Common use of Targets and Milestones Clause in Contracts

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University notes the importance of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University notes the importance of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 When setting its realistic targets, the University has reflected on the curriculum changes across Level 2 and Level 3 qualifications where a focus on English, mathematics, history or geography, the sciences and a language, risks marginalising the opportunity for students to access arts curriculum to enable them to progress to our specialist arts programmes. Though art and design and music are compulsory subjects within the national curriculum for 5 – 14 year olds, there is evidence that learning opportunities in art, craft and design across all key stages have reduced significantly. 6.6 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 6.7 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 6.8 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University College’s Widening Participation Strategic Assessment, to which this Access Agreement is an appendix, notes the importance of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We shall of course monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned welcome the opportunity to take more direct responsibility for our outreach activity, which will enable us to take a more targeted approach than is possible within a broader network. We are concerned, however, that the new financial arrangements were are poorly understood by many prospective students, and were are likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate We believe that there has been may be a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipatedgroups, although we are not complacent and will continue anticipate that our recent strong performance is likely to promote the value and benefits of higher educationbe affected by this. 6.4 The targets set by the Arts University College reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the UniversityUniversity College, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We consider that performance in the first two years may be atypical, and hence whilst we shall monitor progress, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones until the third year, once the implications of the new financial arrangements are clear. We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University College considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University University’s Widening Participation Strategic Assessment, to which this Access Agreement is an appendix, notes the importance of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer to non-non- traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We consider that performance in the first two years may be atypical, and hence whilst we shall monitor progress, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones until the third year, once the implications of the new financial arrangements are clear. We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-socio- economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 For the purposes of this Access Agreement, the University of Bristol will assess progress in widening participation against a combination of progress measures which, between them, are designed to assess: • The University notes specific impact of a number of key outreach initiatives. • Year on year progress in diversifying our applicant and student population. • Year on year progress in improving conversion of under-represented applicants. Bearing in mind the importance range of monitoring success through achievements outreach activities which we plan to offer, we intend to measure year on year progress in attracting a wider pool of applicants by focusing particularly on each of the following categories (although additional measures included in our 2012 Agreement have also been retained for continuity of monitoring): • Applicants from low performing schools • Applicants from socio-economic groups 4-7 • Local applicants Progress measures for each of these are provided at Appendix Four. In each case, we have included new measures, to assess improvements in application to intake conversion. As far as possible, measures have been calculated taking account of the expected impact of a number of specific outreach initiatives (the Access to Bristol scheme, summer school programme and personal adviser scheme), each of which also has more detailed performance targets associated with them (also detailed at Appendix Four). Measurement of the University’s intake profile will be focused on the low school performance category, reflecting the role which this plays in our contextual approach to admissions. Measures relating to mature student intake have been included for continuity. The recent decision to grow our undergraduate numbers substantially means that continuing to measure progress in diversifying intake by looking at under-represented groups as a percentage of total intake is no longer meaningful. For each intake-related measure, we have therefore added the number of students which the original percentages might have been expected to deliver. Monitoring against these numbers will give a more accurate picture of progress. All progress measures have been informed by more detailed analysis of progress against the HESA Performance Indicatorsinstitutional milestones detailed in Appendix Two and will be re-calculated annually to reflect assessment of our progress to date. In addition, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure should be noted that we are well placed intend to carry out further research, for example, to better understand the impact of educational standards in the Bristol area on our work. However, ability to progress at the specified rates; we are concerned that it is often difficult may need to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within adjust the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work progress measures contained in this agreement for future years to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progressionreflect the findings. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 For the purposes of this Access Agreement, the University of Bristol will assess progress in widening participation against a combination of progress measures which, between them, are designed to assess: The University notes specific impact of a number of key outreach initiatives. Year on year progress in diversifying our applicant and student population. Bearing in mind the importance range of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer outreach activities which we plan to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator dataoffer, we believe intend to measure year on year progress in attracting a wider pool of applicants by focusing on each of the following categories: Applicants from low performing schools Mature applicants Applicants from low participation areas Applicants from socio-economic groups 4-7 Applicants from minority ethnic groups Disabled applicants Local applicants Progress measures for each of these categories are provided at Appendix Five. As far as possible, these have been calculated taking account of the expected impact of a number of specific outreach initiatives (the Access to Bristol scheme, summer school programme and personal adviser scheme), each of which also has more detailed performance targets associated with them (also detailed at Appendix Five). Our assumption is that increases in the percentage of applications from under represented groups will not be achieved at the expense of applications from more traditional markets. To achieve the specified increases, we will therefore also need to increase the absolute number of applications from under- represented groups (and so the overall number of applications to the University). Only two of these categories have any bearing on our admissions process, which provides for school performance and mature applicant status to be taken into account as part of a holistic selection process. For this reason, measurement of the University’s intake profile will be focused on these categories only. All progress measures will be re-calculated annually to reflect assessment of our progress to date. In addition, it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure should be noted that we are well placed intend to carry out further research, for example, to better understand the impact of educational standards in the Bristol area on our workability to progress at the specified rates; we may need to adjust the progress measures contained in this agreement for future years to reflect the findings. HoweverWe also hope to develop measures to assess the contribution of our collaborative activity to widening participation to the Higher Education sector as a whole but, as we are concerned that still in the early stages of agreeing our approach to this, it is often difficult too early to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although articulate these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progressionmeasures. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University notes Comparing the relative performance of different groups to the over or under- representation within the institution and taking into account our current performance in our Access Agreement milestones, areas for particular focus include: Low Participating Neighbourhoods; Low income groups; Target groups to include gender, disability and care leavers; Black and minority ethnic (BME) group attainment; Completion rates. As a result of the analysis of our performances, our access, success and progression interventions will concentrate on the following: Continuation of involvement in collaborative outreach activity via the KMPF and the Kent and Medway Collaborative Network (KMCNet) as part of the National Network for Collaborative Outreach (NNCO); Recognition of the importance of monitoring success through achievements against carefully targeted activity; The use of serial rather than one-off interventions; The importance of long-term outreach to include the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets whole student lifecycle; The helpfulness of Higher Education Access Tracker (HEAT) for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand evaluating the impact of interventions; The importance of a whole institution approach; The importance of student attendance monitoring; Ease of access to information and student welfare support; An increasing emphasis on evaluation of activities across the student lifecycle; Accessibility of employability advice and support. Given our work. Howeverrelatively strong record to date for widening access and student success, we are concerned that it is often difficult most of the targets seek to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation fieldmaintain, and achievement (whether improved or less strong)where possible improve, this performance within a more challenging financial environment. The fact that work Such targets may be especially challenging and stretching in relation to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment access of those from underLow Participating Neighbourhoods (LPNs), given the demographic decline in the number of young people (aged 18-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent 21) in the population and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across ’s already high recruitment levels from these groups. We have removed the southUniversity’s NS-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links SEC target in response to the southUK Performance Indicator Steering Group announcement that HESA will no longer be publishing the NS-east SEC indicator after 2016. As we already have LPN and London. In addition, we have not set Household Income targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, place we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at be replacing this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistictarget with an alternative. We shall normally expect have reviewed our success targets and added new progression targets for 2017. There was a concern in the institution that our internal reporting did not allow for national and regionally adjusted benchmark comparison. We have therefore made the following adjustments to have made progress against two-thirds of our success targets: Combined targets from the statistical collaborative KMPF project (agreed by all partners) are to raise applications and subsequent conversions to higher education from within the target schools and colleges in LPNs. These targets in each year, and will consider this need to be successful performancereviewed in the coming years to reflect changes to GCSE grading in schools. Our institutional and collaborative targets are included in tables 7a and 7b respectively. