Written Evidence Submitted by

Mathematics Education for Social Mobility and Excellence (MESME)

(DIV0039)

About MESME

Mathematics Education for Social Mobility and Excellence (MESME) exists to support students from all backgrounds to achieve mathematical excellence, so that they go on to have a greater and richer range of future personal, employment and economic choices.

MESME’s target is that by 2035 there will be double the number of PhD students in the mathematical sciences at a UK university. We intend for this increase to include a representative proportion, at the minimum, of students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds who went to school in the UK. Along the way MESME intends to enrich the mathematical experiences of everyone who participates in our programmes, enabling them to enjoy mathematics and identify as a mathematician.

In 2021 MESME began piloting Maths Circles across the country for secondary school students. Maths Circles aim to develop students’ mathematical thinking and expand their mathematical curiosity. They are out-of-class maths clubs featuring a ratio of six students to every mentor. Mentors have higher level academic experience in mathematical sciences and received extensive training. Mentors are there to support students to grapple with intriguing questions, discover and explore exciting ideas, and learn to think like mathematicians. In the 2021-22 academic year around 2,000 students will participate in this programme. Our goal is to grow this figure rapidly in the coming years, ensuring that, at minimum, there is a representative proportion of students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Last term, 46% of participating students were classified as disadvantaged (indicated by qualifying for pupil premium), compared to c.30% of the overall state school population.

Our reasons for submitting evidence to this inquiry are that:

•                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Our mission to improve diversity at the highest levels in the mathematical sciences aligns with the call to improve diversity in STEM more generally.
•                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Mathematics is the language of STEM, so is integral to it. Research from the Institute of Physics found that a lack of fluency in mathematics was an obstacle in students fulfilling their potential in physics and engineering[1]. Ensuring all students are supported to achieve in mathematics at school is key to ensuring their progression in all STEM fields. These efforts need to start during school.
•                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Mathematics is itself driving much of the current information revolution. It should be essential to the vision of a leading STEM nation, and so ensuring diversity in mathematical sciences is key to ensuring diversity in wider STEM fields.

Summary

• Lower levels of achievement and progression in mathematics for students from disadvantaged socio-economic groups starts at the earliest stage in our education system, and therefore efforts to address this need to start early too.
• MESME’s Maths Circles programme aims to address some of the key barriers faced by under-represented students, and seeks to increase, in time, the number of students studying advanced degrees in mathematical sciences.
• There is currently a lack of access to data and accountability which is impeding understanding of the relative effectiveness of different approaches to widening participation in higher education. This impacts all subject, including STEM.

1. The nature or extent to which women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are underrepresented in STEM in academia and industry

MESME’s focus is to rebalance the proportion of those from disadvantaged socio-economic groups studying mathematical sciences at postgraduate level, and as such we have sought to understand the pipeline of progression in mathematics from school through to postgraduate degree.

We know that in 2019, just 7% of all students taking A-level Further Mathematics were classified as disadvantaged[2], as opposed to 12% of all A-level students[3] and c.30% of the state school population as a whole. The majority of those going on to study a degree in mathematical sciences have taken A-level Further Maths[4], so this is a key early indicator of how many disadvantaged students will go on to study mathematical sciences at university.

It is much harder to find a national picture on the number of socio-economically disadvantaged students studying mathematical sciences at university, although some universities do make this data public. The University of Oxford publishes data on students who apply and are admitted with an ‘ACORN flag’. ACORN categorises the United Kingdom’s population into demographic types. The ACORN flag means a student sits in category 4 or category 5 of this measure which are defined as ‘financially stretched’ or face ‘urban adversity’. These categories make up 40% of the UK population. In 2018, Oxford only admitted 10 of these students for Maths – just 6% of the student body, and the picture is similar for other STEM subjects[5]. These numbers have remained flat historically, despite a large increase in the number of applicants from these backgrounds. Our understanding is that there is a similar picture at other leading universities.

Once at university, students from more disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to drop out of university[6], and less likely to obtain higher degrees[7], although national data is not available at the subject level.

It’s clear that at every stage of the mathematics progression pipeline, students from socio-economically disadvantaged groups are less likely to proceed than their more advantaged peers. However, data on this topic is patchy. Our partners at XTX Markets have commissioned research by the University of Nottingham to better understand this pipeline, and we look forward to learning from this research later in 2022.

2. The reasons these groups are underrepresented

Attainment

The gap in attainment between socio-economically disadvantaged pupils in maths (and other subjects) begins at the earliest stage in our education system:

• Results of key stage 2 SATs in 2019 showed that 32% of all pupils reach the higher standard in maths, as opposed to just 16% of disadvantaged pupils[8].
• At GCSE, just 2% of disadvantaged students achieved an average grade of 8 or above in English and maths, compared to 9% of their peers[9].

