range of possible measures of impact on a four-point scale (very successful/quite successful/rather unsuccessful/not applicable). They were generally confident with respect to increasing knowledge, raising aspirations and challenging stereotypes about higher education, with over 50 percent believing that their institution had been very successful. However, very few felt that they had had similar impact in terms of raising attainment at either 16 or 18 just 2 percent and 4 percent respectively, and Colleges in both instances. – In fact, 38 percent felt that their institution was not concerned with improving results at 16 and 26 percent held the same view about 18; these outcomes were simply constructed as being out-of-scope for their portfolio of activities, with little difference in responses between institutional types. This tension, therefore, remains unresolved. On the one hand, quantitative analysis suggests that attainment is the key determinants of higher education participation (e.g. Crawford, 2014), while there is mounting evidence that disadvantaged young people do not suffer from the low aspirations ascribed to them in the public discourse (Whitty, Hayton and Tang, 2015). On the other hand, the majority of institutions reported focusing on a relatively restricted range of aspiration-raising activities, with many seeing as being explicitly outside their mission. Indeed, it is unclear that aspirational gains translate simply into improved attainment, which may explain the low confidence from the Strand 2 participants; Gorard and See (2013, p.128) conclude from their systematic review that is insufficient evidence for a causal link to justify any intervention to raise ‘there aspirations in order to raise attainment’.
range of possible measures of impact on a four-point scale (very successful/quite successful/rather unsuccessful/not applicable). They were generally confident with respect to increasing knowledge, raising aspirations and challenging stereotypes about higher education, with over 50 percent believing that their institution had been very successful. However, very few felt that they had had similar impact in terms of raising attainment at either 16 or 18 – just 2 percent and 4 percent respectively, and Colleges in both instances. In fact, 38 percent felt that their institution was not concerned with improving results at 16 and 26 percent held the same view about 18; these outcomes were simply constructed as being out-of-scope for their portfolio of activities, with little difference in responses between institutional types. This tension, therefore, remains unresolved. On the one hand, quantitative analysis suggests that attainment is the key determinants of higher education participation (e.g. Crawford, 2014), while there is mounting evidence that disadvantaged young people do not suffer from the low aspirations ascribed to them in the public discourse (Whitty, Hayton and Tang, 2015). On the other hand, the majority of institutions reported focusing on a relatively restricted range of aspiration-raising activities, with many seeing as being explicitly outside their mission. Indeed, it is unclear that aspirational gains translate simply into improved attainment, which may explain the low confidence from the Strand 2 participants; Gorard and See (2013, p.128) conclude from their systematic review that ‘there is insufficient evidence for a causal link to justify any intervention to raise aspirations in order to raise attainment’.