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 Making progress towards intake targets has been challenging in the context of a rapidly changing external environment. Progress has been limited in particular by a number of external issues, which have made it more difficult for selective universities to capitalise on the flexibility offered by the removal of student numbers controls. These include: • Rapid developments in Education Policy often making engaging with schools more difficult • Curriculum Reform at both GCSE and ‘A’ level (and the possible negative impact this may have on student attainment). The University notes the importance full effects of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicatorsthis will not be seen until 2021 entry • Demographic decline of 18-21 year olds until 2020 • Increased number of students taking BTEC, supplemented by targets other vocational qualifications and/or a combination of qualifications • Government steer towards vocational qualifications including apprenticeships, which are often more appealing for the rates of application WP students • Reduction in funding streams previously used to identify and offer to nonsupport under-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of supportrepresented groups. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging The University uses six sets of data for milestones, monitoring and evaluation: • UCAS application and intake datasets; • HESA Performance Indicators concerning student intake; • Data provided by the delay Student Loans Company regarding eligibility of students for financial support • Destination of Leavers Higher Education Leavers (DLHE) data; • Higher Education Access Tracker (HEAT) HESA track datasets; • Newcastle University internal data 6.3 Our main Activity Targets focus on delivery linked to the key priorities. Targets have been refined, extended and, in publication a number of Performance Indicator datacases, we believe that it added to, in order to reflect new and emerging priorities. They also reflect our focus on the whole student lifecycle. 6.4 The University’s outreach activities target schools/colleges in the identified regions but a key focus is preferable also to monitor promote fair access and increase the diversity of our performance through publicly available information where possibleoverall student intake. We monitor these same indicators internally work closely with teachers to target individual students from LPNs, to ensure that we are well placed particularly encourage these students to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult apply to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activitiesenter Newcastle University, as well as achievementworking with our recruitment team at our London campus to maximise engagement with BME students. Data from 2015-16 shows this approach has been successful: for all non- residential outreach held at Newcastle, although these activities are only 11.6% of students were from BME backgrounds, compared to 34.1% at a Future Leaders event held at the London campus and 38.7% at our Year 12 residential summer school where we have seen a substantial increase in participants from Greater London. Where available, we also strongly monitored use IMD data and other indicators, such as eligibility for successful progressionFree School Meals and Pupil Premium data, to help us refine our targeting. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective 6.5 In setting regional intake targets for LPN students, and were likely to be targeting state schools using a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. Howeverrange of datasets, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been also anticipate having a less significant short-term positive impact on the recruitment of those University’s overall intake figures for students from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent LPNs and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher educationfrom state schools. 6.4 The 6.6 Assessing progress against targets set has also been made more challenging by ongoing issues relating to data protection, ownership and in particular the University reflect our current position, and our understanding availability of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regionsUCAS data. This is not surprising, given particularly the case in our location on work to assess the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year Realising Opportunities Scheme on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basisparticipating student behaviour. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 11.1 The University notes the importance of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 11.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 11.3 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 11.4 When setting its realistic targets, the University has reflected on the curriculum changes across Level 2 and Level 3 qualifications where a focus on English, mathematics, history or geography, the sciences and a language, risks marginalising the opportunity for students to access arts curriculum to enable them to progress to our specialist arts programmes. Though art and design and music are compulsory subjects within the national curriculum for 5 – 14 year olds, there is evidence that learning opportunities in art, craft and design across all key stages have reduced significantly. 11.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 11.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 11.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University notes On the importance basis of monitoring success through achievements against our strong track record in outreach that places us in the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for upper quartile of the rates English universities of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator dataXxxxxxx Group, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure important that we are well placed judged by our relative performance in the HESA Performance Indicators. We will therefore aim to understand maintain our position in the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles top quartile of the University, spread evenly across English universities of the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on Xxxxxxx Group for the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and Londonlife of this Access Agreement. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over proposing a number of years, although internal targets which will not only satisfy OFFA guidelines but will also contribute to our monitoring of effective outreach activities:  Increase the recruitment proportion of young people from our pre-16 progressive activity target group progressing to level 3 programmes;  The proportion of young people from our pre-16 progressive activity target group applying to a FT place in HE is greater than local average for young people from socially disadvantaged groups;  Increase the percentage of students engaged in our post-16 outreach programmes applying to the University of Birmingham;  Growth in the percentage of entrants via our Access to Birmingham Programme;  Ensure that the continuation rates of students who entered via Access to Birmingham is equal to that for the overall cohort;  Increase the percentage of students who entered via Access to Birmingham gaining a 2.i or 1st (with due regard given to the context of the qualification with which the student entered the University);  Improve the proportion of students who entered via Access to Birmingham gaining a graduate level job within 6 months of graduating. Through these targets we will demonstrate the impact of our outreach and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect activity at each of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish key stages between ‘first contact’ with the target group for our pre-16 progressive activity through to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculationtheir first job after graduation. ThereforeBy monitoring progress at each of these key points, we shall not seek will be able to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this identify where appropriate interventions need to be successful performancemade to improve our approach to our outreach and retention activities. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 Making progress towards intake targets has been challenging in the context of a rapidly changing external environment. Progress has been limited in particular by a number of external issues, which have made it more difficult for selective universities to capitalise on the flexibility offered by the removal of student numbers controls. These include:  Rapid developments in Education Policy often making engaging with schools more difficult  Curriculum Reform at both GCSE and ‘A’ level (and the possible negative impact this may have on student attainment). The full effects of this will not be seen until 2021 entry  Demographic decline of 18-21 year olds until 2020  Increased number of students taking BTEC, other vocational qualifications and/or a combination of qualifications  Government steer towards vocational qualifications including apprenticeships, which are often more appealing for WP students  Reduction in funding streams previously used to identify and support under-represented groups. 6.2 The University notes the importance uses six sets of data for milestones, monitoring success through achievements against the and evaluation:  UCAS application and intake datasets;  HESA Performance Indicators, Indicators concerning student intake;  Data provided by the Student Loans Company regarding eligibility of students for financial support (supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer University’s own data relating to non-traditional learnersSLC payments to eligible students);  Destination of Leavers Higher Education Leavers (DLHE) data;  Higher Education Access Tracker (HEAT) HESA track datasets;  Newcastle University internal data 6.3 Our main Activity Targets focus on delivery linked to the key priorities. Targets have been refined, extended and, in a number of cases, added to, in order to reflect new and emerging priorities. They also reflect our focus on the whole student lifecycle. 