Lower levels of attainment, especially in the proportion of students reaching the highest grades, impacts students’ progression onto higher level study. Closing the gap in attainment has been a long-term policy aim, which had been bearing results in some areas. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that the pandemic has further widened the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers, with the effects being most pronounced in mathematics[10].

Adjusting to university-style learning

There is a large gap between the way mathematics is taught and assessed at school and university. GCSE and A-level mathematics is often process-focussed, with clearly defined right and wrong answers. University mathematics requires a different mindset. Bridging this gap is hard for all pupils, but especially difficult for socio-economically disadvantaged pupils who are likely to have:

• Lower levels of access to extra-curricular activities which promote higher level mathematical thinking – for example taking part in maths Olympiads and preparing for STEP papers.
• Fewer people in their personal networks with experience of the transition to university style learning who can support and encourage them.
• Feelings of ‘imposter syndrome’ – that they do not deserve their place at the university. Research has shown that in highly competitive university STEM courses, those who are the first generation in their family to go to university are more likely to experience imposter syndrome[11].

We think it likely that these factors contribute to the higher dropout rates and lower degree classifications received by socio-economically disadvantaged students.

Timeliness and coverage of access interventions

Individual universities control the bulk of the spending being directed at widening access and participation and supporting disadvantaged students, currently spending £1 billion a year[12].

Research from UCAS[13] indicates that having university as a goal from age ten or earlier makes a significant contribution to future success, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds are the most likely to have adopted that goal much later in their education.

However, much of the advice and support provided to students is targeted at those aged 16-18 years, and schools do not always find it easy to engage with universities on their access efforts.

In addition, the fact that individual universities direct this spending means that provision can vary across geography and subjects.

We believe there is potential to design a more evidence based, joined up approach to more effectively use widening participation resources. MESME’s Maths Circles programme aims to address these issues, and the impact of this programme will be maximised if part of a broader effort to support mathematical and STEM excellence.

3. The implications of these groups being underrepresented in STEM roles in academia and industry

People with PhDs in mathematical sciences have shown their capacity for original thought and for solving difficult, abstract problems at the edge of human knowledge, and are in high demand in the employment market. It is currently extremely challenging to recruit people from the UK with these skills. To meet this growing demand, we need to broaden the type of people undertaking these advanced degrees by nurturing the talents of people from under-represented groups.

More broadly, mathematical sciences are the foundation of many of the key technologies driving the development of our economy and society. We need to ensure that these technologies are developed by people with a range of backgrounds and life experiences in order to avoid building in systematic biases.

What has been done to address underrepresentation of particular groups in STEM roles

MESME has sought inspiration internationally to find new ways to address the challenge that students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds perform less well in school mathematics qualifications, and progress to high-tariff universities at substantially lower rates. We have encountered programmes of maths circles in both Russia and America that bring young people together to be mathematicians. Our mission is to build a version of these circles that will work in the UK, and to run these circles at scale across the country.

MESME’s Maths Circles programme for secondary schools aims to develop students’ mathematical thinking and expand their mathematical curiosity. Maths Circles are out-of-class maths clubs featuring a ratio of at least one mentor for every six students.

They are targeted at the top performing c.10% of students in mathematics, and we focus on recruiting students who are socio-economically disadvantaged. Last term, 46% of participating students were classified as disadvantaged (indicated by qualifying for pupil premium), compared to c.30% of the overall state school population. In the 2021-22 academic year around 2,000 students will participate in this programme, and we intend to grow this figure rapidly in the coming years.

Students join the programme in Year 7 and take part in ten one-hour sessions each school term, 30 in a full academic year. The programme will run through to Year 11.

Our Maths Circles feature a coherent, connected curriculum and unique pedagogy that draws from the experiences of their international siblings. In Maths Circle sessions, students grapple with, and sometimes (but not always!) solve, intriguing questions. It is an enrichment, not an acceleration, programme, so the aim is not to teach more advanced content. There is a focus on deep, sustained mathematical thinking as well as on the rich exchange of ideas between participants and mentors - whose primary role is to support students to develop and express mathematical ideas with confidence.

The intended outcomes of the programme are that students can​:

• See beyond a “process-focused” interpretation of and response to mathematical questions​
• Understand, generate and justify mathematical claims
• Co-operate and exchange ideas with each other in a constructive way​
• Enjoy mathematics and identify as mathematicians

Feedback from our feasibility study indicates we are on track - 93% of students said they felt able to articulate themselves in the sessions, 96% said they felt open to making mistakes, and 94% students said the sessions were fun. Students shared that:

"They are great as they give me an extra challenge when I am not challenged as much at school."

