Universities cannot leave social mobility to their widening participation teams alone - HEPI

Full Job Description

This blog was kindly authored by Jon Datta, Head of University Access Programmes, Student Digital Strategy and University Sector Engagement at the Sutton Trust.

Universities play a crucial role in driving social mobility, but this work can’t be successful if teams are working in silos.

A university can run an excellent summer school and still put avoidable barriers in the way of the students it wants to recruit. Committed staff running outreach programmes can change what a young person thinks is possible, yet that student may then face an admissions policy they can’t decipher, an accommodation deposit they can’t afford or a placement they can’t fit around paid work. Different teams make decisions for different reasons. The student still has to live with the combined result.

Universities put considerable effort into helping students navigate institutions. We should be more willing to change the things that make those institutions difficult to navigate.

This is one of the arguments behind the Sutton Trust’s new best practice guide for universities. It draws on research, our programme delivery and practice from across the sector. There is a great deal worth sharing; however, even a strong intervention will achieve less if other university practices work against it.

An outreach team can help a young person make an ambitious application. It usually can’t change a department’s entry requirements. It can explain financial support but can’t control when that support reaches a student’s bank account. It can introduce professional opportunities without being able to make them affordable. Widening participation teams shouldn’t be left to work around university policies that limit students’ chances of success.

Universities should also make better use of the insights outreach staff gain through their work. Programme teams hear pupils’ questions, discuss concerns with families and see where schools struggle to get answers. That knowledge should inform admissions, communications and student support. Helping someone through a difficult process should also prompt a conversation about whether the process needs to change.

The Institution Needs To Adapt

Access work helps young people understand how university works. Students need good information, academic preparation and opportunities to explore their choices. The problem comes when universities treat every difficulty as something students must learn to overcome, even when the institution could remove the barrier.

If applicants repeatedly misunderstand a contextual admissions policy, universities should examine both the policy and how they explain it. If students arrive unfamiliar with academic conventions, those conventions should be taught within their courses. If a placement means paying for travel or accommodation while losing income from an existing job, universities need to address those costs as well as help students secure the opportunity.

The same applies to belonging. Universities can invest in mentoring and welcome activities while still leaving students unable to afford ordinary course and social experiences. Feeling included is difficult when taking part costs money you do not have.

These are choices about how a university operates. They belong in discussions about social mobility just as much as outreach targets do.

That is why the guide covers admissions, transition, student success and progression into employment or postgraduate study. Antony Moss’s new HEVA proposal for The Post-18 Project adds to this debate by considering continuation, completion and attainment together. It keeps students who leave without completing their course in the picture when assessing attainment, rather than looking only at those who finish.

Universities need to understand where and why disadvantaged students leave their courses as well as how those who graduate perform. Identifying the gap is the starting point. The guide considers what universities can change in response.

Responsibility Beyond The Widening Participation Team

‘Whole-provider approach’ is now familiar language, but it can also conceal a lack of agreement about who will do what.

If a university has committed to improving continuation, which academic departments and services are expected to change their practice? Who can approve those changes? What happens if the work is not done?

Senior endorsement and good data matter. They need to lead to decisions about who will act, what will change and how the work will be funded. In England, the commitments universities make in their access and participation plans should shape how departments teach, services support students and leaders allocate funding. The arrangements differ across the UK, but universities everywhere need to show how their plans change students’ day-to-day experience.

Responsibility cannot simply be handed back to the widening participation team under a more expansive job description. Where finance, accommodation, academic departments and careers influence an outcome, their leaders need clear responsibilities for improving it.

There are real limits to what institutions can do. Universities can’t make up for inadequate maintenance support or close school attainment gaps on their own. Their financial pressures make difficult trade-offs unavoidable. Embedding social mobility across an institution still requires investment in specialist expertise and student support. Those pressures only make it more important to check whether decisions in one part of the university are undermining investment in another.

Outreach itself needs the same scrutiny. Universities should know which barrier an intervention addresses, who misses out, whether support continues and what changes for participants. Attendance and positive feedback are useful but they are not enough to establish whether an intervention achieves its aims.