6.4 The University’s outreach activities target schools/colleges in the identified regions but a key focus is also to promote fair access and increase the diversity of our overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possibleintake. We monitor these same indicators internally work closely with teachers to target individual students from LPNs, to ensure that we are well placed particularly encourage these students to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult apply to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activitiesenter Newcastle University, as well as achievementworking with our recruitment team at our London campus to maximise engagement with BME students. Data from 2015-16 shows this approach has been successful: for all non- residential outreach held at Newcastle, although these activities are only 11.6% of students were from BME backgrounds, compared to 34.1% at a Future Leaders event held at the London campus and 38.7% at our Year 12 residential summer school where we have seen a substantial increase in participants from Greater London. Where available, we also strongly monitored use IMD data and other indicators, such as eligibility for successful progressionFree School Meals and Pupil Premium data, to help us refine our targeting. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective 6.5 In setting regional intake targets for LPN students, and were likely to be targeting state schools using a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. Howeverrange of datasets, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been also anticipate having a less significant short-term positive impact on the recruitment of those University’s overall intake figures for students from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent LPNs and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher educationfrom state schools. 6.4 The 6.6 Assessing progress against targets set has also been made more challenging by ongoing issues relating to data protection, ownership and in particular the University reflect our current position, and our understanding availability of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regionsUCAS data. This is not surprising, given particularly the case in our location on work to assess the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year Realising Opportunities Scheme on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basisparticipating student behaviour. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University notes Our targets and milestones take account of the importance success that we have seen since the introduction of monitoring success through achievements against variable fees in 2006 and the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by commitments laid out in our first Access Agreement. Our Access Agreement targets have always  included milestones relating to both enrolments and applications;  been stretching and challenging. We will focus on the same target groups as we have done since 2012 keeping our stretching targets for these groups. (a) Our 2011 Access Agreement included a target of engaging with 1,800 students a year across all year groups. This is double the rates number of application UK students we now enrol each year on our undergraduate programmes. We set a target to increase our WP reach by 110 students per year from 2012 to 2017, ultimately reaching 2,570 students in 2019. We plan to keep this as our steady state number. We do not see value in continuing to increase this target. Rather than simply increasing the number of participations, we plan to develop additional interactions with participants in order to deepen and offer add value to non-traditional learnerstheir engagement with our programmes. (b) We will maintain the number of students progressing from our Year 11 to 13 WP schemes onto LSE undergraduate programmes. Our 2014 monitoring report to OFFA shows that we enrolled 31 students from the most recent cohorts of our Year 11 to 13 programmes. We aim to increase the number of students enrolled on LSE undergraduate degrees from the WP schemes, ultimately reaching 40 students enrolled from our own intensive WP programmmes by 2019. Again we will keep this in steady state, but look to develop our understanding about how these programmes contribute to progress within the sector as a whole, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those to reflect this in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possiblefuture Agreements. We monitor have indicated in the Resource Plan that these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our worknot collaborative targets. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason should be noted that some of our activities which contribute to these targets relate and milestones are collaborative programmes. We have simply chosen not to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored set collaborative targets at present because of the changing nature of our current collaborations. We will review this decision for successful progression2018 with a view to adding a collaborative target if we have the evidence to set a meaningful target specifically for our joint work. 6.3 (a) We aim to encourage applications to the School from students from state schools and, in particular, students from low-performing state schools (i.e. schools with an average A*-C GCSE performance below the national average). In 2010, 75% of our UK applications came from the state sector. Of the applications received from comprehensive schools, just 257 of these applications came from low performing state schools (i.e. schools performing below the national average for grades A* to C at GCSE). We aim to increase the number of qualified students applying from low-performing state schools to 400 by 2020. We feel this target complements our HESA state school target: both targets support our continued focus in this area. (b) We aim to encourage more applications to the School from black African/Caribbean students. In 2010, 605 of our UK applicants who disclosed their ethnicity were concerned black African/Caribbean students. This constituted 7.6% of our Home UK applications. We aim to increase the number of black African/Caribbean students applying to LSE to 750 of our UK applications by 2020-21. Our progress to date indicates this remains a challenging and stretching target that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective studentswe will remain focused to achieve, (c) We aim to continue to make progress towards our HESA benchmarks. In particular, we will aim to  Enrol between 70% and were likely 72% of our UK intake from state schools  Enrol between 19% and 21% of our UK intake from low socio-economic backgrounds. Although NS- SEC is to be a particular impediment to those removed from non-traditional backgrounds. Howeverthe HESA PIs, we are reassured retaining this target at present. We are not adding in a different measure until the HESA WP Performance Indicators working group has fully reported and we understand the new indicators that will be used. Once we have this information we will undertake modelling of our current situation and look to develop further meaningful target(s) to replace NS-SEC in future years.  Enrol between 5% and 7% of our UK intake from low participation neighbourhoods. This is an increase on our 2015 Access Agreement target and represents a stretch to almost double our actual LPN figures in 2014. As indicated within our earlier narrative we are undertaking proactive work to secure further progress in this area. (a) The aim in our 2012 and 2013 Access Agreements was to reduce our withdrawal rate to 3%. The 2010 figure was 1.6% but this increased in 2012 to 5.2%, before dropping again to 1.8% in 2013. We aim to keep our non-continuation rate at or below our HESA benchmark, and will keep this target as it is. As discussed in section 7 we are in the early signs indicate that there has been process of a less significant short-term impact on large amount of analysis to further understand the recruitment causes behind non- continuation at LSE and identify whether any particular groups are of those concern within this statistic. (a) Our one new target is for a piece of work we are planning to further analyse the results of students from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current positionat LSE, and develop further evidence-led work as a result of this in the future. The milestones and overall target demonstrate our understanding of commitment to developing our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east Sector’s understanding, alongside supporting our own student success and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education)progression arrangements going forward. 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 13.1 In developing the 2017-18 access agreement the University has taken the opportunity to review and update our progress measures in relation to widening participation, ensuring all milestones are both stretching and achievable. 13.2 We have worked hard to ensure that our targets are linked to our widening participation aims across the student lifecycle, and using 2013-14 application and intake as our baseline year we will assess:  Year on year progress in diversifying our applicant and student population  Year on year progress in improving conversion of under-represented applicants 20 Note that eligibility thresholds and award amounts have been aligned with current Teaching Agency bursary criteria and eligibility thresholds and will change to reflect any alterations to these  Year on year progress in retaining students from under-represented backgrounds  The University notes specific impact of a number of key outreach initiatives 13.3 In line with the strategic priorities outlined in this agreement we aim specifically to increase applications in the following areas:  Students from low performing schools and colleges  Mature students  Students from NS-SEC groups 4-7  Black and Minority Ethnic Students  Disabled Student  Local Students Progress measures for each of these categories (which include measures designed to enable us to monitor conversion from application to intake) are provided in the resource plan. 13.4 At the intake stage, we will continue to focus on low school and college performance and mature students, reflecting the role both play in our contextual approach to admissions 13.5 As far as possible, measures have been calculated taking account of the expected impact of a number of specific outreach initiatives (the Access to Bristol scheme and summer school programme for example), each of which also has more detailed performance targets associated with it as highlighted in the resource plan. 13.6 In setting long term progress measures for such groups we were mindful of the base from which we start, the finite number of students within each group and the importance of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by committing to targets for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of supportwe could realistically achieve. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable 13.7 In order to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand assess the impact of our workoutreach interventions we have a number of progress measures for conversion. However, These are focussed on those areas we are concerned that it is often difficult able to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some into consideration as part of our targets relate contextual approach to activitiesadmissions (low performing schools and colleges), those for which we need to make progress against our HESA benchmarks (students from N-SEC groups 4-7) as well as achievementthose forming the basis of most outreach interventions (student from BS and BA postcodes). As is made clear in the resource plan we have committed ourselves to incremental increases, although these activities are also strongly monitored aiming to have increased conversion rates for successful progressionall indictors by 1.5 per cent in 2020-21. 