“In school lessons we have to find the answer but in the maths circle we have to try and figure out HOW we get the answer.”

“The challenges are a great way to debate with mathematicians as we all collectively put our ideas forward.”

The programme is designed to address the challenges outlined in our response to question (2):

• Lower levels of access to extra-curricula activities: this programme is an early extension opportunity, indeed earlier than is common in schools, and provides a high-quality extension opportunity to all
• Networks: MESME’s Maths Circles can be the network that these students may not have elsewhere. Bringing students from different schools together who are interested in maths can be transformative; students realise that others like maths too and find an identity within this community. The community can then provide the advice, guidance and knowledge of pathways that may be missing elsewhere.
• Impostor syndrome: we expect that impostor syndrome will be substantially reduced if students gain familiarity with university styled mathematical thinking, which is core to our programme from the outset.

Over time, we expect to see an increase in the numbers of these students attaining top grades at GCSE and in A-level Further Mathematics, as well as progressing to leading universities to study degrees in the mathematical sciences, and feeling confident and achieving well once they arrive at university.

4. What could and should be done by the UK Government, UK Research and Innovation, other funding bodies, industry and academia to address the issues identified

The Augar Review of Post-18 Education and Funding[14] noted “… with surprise the absence of any over-arching assessment of the impact of different approaches to widening participation and success […] despite the substantial investment of resources.”

We agree that this is a key area of weakness, and propose ways of improving consistent evaluation and increasing accountability for the effectiveness of widening participation efforts.

Understanding what works

We welcome the establishment of The Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education (TASO) to develop the evidence base. This is one of the newer What Works Centres, and it is clear that the evidence base on access and outcomes in higher education is significantly less developed than in other sectors.

We would like to see funding directed to commissioning research and evaluation in this area, in particular to understand:

• The impact of programmes targeted at school aged students, both on if they are accepted to university, but also crucially their success once they get there. Much of the current evidence base for these initiatives only looks at if they help get students a university place, and doesn’t include outcomes such as university drop-out rates, degree classifications or next steps post university.
• More subject specific research. Much of the current evidence doesn’t help us understand if different approaches work for different subjects.

We would also like to see the development of a holistic, evidence based, sector wide consensus on:

• Which outcomes we are working towards, equivalent to the outcomes framework for children’s social care.
• What activities need to take place in schools, universities and other settings to ensure these outcomes are achieved. This should be similar in approach to, and complement, the Gatsby benchmarks for career guidance.

Consistency of and access to data

At primary, secondary and post-16 level there is a large amount of data publicly available through services such as the Explore Education Statistics Service, which allows quite detailed interrogation. Both HESA and the Office for Students publish data on higher education, however this data is summarised. We would like to see higher education data made available in formats which enable the same level of scrutiny as is possible with school data.

When looking specifically at socio-economic disadvantage, there are several measures used by higher education institutions to define which students are classed as ‘disadvantaged’. These measures are different again to the definition used in the school data. The variety of definitions make meaningful comparison difficult.

Research can be undertaken on the impact of programmes on individual students using the National Pupil Database (for students up to age 18), UCAS Strobe (for university application data) and using HESA data. However, as we understand it, it is not currently possible to connect NPD and HESA data sources together in order to understand progression from school to university. We believe this is one of the key reasons that evaluations of access programmes only look at gaining a place at university, rather than what happens once they are at university. This lack of data risks incentivising the creation of access programmes which get students places at university but do not give them the skills to succeed once they are there.

Addressing these issues would allow:

• More meaningful comparison of the performance of institutions, in particular more granular analysis of, for example, different subjects.
• Higher quality and more consistent evaluation of the effectiveness of programmes designed to improve access and outcomes for under-represented students.

Accountability

Universities who wish to charge higher tuition fees must submit an Access and Participation plan for approval by the Office for Students. Approved plans are published on the Office for Students’ website. Whilst it is positive that this information is made public, the large number of these plans (almost 300 institutions each with annual plans going back as far as 2006) makes understanding the bigger picture of the activity and impact of access and participation efforts an almost impossible task.

We would like to see the development of simple accountability measures which would allow comparison of university performance on access and participation, including enabling analysis by subject and sub-groups of students.

The Sutton Trust have developed a Universities and Social Mobility Data Explorer which is a fascinating tool and a great example of what is possible. The drawback of this tool’s specific design is that is uses data on earnings of people in their 30s, so there is a large time lag before the data is available. More suitable and timely data points on access and participation could be used to create a similar tool which would enable far easier identification of areas of excellent and poor performance.

PhD pathways

Over and above the above comments on higher education in general, there is a specific need to better understand PhD numbers, funding and pathways to ensure that these opportunities are more available to those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

(January 2022)