The quality of delivery matters as much as good prgrammme design. Practitioners shape who gets reached and what participants experience. They need professional development, opportunities to learn from one another and time to apply that learning.

The guide offers practical advice and examples. Universities will need to judge what fits, evaluate their approach and change it where necessary. That scrutiny should extend to the institutional decisions that shape students’ opportunities.

Ask your widening participation team where students keep running into barriers. Then ask why it is still their job to work around them.

Share This:

• Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
• Share on X (Opens in new window) X
• Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
• Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn

Comments

Jonathan Alltimes says:

What is social mobility?

The argument proposes a set of administrative policies for controlling improvements in social mobility. How likely is it for the entire class of students described in the blog that the administrative policies can control improvements in social mobility? The argument is really a statement that most universities do not know what they are doing or how to do it. The argument relies a lot on the assumption that a lack of internal administrative integration inside universities (providers) is common: we used to have real colleges, now we have hierarchical bureaucratic enterprises. The argument refers a lot to the issue of costs. How much are the policies proposed here, likely to cost? Hepi has published a blog arguing many providers do not have cost accounting systems. Can the proposed policies be administered? The argument is unproven and unlikely given the fact that the conditions and constraints of individual providers is not accounted for. It could be providers intend policies and practices to be better, but are limited and have other priorities like research, which they can not afford.

Should higher education be used for the party political policy of improving social mobility? The policy was explained in the 2003 higher education white paper. Are there better policies than using higher education? That is another argument, for which I began a discussion in comments for an earlier blog.

Reply

John Quicke says:

Social mobility is about a person moving to a higher level in terms of socio-economic classification than their parents. In the post-war period social mobility was said to have increased but this was not so much to do with the education system as a changing economy where more middle class jobs were created. Today the situation is different. Social mobility could mean for many going ‘down’ rather than ‘up’. Again, although there are many factors involved, fewer opportunities for highly skilled jobs thanks to AI is probably the main cause. This is not to say that all the concerns about access, communication, continuation etc are not important. Higher education for all is still an important aim in a democracy that to be fully achieved requires an informed citizenship.

Reply

Jonathan Alltimes Says:

What is social mobility?

The argument proposes a set of administrative policies for controlling improvements in social mobility. How likely is it for the entire class of students described in the blog that the administrative policies can control improvements in social mobility? The argument is really a statement that most universities do not know what they are doing or how to do it. The argument relies a lot on the assumption that a lack of internal administrative integration inside universities (providers) is common: we used to have real colleges, now we have hierarchical bureaucratic enterprises. The argument refers a lot to the issue of costs. How much are the policies proposed here, likely to cost? Hepi has published a blog arguing many providers do not have cost accounting systems. Can the proposed policies be administered? The argument is unproven and unlikely given the fact that the conditions and constraints of individual providers is not accounted for. It could be providers intend policies and practices to be better, but are limited and have other priorities like research, which they can not afford.

Should higher education be used for the party political policy of improving social mobility? The policy was explained in the 2003 higher education white paper. Are there better policies than using higher education? That is another argument, for which I began a discussion in comments for an earlier blog.

John Quicke Says:

Social mobility is about a person moving to a higher level in terms of socio-economic classification than their parents. In the post-war period social mobility was said to have increased but this was not so much to do with the education system as a changing economy where more middle class jobs were created. Today the situation is different. Social mobility could mean for many going ‘down’ rather than ‘up’. Again, although there are many factors involved, fewer opportunities for highly skilled jobs thanks to AI is probably the main cause. This is not to say that all the concerns about access, communication, continuation etc are not important. Higher education for all is still an important aim in a democracy that to be fully achieved requires an informed citizenship.

More Like This

AuthorRoney Lima do Nascimento

Published9 October 2026

AuthorTom Fryer, Charlie Deeks, Sylvie Lomer, Paul Smith and Steven Jones

Published4 October 2026

AuthorImran Mir

Published2 October 2026

AuthorProfessor Sir Nishan Canagarajah and Martin Edmondson

Published23 September 2026