6.3 13.8 We were concerned have introduced a collaborative target for the IntoUniversity South Bristol Centre, a partnership intervention with the universities of Bath and Exeter. The target is long term and seeks to increase the number of participants taking part in their programmes. The centre was deliberately situated in Withywood, an area of South Bristol with the second lowest progression rates to higher education in the country, in recognition of the need to increase the aspirations and attainment White working class students. 13.9 The target for IntoUniversity Bristol South is necessarily broad in the 2017-18 agreement as the centre only officially opened in March 2016. We will be working with colleagues from IntoUniversity to refine the target for future submissions following an analysis of those areas in which greatest progress is needed (White working class boys for example). 13.10 Our long standing commitment to the Pathways to Law programme has led to the introduction of a target for applications to the University from students who take part in the Pathways programmes at partner institutions. Students who are part of the Bristol cohort of Pathways to Law are included in our Access to Bristol targets, however in the last year we have increased the number of outreach events which we organise for students from partner institutions. Evaluation of these events has shown that they are successful in generating applications to the University with a total of 91 applications being received by the University for 2016 entry. We will increase the number of activities which we provide for students from partner institutions in order to showcase the Law School and the benefits of studying a Law degree at Bristol. 13.11 We are committed to examining multiple indicators of deprivation and to doing all we can to reduce their impact. We have added in several new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective studentsintervention targets to reflect the need for intersectionality between progress measures and the partnership work we are undertaking. Recognising the need to increase the number of students from specific BME groups (Asian/Pakistani, Asian/Bangladeshi and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. HoweverBlack/Caribbean in particular), we have introduced a target for the number of such students on our Insight Into Bristol programme. As a result of this new targeting criteria we will ensure that students taking part in the programme are reassured that prioritised if they are: from BME backgrounds: come from low performing schools, are in the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment first generation of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent their family to apply to university and will continue live in neighbourhoods where few people progress to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by 13.12 Ethnicity continues to have impact beyond the University reflect our current position, application and our understanding intake stage. We have identified that ethnicity is an important factor in the success of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of learners at the University, spread evenly across with data suggesting that there is a gap in attainment between BME and white undergraduate students at the south-east top and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and Londonlower end of degree classifications. In addition2014-15 of the white students graduating, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers 31 per cent achieved a first class honours, compared to 20.7 per cent of BME students. Likewise, proportionately more BME students (17 per cent) who graduated are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact awarded a 2:2 classification than white students (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education6.8 per cent). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University University’s Widening Participation Strategic Assessment, to which this Access Agreement is an appendix, notes the importance of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer to non-non- traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 13.1 In developing the 2018-19 access agreement the University has taken the opportunity to review our progress measures in relation to widening participation, ensuring all milestones are both stretching and achievable. 13.2 We have worked hard to ensure that our targets are linked to our widening participation aims across the student lifecycle, and using 2013-14 application and intake as our baseline year we will assess: • Year on year progress in diversifying our applicant and student population • Year on year progress in improving conversion of under-represented applicants • Year on year progress in retaining students from under-represented backgrounds • The University notes specific impact of a number of key outreach initiatives 13.3 In line with the strategic priorities outlined in this agreement we aim specifically to increase applications in the following areas: • Students from aspiring state schools and colleges • Mature students • Students from NS-SEC groups 4-7 • Black and Minority Ethnic Students • Disabled Students • Local Students Progress measures for each of these categories (which include measures designed to enable us to monitor conversion from application to intake) are provided in the resource plan. 13.4 At the intake stage, we will continue to focus on aspiring state school and college performance and mature students, reflecting the role both play in our contextual approach to admissions. 13.5 As far as possible, measures have been calculated taking account of the expected impact of a number of specific outreach initiatives (the Access to Bristol scheme and summer school programme for example), each of which also has more detailed performance targets associated with it as highlighted in the resource plan. 13.6 In setting long-term progress measures for such groups we were mindful of the base from which we start, the finite number of students within each group and the importance of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by committing to targets for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of supportwe could realistically achieve. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable 13.7 In order to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand assess the impact of our workoutreach interventions we have a number of progress measures for conversion. However, These are focussed on those areas we are concerned that it is often difficult able to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some into consideration as part of our targets relate contextual approach to activities, admissions (low performing schools and colleges as well as achievementthose forming the basis of most outreach interventions (students from BS and BA postcodes). As is made clear in the resource plan, although these activities are also strongly monitored we have committed ourselves to incremental increases, aiming to have increased conversion rates for successful progressionall indicators by 1.5 per cent in 2019-20 from the baseline data. 6.3 13.8 Last year we introduced a collaborative target for the IntoUniversity South Bristol Centre, a partnership intervention with the universities of Bath and Exeter. The target is long-term and seeks to increase the number of participants taking part in their programmes. The centre was deliberately situated in Withywood, an area of South Bristol with the second lowest progression rates to higher education in the country, in recognition of the need to increase the aspirations and attainment of white working class students. 13.9 The target for IntoUniversity Bristol South flat lines in the 2018-19 agreement as the centre will reach capacity by that point. We were concerned will be working with colleagues from IntoUniversity to refine the target for future submissions following an analysis of those areas in which greatest progress is needed (White working class boys for example). 13.10 Our long standing commitment to the Pathways to Law programme has led to the introduction of a target for applications to the University from students who take part in the Pathways programmes at partner institutions. Students who are part of the Bristol cohort of Pathways to Law are included in our Access to Bristol targets, however in the last year we have increased the number of outreach events which we organise for students from partner institutions. Evaluation of these events has shown that they are successful in generating applications to the University with a total of 74 applications being received by the University for 2017 entry. We will increase the number of activities which we provide for students from partner institutions in order to showcase the Law School and the benefits of studying a Law degree at Bristol. 13.11 We are committed to examining multiple indicators of deprivation and to doing all we can to reduce their impact. We have added in several new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective intervention targets to reflect the need for intersectionality between progress measures and the partnership work we are undertaking. Recognising the need to increase the number of students from specific BME groups (Asian/Pakistani, Asian/Bangladeshi and Black/Caribbean in particular), we have introduced a target for the number of such students on our Insight Into Bristol programme. As a result of this new targeting criteria we will ensure that students taking part in the programme are prioritised if they are: from BME backgrounds: come from low performing schools; are in the first generation of their family to apply to university; and live in neighbourhoods where few people progress to higher education. 13.12 Ethnicity continues to have impact beyond the application and intake stage. We have identified that ethnicity is an important factor in the success of learners at the University, with data suggesting that there is a gap in attainment between BME and White undergraduate students at the top and lower end of degree classifications. In 2015-16 of the white students graduating, 30.4 per cent achieved a first class honours, compared to 19.9 per cent of BME students. Likewise, proportionately more BME students (15.0 per cent) who graduated are awarded a 2:2 classification than white students (8.0 per cent). 13.13 In 2017-18 we invested access agreement funds to explore the reasons for the attainment gap on specific BME groups and were likely effective ways to address this. The report is due to be a particular impediment published in the summer of 2017 and at this stage we will seek to those create new, more granular targets, for the retention of students from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from key under-represented groups than had been anticipatedfor the 2018-19 agreement, although to ensure we are not complacent and will continue to promote can address the value and benefits issue of higher educationdifferential retention more effectively. 6.4 The targets set by 13.14 Recognising the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles importance of the University, spread evenly across whole student lifecycle and of the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links need to the south-east and London. In additionmake continuing progress with retention rates, we have not set committed ourselves to stretching five year targets in for withdrawal rates for students from N-SEC groups 4-7 and non- white students. These figures are benchmarked against withdrawal rates for N-SEC 1-3 and white students with the aim of reaching an equitable position by 2020-21. 