Emma Church

THE USE OF WP DATA : HOW IT CAN BE DEPLOYED TO INFORM PRACTICE AND INTERVENTION ? Uses of Data in the East Midlands Examples of the Use of Data Introduction to the East Midlands Widening Participation Research and Evaluation Partnership (EMWPREP)

EMWPREP: 8 HEIs in the East Midlands Continuing the work of Aimhigher in the East Midlands Work includes: Monitoring and evaluating institutions’ outreach programmes Evaluation of discrete outreach activities Targeting students for outreach activity Analysing partner institutions’ student data Analysing external data: UCAS; DfE

U SES OF DATA : There are three main ways in which data is used in the East Midlands: 1. Targeting 2. Monitoring 3. Evaluation

TARGETING : Targeting for inclusion in WP interventions takes place on two levels: School Level Individual Level

TARGETING : SCHOOL LEVEL % residing in POLAR3 quintile% residing in IMD2010 areaFree School Meals (FSM) GCSEsKS2No. of Pupils Targeting School NameqYPR 1qYPR 2qYPR 1or210% most deprived 20% most deprived 40% most deprived % eligible for FSM (performance table stats) (Jan 2013 Census) % 5+ A*-C inc E&M 2012% achieving level 4 or above in reading and mathematics test and writing teacher assessment 2012 Total No. of Pupils No. used in analysis Target School Total All Criteria School A64%34%97%94%95%99%49%N/A77%342  10 School B62%3%65%9% 57%29%N/A74%  4 School C62%11%73%17%32%61%17%N/A46%  3 School D60%1%61%56%60%97%44%NO DATA AVAILABLEN/A  9 School E46%45%92%0% 20%17%NO DATA AVAILABLEN/A395  1 School F44%22%67%43%70%84%67%0%N/A63  8 School G44% 88%0% 20%17%31%N/A403  1 School H42%35%77%49%52%81%25%49%N/A1,  6 School I41%26%67%35%40%50%18%NO DATA AVAILABLEN/A  2 School J41%38%80%0% 14%9%NO DATA AVAILABLEN/A  0

TARGETING : INDIVIDUAL LEVEL Currently a student will fall into the cohort if they meet the following criteria: They are predicted a 40% (city)/ 50% (county) chance of achieving 5+ A*-C GCSEs AND They are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), OR They fall within one of the 20% most deprived areas nationally according to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), OR They fall within one of the 20% lowest young HE participation wards (quintile 1) of POLAR3, OR They fall within one of the 40% most deprived areas nationally according to IMD AND within one of the 40% lowest young HE participation wards (quintile 1 or 2) of POLAR3.

M ONITORING : M & E DATABASE

M ONITORING : ACTIVITY PROFORMAS The proformas allow HEIs to record a wide variety of information about their interventions such as activity type, category, funding stream, duration, location, target group and importantly the number of participants involved

M ONITORING : CONSENT FORMS

M ONITORING : PARTICIPANT BIOGRAPHY

E VALUATION : REACH ACTIVITY AND PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS Summary No. Activities 111 No. Participants 3806 CategoryNo. Activities%age of ActivitiesNo. Participants%age of Participants Cat % % Cat % % Total % % Activity TypeNo. Activities%age of ActivitiesNo. Participants%age of Participants Academic Experience Day 21.8%591.6% HE Experience 10.9%591.6% HE Talks 65.4% % HE/University Experience Days % % IAG % % Master Classes 21.8%461.2% Taster Sessions 21.8%842.2% Grand Total % %

E VALUATION : REACH ACTIVITY AND PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS Targeting Summary%age in target groupTotal No. Participants IMD 56.9%945 NS-SEC 53.8%625 qYPR 51.3%945 qAHE 62.3%945 Parents/Carer HE 70.6%892 Total No. Participants in analysis n/a985 There has been a decrease in the percentage of participants meeting various targeting criteria between the interim stage in 2012/13 and the interim stage in 2013/14.

E VALUATION : ATTAINMENT & PROGRESSION Predicted versus Actual Establish links between talking part in outreach interventions and doing better than expected in key assessments Progression to HE Link participant of outreach interventions to applications, offers and acceptances at partner institutions

E VALUATION : S PECIFIC E VALUATIONS Activity Questionnaires

E VALUATION : S PECIFIC E VALUATIONS Bespoke Evaluations In-depth analysis utilising multiple mixed methods approach to evaluation Examples: Loughborough University’s Mentoring Scheme University of Leicester’s Students in Classrooms Programme University of Leicester’s Summer School Programme

C ONCLUSION Correct identification of target school and pupils within those schools is important Collection of consent forms is crucial to monitoring and evaluation as it’s the way to establish links as to “what works” Activity evaluations give an ‘immediate’ picture of the success of an event

A NY Q UESTIONS ?

C ONTACT D ETAILS Emma Church Widening Participation Research & Evaluation Coordinator T: E: Hazlerigg Building, Rm Loughborough University LE11 3TU