person going to university as I suspected that they were going to go anyway it was – pointless.” The ideal target group for WP activities is therefore those disadvantaged young people who have the potential to enter higher education (or an elite university), but who would not do so without an additional intervention. Concerns about deadweight and leakage date right back to the early days of the WP agenda (e.g. Thomas, 2001) and eventually spawned official guidance (e.g. HEFCE, 2007). Many of the Strand 1 participants discussed Aimhigher’s concerted efforts to use data to reliably target disadvantaged communities and schools with which to work. This was considered by some to be a solved problem, although there were misgivings about the role of schools in identifying specific individuals what one participant called the – of teacher judgement [which] includes more people who shouldn’t be there.” This “problem theme was continued into Strand 2, with 32 percent of participants expressing concerns about the ability or willingness of schools to identify the young people, even once ‘right’ clear criteria had been set: schools may have their own agendas as to who “sometimes might benefit from interactions”, with teachers who use WP activities to give “unscrupulous” additional input to high-flying pupils or those likely to portray the school in a good light. This was conceptualised in respect of the pressures on schools to maximise their standing, which may be at odds with the WP agenda. For example, one Strand 2 participant explained that
person going to university as I suspected that they were going to go anyway – it was pointless.” The ideal target group for WP activities is therefore those disadvantaged young people who have the potential to enter higher education (or an elite university), but who would not do so without an additional intervention. Concerns about deadweight and leakage date right back to the early days of the WP agenda (e.g. Thomas, 2001) and eventually spawned official guidance (e.g. HEFCE, 2007). Many of the Strand 1 participants discussed Aimhigher’s concerted efforts to use data to reliably target disadvantaged communities and schools with which to work. This was considered by some to be a solved problem, although there were misgivings about the role of schools in identifying specific individuals – what one participant called the “problem of teacher judgement [which] includes more people who shouldn’t be there.” This theme was continued into Strand 2, with 32 percent of participants expressing concerns about the ability or willingness of schools to identify the ‘right’ young people, even once clear criteria had been set: “sometimes schools may have their own agendas as to who might benefit from interactions”, with “unscrupulous” teachers who use WP activities to give additional input to high-flying pupils or those likely to portray the school in a good light. This was conceptualised in respect of the pressures on schools to maximise their standing, which may be at odds with the WP agenda. For example, one Strand 2 participant explained that
AIMS%20-%20final.docx