13.15 We have also increased the number of intervention targets to ensure that they accurately reflect the partnership work undertaken by the University. In our 2017-18 access agreement we introduced targets regarding the percentage of Merchants’ Academy students that achieve 5 or more A*-C grades including Maths and English, the numbers progressing to the sixth form and those areas where numbers are too small achieving level C or above at A Level as well as those who progress to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). We have retained all targets but note that the way in which success is measured at the monitoring stage will need to alter slightly as a result of the changes to GCSEs and a move from alphabetical to numerical grading and the introduction of ‘progress 8’ scores. 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones13.16 We have retained and incrementally increased application and intake progress measures for Access to Bristol and increased intake progress measures for the Xxxxxx Trust summer school. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over also kept a number of years, although the recruitment student success intervention progress measures including peer mentoring coverage and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basispeer assisted study sessions. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore13.17 Finally, we shall not seek are mindful of HESA’s discontinuation of NS-SEC metric. We are working with UCAS to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In generalexplore alternative approaches, at institutional levelincluding the use of multi-dimensional modelling, we note that whilst we aim which would provide richer and more reliable data, allowing us to make progress against each objective in each year, assess the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealisticintersectional variables. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this hope to be successful performanceable to replace the NS-SEC target with a new metric over the next twelve months but will retain the existing progress measure in this agreement. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 For the purposes of this Access Agreement, the University of Bristol will assess progress in widening participation against a combination of progress measures which, between them, are designed to assess:  The University notes specific impact of a number of key outreach initiatives.  Year on year progress in diversifying our applicant and student population. Bearing in mind the importance range of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer outreach activities which we plan to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator dataoffer, we believe intend to measure year on year progress in attracting a wider pool of applicants by focusing on each of the following categories:  Applicants from low performing schools  Mature applicants  Applicants from low participation areas  Applicants from socio-economic groups 4-7  Applicants from minority ethnic groups  Disabled applicants  Local applicants Progress measures for each of these categories are provided at Appendix Five. As far as possible, these have been calculated taking account of the expected impact of a number of specific outreach initiatives (the Access to Bristol scheme, summer school programme and personal adviser scheme), each of which also has more detailed performance targets associated with them (also detailed at Appendix Five). Our assumption is that increases in the percentage of applications from under represented groups will not be achieved at the expense of applications from more traditional markets. To achieve the specified increases, we will therefore also need to increase the absolute number of applications from under- represented groups (and so the overall number of applications to the University). Only two of these categories have any bearing on our admissions process, which provides for school performance and mature applicant status to be taken into account as part of a holistic selection process. For this reason, measurement of the University’s intake profile will be focused on these categories only. All progress measures will be re-calculated annually to reflect assessment of our progress to date. In addition, it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure should be noted that we are well placed intend to carry out further research, for example, to better understand the impact of educational standards in the Bristol area on our workability to progress at the specified rates; we may need to adjust the progress measures contained in this agreement for future years to reflect the findings. HoweverWe also hope to develop measures to assess the contribution of our collaborative activity to widening participation to the Higher Education sector as a whole but, as we are concerned that still in the early stages of agreeing our approach to this, it is often difficult too early to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although articulate these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progressionmeasures. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 13.1 In developing the 2017-18 access agreement the University has taken the opportunity to review and update our progress measures in relation to widening participation, ensuring all milestones are both stretching and achievable. 13.2 We have worked hard to ensure that our targets are linked to our widening participation aims across the student lifecycle, and using 2013-14 application and intake as our baseline year we will assess:  Year on year progress in diversifying our applicant and student population  Year on year progress in improving conversion of under-represented applicants  Year on year progress in retaining students from under-represented backgrounds  The University notes specific impact of a number of key outreach initiatives 13.3 In line with the strategic priorities outlined in this agreement we aim specifically to increase applications in the following areas:  Students from low performing schools and colleges  Mature students  Students from NS-SEC groups 4-7  Black and Minority Ethnic Students  Disabled Student  Local Students Progress measures for each of these categories (which include measures designed to enable us to monitor conversion from application to intake) are provided in the resource plan. 13.4 At the intake stage, we will continue to focus on low school and college performance and mature students, reflecting the role both play in our contextual approach to admissions 13.5 As far as possible, measures have been calculated taking account of the expected impact of a number of specific outreach initiatives (the Access to Bristol scheme and summer school programme for example), each of which also has more detailed performance targets associated with it as highlighted in the resource plan. 13.6 In setting long term progress measures for such groups we were mindful of the base from which we start, the finite number of students within each group and the importance of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by committing to targets for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of supportwe could realistically achieve. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable 13.7 In order to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand assess the impact of our workoutreach interventions we have a number of progress measures for conversion. However, These are focussed on those areas we are concerned that it is often difficult able to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some into consideration as part of our targets relate contextual approach to activitiesadmissions (low performing schools and colleges), those for which we need to make progress against our HESA benchmarks (students from N-SEC groups 4-7) as well as achievementthose forming the basis of most outreach interventions (student from BS and BA postcodes). As is made clear in the resource plan we have committed ourselves to incremental increases, although these activities are also strongly monitored aiming to have increased conversion rates for successful progressionall indictors by 1.5 per cent in 2020-21. 6.3 13.8 We were concerned have introduced a collaborative target for the IntoUniversity South Bristol Centre, a partnership intervention with the universities of Bath and Exeter. The target is long term and seeks to increase the number of participants taking part in their programmes. The centre was deliberately situated in Withywood, an area of South Bristol with the second lowest progression rates to higher education in the country, in recognition of the need to increase the aspirations and attainment White working class students. 13.9 The target for IntoUniversity Bristol South is necessarily broad in the 2017-18 agreement as the centre only officially opened in March 2016. We will be working with colleagues from IntoUniversity to refine the target for future submissions following an analysis of those areas in which greatest progress is needed (White working class boys for example). 13.10 Our long standing commitment to the Pathways to Law programme has led to the introduction of a target for applications to the University from students who take part in the Pathways programmes at partner institutions. Students who are part of the Bristol cohort of Pathways to Law are included in our Access to Bristol targets, however in the last year we have increased the number of outreach events which we organise for students from partner institutions. Evaluation of these events has shown that they are successful in generating applications to the University with a total of 91 applications being received by the University for 2016 entry. We will increase the number of activities which we provide for students from partner institutions in order to showcase the Law School and the benefits of studying a Law degree at Bristol. 13.11 We are committed to examining multiple indicators of deprivation and to doing all we can to reduce their impact. We have added in several new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective studentsintervention targets to reflect the need for intersectionality between progress measures and the partnership work we are undertaking. Recognising the need to increase the number of students from specific BME groups (Asian/Pakistani, Asian/Bangladeshi and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. HoweverBlack/Caribbean in particular), we have introduced a target for the number of such students on our Insight Into Bristol programme. As a result of this new targeting criteria we will ensure that students taking part in the programme are reassured that prioritised if they are: from BME backgrounds: come from low performing schools, are in the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment first generation of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent their family to apply to university and will continue live in neighbourhoods where few people progress to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by 13.12 Ethnicity continues to have impact beyond the University reflect our current position, application and our understanding intake stage. We have identified that ethnicity is an important factor in the success of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of learners at the University, spread evenly across with data suggesting that there is a gap in attainment between BME and white undergraduate students at the south-east top and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and Londonlower end of degree classifications. In addition2014-15 of the white students graduating, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers 31 per cent achieved a first class honours, compared to 20.7 per cent of BME students. Likewise, proportionately more BME students (17 per cent) who graduated are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact awarded a 2:2 classification than white students (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education6.8 per cent). