabbed themselves.

However, the older the children were, the less likely they were to strongly agree that such a risk existed.

Nasty texts

There have been previous attempts to work out how many young people carry a weapon.

A survey by the Youth Justice Board published in 2009 estimated that 23% of young people said they had carried a knife in the previous year.

Typically they admitted to carrying a pen knife - and a third said it was nothing to do with protection. A survey by BBC Radio 1 in 2009 found that 9% of respondents said they carried a knife for protection.

On bullying, boys aged between 10 and 12 were more likely to have experienced bullying than other groups.

Some 6% of children said they had been victims of cyber-bullying - such as nasty texts or postings on websites - in the last year. Girls were more likely to have been cyber-bullied than boys.

Eight out of 10 of those surveyed said they hung around with friends in public spaces - but just over a third said that there was a problem with teenagers hanging around in their neighbourhood.

Overall, the figures suggest that children are more likely than adults to think that there is a problem with teenagers hanging around.

The figures also reveal that children trust the police far more than adults.

According to the survey 87% agreed that "the police would help if you need them". When asked a similar question, only 50% of adults agreed that police could be relied on to help.

The majority of young people also agreed that police were friendly and treated people fairly "whatever their skin colour or religion".

These latest figures come almost a year after the Home Office's first experimental statistics illustrated the problems with quantifying crime affecting children.

That earlier report suggested that up to a quarter of children could be victims of crime - but it stressed that defining a crime involving children was very difficult.

In one example, using the strictest legal definitions, squabbling siblings smashing each other's toys could be classed as crime - but the children themselves would not consider themselves a victim.

View the original article here