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University Detailed targets and milestones are set out at the end of this Access Agreement. Following the guidance set out by OFFA which notes the importance of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In additionuncertainties around sector funding, we have not set significantly changed our targets for 2015-16 nor extended the targets in those areas where numbers are too small this Agreement to cover additional years. As shown in section 2 the University of Brighton has a strong track record in performance on a number of the HESA widening participation performance indicators and the targets and milestones set out in this Access Agreement aim either to build upon our good performance (e.g. entrants from state schools and students in receipt of DSA), improve absolute performance (e.g. LPN) or to improve performance in both absolute and relative terms (e.g. NS-SEC and non-continuation). The university traditionally achieves good outcomes for students with disabilities in terms of recruitment and admissions, retention and progression. We have also achieved good outcomes for mature student admissions, progression and satisfaction, although as noted in section 2b, mature student retention provides an area for further targeted intervention. The University firmly believes that a wide range of different widening participation indicators needs to be meaningful; or where used in order to accurately assess the complex nature of the issues in ensuring access and success for under-represented groups. In order to monitor our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria progress consistently on an annual basis and have noted that because to be able to benchmark our performance against other institutions in the sector we rely primarily upon the HESA widening participation performance indicators for our broad institution- wide targets. We would welcome the development in the sector of additional robust and standardised measures as part of OFFA and HEFCE’s work on developing the National Strategy for Access and Student Success, or the fundamental review of the relatively small numbers involvedPIs carried out by the UK Performance Indicators Steering Group (UKPISG). The ten targets we have chosen include those for state schools, apparent NS-SEC classes 4-7, low participation neighbourhoods, non-continuation and disabled students. The remainder relate to increased enrolments of other specific under-represented groups of students, including care leavers and Compact Plus students. Three targets have been set with regard to achieving improvements in non- continuation rates to support the focus of our outreach efforts related to low participation neighbourhoods and social class. Two are based on the HESA performance can vary considerably year indicators (full-time first degree entrants and young full-time first degree entrants from low participation neighbourhoods), the other is based on yearinternal data, which analyses non-continuation rates by NS-SEC and aims to reduce the difference in non-continuation rates between NS-SEC groups 1-3 and 4-7. Data to monitor progression and achievement Progress against targets will be most effectively looked monitored through the university’s outreach evaluation strategy (detailed in section 4 below). Our targets are under constant review and are considered regularly at within the periodic review University level by both our Recruitment and Admissions Committee (RAC) and our Student Retention Improvement Team (SRIT) and also at the academic level through Academic Boards and Management Groups. We have consistently performed well against our existing targets for widening access and, as outlined in section 2a above, have used the evaluative evidence from previous outreach activity to set targets for 2015-16. Although, given the current uncertainties around funding, we have not made significant changes to the targets or work plan for 2015-16, we have updated our targets to reflect the development of coursesadditional outreach activity laid out elsewhere in this access agreement, where trends can be reviewed over a the embedding of new systems and staffing structures, sustained activities delivered through the Compact Plus programme and our collaborative work. We will retain our general outreach targets for secondary schools and post-16 institutions, but have added targets around the number of yearsparticipants we plan to attract. The number of schools we plan to work with will remain the same, although as this represents all the recruitment schools in Sussex we have identified as needing the most support but we expect to revisit these targets as we expand our outreach activity into other geographical areas. We have reorganised our outreach targets to better reflect our strategic priorities into the following groupings:  Primary work  Secondary work  Post-16 work  Student participation (including modules and retention mentoring)  Summer Schools  Compact Plus participants  Collaboration and widening participation to the sector We have underpinned the importance of non-traditional students the collaborative activities we are developing with UCL by including targets around this work. We will target schools based on indices of multiple deprivation and have developed a collaborative target that 85% of participants will consider that higher education is something they could aspire to. As collaboration is such an important aspect of equipping learners to make the Annual Course Review processright decisions for their progression, we shall continually review our efforts in this area, and is therefore considered by course teams add to these as necessary. Although not a specific target within our access agreement, we anticipate that outreach work targeted at areas such as Central Sussex, the Gatwick diamond and South London will broaden the black and minority ethnic demographic of participants in our outreach activities and widen access from these groups to the university. The university’s Student Equality Report has highlighted Race as an area for improvement for the university particularly in terms of Black/Black British students’ rates of admission, progression, and retention. There may be further analysis required of the impact of our outreach work in terms of our applications from this group to our courses, in respect of national and regional data. Utilising the guidance from HEFCE (‘targeting disadvantaged learners’ and ‘toolkits for practitioners: targeting’) and the data provided through the HEAT database we have implemented an appropriate targeting policy. Our outreach resources are targeted towards schools based on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones number of indices of multiple deprivations:  free school meals  sum of percentage living in NS Sec 4-7  sum of percentage living in Polar Quintile 1  sum of percentage living in IMD high deprivation areas. Schools are meaningfulranked for each category, and an aggregate score is given to each institution which then gives it a place of priority for outreach resources. More intensive outreach activities, such as Summer Schools or mentoring schemes, are targeted towards individual participants who meet two or more of the entry criteria for the University’s Compact Plus programme:  looked after by a local authority, or have left care  in receipt of free school meals  living in POLAR3 quintile one or two  having a disability  living in a household where the main wage earner is in NS-SEC 4-8 (for which we use the National Office of Statistics matrix)  from a family with no previous experience of Higher Education. Evidence from the HEAT database about the success of previously run projects based on project evaluation by participants is used to inform our planned programme for 2015-16. This evidence has led us to expand our portfolio of activities in two key areas: Summer Schools and mentoring for both primary and secondary students, both of which have been shown to influence positive changes in attitudes towards HE of participants. We have found Summer Schools to be particularly effective, both for raising awareness and aspirations around subjects, but also in raising applications. As an example, of the students participating in the Sports Science Summer School, 50% applied for a place at the University of Brighton. We have now increased the number of Summer Schools which we run. We have continued to develop our mentoring programme based on positive evidence from evaluation. Overall, participants demonstrated a positive attitudinal shift when asked core questions before and after the project. Following the project there was an increase in the numbers of students who indicated increased aspiration to go to University, who felt they would ‘fit in’ at University and who said they had all the information needed to make a decision about applying to HE. We have also observed benefits to University student mentors, such as increased confidence and developing their employability skills. We are also adding to the number of intensive, repeat intervention activities based on the actual circumstances rather than speculationfeedback we have received in previous years. Therefore, we shall not seek All of these activities will now sit with the Compact Plus evaluative framework allowing us to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification build up a comprehensive picture of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact success of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performanceour outreach programme. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University notes On the importance basis of monitoring success through achievements against our strong track record in outreach, that places us in the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for upper quartile of the rates English universities of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator dataXxxxxxx Group, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure important that we are well placed judged by our relative performance in the HESA Performance Indicators. We will therefore aim to understand maintain our position in the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles top quartile of the University, spread evenly across English universities of the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on Xxxxxxx Group for the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and Londonlife of this Access Agreement. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over proposing a number of years, although internal targets which will not only satisfy OFFA guidelines but will also contribute to our monitoring of effective outreach activities. • Increase the recruitment proportion of young people from our pre-16 progressive activity target group progressing to level 3 programmes. • The proportion of young people from our pre-16 progressive activity target group applying to a FT place in HE is greater than local averages for young people from socially disadvantaged groups. • Increase the percentage of students engaged in our post-16 outreach programmes applying to the University of Birmingham. • Growth in the percentage of entrants via our Access to Birmingham Programme. • Ensure that the continuation rates of students who entered via Access to Birmingham is equal to that for the overall cohort. • Increase the percentage of students who entered via Access to Birmingham gaining a 2.i or 1st (with due regard given to the context of the qualification with which the student entered the University. • Improve the proportion of students who entered via Access to Birmingham gaining a graduate level job within 6 months of graduating. Through these targets we will demonstrate the impact of our outreach and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect activity at each of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish key stages between ‘first contact’ with the target group for our pre-16 progressive activity through to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculationtheir first job after graduation. ThereforeBy monitoring progress at each of these key points, we shall not seek will be able to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this identify where appropriate interventions need to be successful performancemade to improve our approach to our outreach and retention activities. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 Detailed targets and milestones are set out at the end of this Access Agreement. As shown in section 2 the University of Brighton has a strong track record in performance on a number of the HESA widening participation performance indicators and the targets and milestones set out in this Access Agreement aim either to build upon our good performance, improve absolute performance or improve performance in both absolute and relative terms (e.g. NS-SEC and non- continuation). The university traditionally achieves good outcomes for students with disabilities in terms of recruitment and admissions, retention and progression. We have also achieved good outcomes for mature student recruitment, progression and satisfaction. The University notes firmly believes that a wide range of different widening participation indicators needs to be used in order to accurately assess the importance complex nature of monitoring the issues in ensuring access and success through achievements for under-represented groups. In order to monitor our progress consistently on an annual basis, and to be able to benchmark our performance against other institutions in the sector, we have in the past relied upon the HESA Performance Indicatorswidening participation performance indicators for our broad institution-wide targets. As with the changes noted elsewhere regarding the DSA, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe university has agreed that it is preferable timely to monitor review and refine our targets which had focused solely on increased enrolments of other under- represented groups of students (including care leavers and students identified through our Compact Plus programme). Our pre-entry work for care leavers is well established and successful and as a result we have reviewed our target to increase care leaver numbers recruited year-on-year and in 2016-17 will identify baseline data and develop targets that will prioritise retention and success for this group of young people, with an aim of closing the gap in retention rates between care leavers and all undergraduate students. In reviewing our targets our intention is to develop those which focus on progression, success and employability of specific widening participation cohorts, rather than simply the recruitment of these students to our institution. Our aim behind this review is to reflect not only the changes to the annual published HESA data but more importantly to fully reflect the whole-institution approach to widening participation across the student lifecycle from access to success. New areas that we will research and prepare to include in the future are as follows:  a new set of targets and annual milestones that focus on student achievement of specific under-represented student groups including; NS-SEC Groups 4-7; LPN; students with a declared disability; care leavers and BME students;  to replace the outgoing DSA PI with a target and annual milestone that focuses not only on enrolments of students with a declared disability but also a measure of their retention and success;  to review targets related to delivery of activities and numbers of interventions with specific under-represented students through our Compact plus programmes and develop targets designed to measure the impact of these activities in terms of encouraging participants to apply to HE, both to our own institution and HE generally. As specified in section 2 above, the current Access Agreement will focus upon monitoring our performance related to enrolments from state schools and colleges; enrolments from NS-SEC Groups 4-7; enrolments from low participation neighbourhoods; non-continuation rates, both university-wide and for specific under-represented groups and numbers of interventions / volume of activity related to under-represented groups delivered through publicly available information where possiblethe Compact and Compact Plus programmes. Progress against targets will be monitored through the university’s outreach evaluation strategy (detailed in section 4 below). We monitor have consistently performed well against our existing targets for widening access and, as outlined in section 2a above, have used the evaluative evidence from previous outreach activity to set targets for 2016-17. Our outreach targets for secondary schools have been reviewed and these same indicators internally ambitious targets reflect our planned delivery of a sustained programme of intervention for Years 7 through to ensure Year 11 in our key partner schools. The number of secondary schools we plan to work with will remain broadly the same, as this represents the majority of the schools in Sussex that we are well placed have identified as needing the most support, however we aim to understand increase the numbers of primary schools with which we will work by 2019-20. Our outreach targets focus on the following groups or activities, organised to reflect a number of our key priorities:  Activities with primary school pupils  Activities with Compact schools and colleges (all year groups)  Activities with Compact Plus students - years 7-11  Activities with Compact Plus students - post-16 (years 12 -13 and Access to HE students)  Summer Schools  Student participation (numbers of our student undertaking accredited school engagement modules, working as mentors or WP ambassadors)  Progression to HE of Compact Plus members in Polar 3 (Quintiles 1 and 2) within 2 years of completing their studies, benchmarked against data from other HEAT member universities  Collaborative targets for primary and post-16 work with other HEIs. Although not a specific target within our access agreement, we anticipate that outreach work targeted at areas such as Central Sussex, the Gatwick diamond and South London will broaden the black and minority ethnic demographic of participants in our outreach activities and widen access from these groups to the university. The university’s Student Equality Report has highlighted Race as an area for improvement for the university particularly in terms of Black/Black British students’ rates of admission, progression, and retention. There may be further analysis required of the impact of our workoutreach work in terms of our applications from this group to our courses, in respect of national and regional data. HoweverUtilising the guidance from HEFCE (‘targeting disadvantaged learners’ and ‘toolkits for practitioners: targeting’) and the data provided through the HEAT database we have implemented an appropriate targeting policy. As specified in the previous Access Agreement, our outreach resources will continue to be targeted towards schools based on a number of indices of multiple deprivations, including free school meals, NS Sec 4-7, Polar Quintile 1, IMD high deprivation areas. Schools are ranked for each category and an aggregate score is given to each institution which then gives it a place of priority for outreach resources. We will continue to offer more intensive outreach activities, such as Summer Schools or mentoring schemes, to individual participants who meet certain of the entry criteria for the University’s Compact Plus programme:  looked after by a local authority, or have left care  in receipt of free school meals  living in POLAR3 quintile one or two  having a disability  living in a household where the main wage earner is in NS-SEC 4-8 (for which we use the National Office of Statistics matrix)  from a family with no previous experience of Higher Education. We understand that these criteria are complex and may be difficult for schools or individual participants and their families to understand, and we are concerned that it in the process of reviewing these criteria with our partner Compact Schools, with the aim of producing simplified eligibility criteria for 2016- 17. Evidence from the HEAT database about the success of previously run projects is often difficult used to identify a simple causal link between work inform our planned programme for 2016-17. This evidence has led us to expand our portfolio of activities in two key areas: Summer Schools and mentoring for both primary and secondary students, both of which has have been undertaken within the widening participation fieldshown to influence positive changes in attitudes towards HE of participants. We have found Summer Schools to be particularly effective, both for raising awareness and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, aspirations around subjects as well as achievementincreasing applications to HE. Evidence from The University of Brighton HEAT tracking report 2007/08-2013/14 shows that participants who attended summer schools had the highest progression to HE rates of all activity types with 52% of summer school participants progressing to HE. Following the projects there was an increase in the numbers of students who indicated increased aspiration to go to University, although these activities who felt they would ‘fit in’ at University and who said they had all the information needed to make a decision about applying to HE. We have continued to develop our mentoring programme based on positive evidence from evaluation. Overall, participants demonstrated a positive attitudinal shift when asked core questions before and after the project. We have also observed benefits to University student mentors, such as increased confidence and developing their employability skills. To enable us to increase our mentoring offer we will be piloting various e-mentoring projects in 2015-16 and plane to roll-out the successful projects in 2016-17. We are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links adding to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of yearsintensive, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are repeat intervention activities based on the actual circumstances rather than speculationfeedback we have received in previous years. ThereforeAll of these activities will now sit within the Compact Plus evaluative framework, we shall not seek allowing us to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification build a comprehensive picture of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact success of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performanceour outreach programme. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 Detailed targets and milestones are set out at the end of this Access Agreement. The University notes firmly believes that a wide range of different widening participation indicators needs to be used in order to accurately assess the importance complex nature of monitoring the issues in ensuring access and success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by for under-represented groups. As such we have selected 10 different targets for the rates of application and offer milestones to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those be included in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable our access agreements. In order to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria progress consistently on an annual basis and have noted that because to be able to benchmark our performance against other institutions in the sector we are heavily reliant upon using the HESA widening participation performance indicators. We would welcome the development in the sector of additional robust and standardised measures, which might perhaps emerge as part of OFFA and HEFCE’s work on developing the National Strategy for Access and Student Success. Our targets are under constant review and are considered regularly at the University level by both our Recruitment and Admissions Committee (RAC) and our Student Retention Improvement Team (SRIT) and also at the academic School and Faculty level through their Academic Boards and Management Groups. The majority of the relatively small numbers involvedten targets we have chosen to set are based on the HESA widening participation performance indicators and benchmarks and include those on state schools, apparent performance can vary considerably year on yearNS-SEC classes 4-7, low participation neighbourhoods, non-continuation and disabled students. Data The remainder relate to monitor progression increased enrolments of other specific under-represented groups of students, including care leavers and achievement Compact Plus students. Progress against targets will be most effectively looked at within monitored through the periodic review university’s outreach evaluation strategy (detailed in section 4 below). The University of courses, where trends can be reviewed over Brighton has a strong track record in performance on a number of yearsthe widening participation performance indicators and the targets and milestones set out in this Access Agreement aim either to maintain our good performance (e.g. entrants from state schools and students in receipt of DSA), improve absolute performance (e.g. LPN) or to improve performance in both absolute and relative terms (e.g. NS-SEC and non-continuation) (see also section 2 – our access and student success measures). The Student Equalities Report 2012 (January 2013), details of which are in section 5 below, demonstrates that we have also continued to achieve good outcomes for students with disabilities in terms of recruitment and admissions, retention and progression. There have been specific interventions put in place by the disability team to ensure students are aware of services and receive support early on in their learning programme. The same report also shows that the university has achieved good outcomes for mature student admissions, progression and satisfaction, although the recruitment and mature student retention of may provide an area for further targeted intervention. Three targets have been set with regard to achieving improvements in non-traditional students continuation rates to reflect the increased and additional efforts in this area. Two are based on the HESA performance indicators (full-time first degree entrants and young full-time first degree entrants from low participation neighbourhoods), the other is based on internal data, which analyses non-continuation rates by NS-SEC. The latest HESA PI data published in 2013 show significant improvements on both these measures and that our milestones have been exceeded. Our latest internal student retention data analysis also highlights these improvements and shows a reduction in the gap between non- continuation rates of entrants from NS-SEC groups 4-7 and 1-3. We have consistently performed well against our existing outreach targets and, as outlined in section 2a above, have used the evaluative evidence from previous outreach activity to set targets for 2014-15. Although we have not made significant changes to the targets which we consider to be sufficiently stretching, we have updated them in consideration of the development of additional outreach activity laid out elsewhere in the access agreement – notably the sustained, targeted activities delivered via Compact Plus and our collaborative work. Firstly, we acknowledge a difference between our general recruitment outreach work in Sussex delivered through the University of Brighton Compact, which we will continue to undertake, and our targeted widening access outreach work delivered through the Compact Plus programmes. We will retain our secondary and post-16 general outreach targets, but have added targets around the number of participants we plan to attract to our programme of sustained activities for both pre- and post-16 pupils and students. We have included a number of targets based on data from the HEAT database which provide us with an interim, transitional baseline as there are still a great number of former Aimhigher participants still in the system. We will monitor these numbers closely as we move away from the end of the Aimhigher programme and towards fully developed University of Brighton Compact Plus cohorts. We anticipate that there may be considerable changes which could influence future targets. The number of schools we plan to work with will remain the same, as this represents all the schools in Sussex we have identified as needing the most support. We will revisit these targets as we expand our outreach activity into other geographical areas (e.g. Kent). We anticipate that targets specifically around the outreach contribution of individual academic Schools will be included in future access agreements, as we implement a greater amount of subject- specific outreach activity delivered by academic departments, based on the new work currently being developed and coordinated through the new Widening Participation Outreach Operation Group. Additionally we are underpinning the importance of the collaborative activities we are developing with UCL and Cambridge University by including targets around this work. As collaboration is such an important aspect of equipping learners to make the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Thereforeright decisions for their progression, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at continually review our efforts in this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each yeararea, and will consider this add to be successful performancethese as necessary. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University notes 8.1 We aim to maintain our position in relation to the importance proportions of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for the rates of application young and offer to nonmature students recruited from under-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activitiesrepresented groups, as well as achievementreflected in performance against HESA benchmarks. Latest HESA performance indicators (for 2010/11 entry – see Table 1, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate Appendix 1) show that there has been a less significant shortfall in the proportion of our young full-term impact time first-degree entrants from state schools, NS-SEC 4-7 and low participation neighbourhoods (LPNs). However, analysis of our internal data for 2011/12 entry (based on the recruitment LPN data) suggest that there has since been an increase back to 2009/10 levels. We will continue to closely monitor our student intake and take appropriate action where necessary to help maintain and indeed increase our diverse student population. 8.2 We aim to secure incremental improvements in our already good continuation rates, as reflected in HESA data and benchmarks. Latest HESA performance indicators (for 2010/11 entry – see Table 3, Appendix 1) show that there has been an increase in non-continuation rates of those from underour young full-represented groups than had been anticipatedtime first degree entrants following year of entry. We will be investigating potential reasons for this by scrutinising our internal data, although we are not complacent taking account of a broad range of socio-economic, educational and demographic indicators, and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher educationmonitor our progress. 6.4 The targets set by 8.3 We aim to increase the University reflect our current position, and our understanding proportion of our own catchment areanew students in receipt of DSA to at least meet HESA benchmark supported by increased effort in outreach activity targeted at potential applicants with disabilities. Most applicants The apparent decrease in our students in receipt of DSA between 2008/09 and enrolments are from those 2010/11, as reported in the HESA performance indicators, somewhat contradicts our internal data, which shows that there has been a steady increase in the proportion of our entrants with a declared disability. We will continue to monitor our progress by further scrutinising our internal data. 8.4 We will continue to work for progress against institutional milestones already set within 100 miles of our Access Agreements for 2009/10 – 2012/13. In addition to the UniversityHESA PI measures, spread evenly across the south-east we will also monitor our access and south-west regionsretention progress using alternative proxies for disadvantage. This is not surprisingmay include Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), given our location on the boundary between these two regions, MOSAIC and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education)financial data. 6.5 8.5 Our targets Milestones from 2013/14 are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because out in Table 6 of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.Annex C.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University notes the importance of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicators, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer to non-traditional learners, and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we We believe that it is preferable there are clear advantages to monitor our basing the University’s WP targets on the annual HEFCE WP performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our work. Howeverindicators, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong). The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is namely: they reflect national priorities for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-groups currently under- represented in Higher Education they provide a reliable and independent source of evidence regarding the University’s progress in widening access they enable effective benchmarking to be carried out against the H.E. sector as a whole and/or against specific institutions or groups than had been anticipatedof institutions The main disadvantage of using them is the time lag between actual recruitment and the compilation and release of the PIs. For this reason, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current positionwill set its targets and measure its success in achieving them by using the HEFCE PIs, it will also (wherever possible) produce interim figures using its own internal data, which will be updated and finalised once the relevant HEFCE PIs are released. This will enable monitoring and evaluation to be carried out in a timely fashion, and our understanding of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location help inform possible refinements or changes to WP activities on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the southbasis of up-east and Londonto-date evidence regarding their effectiveness. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small The proposed measures to be meaningful; used from the HEFE WP PIs are: Percentage young degree entrants recruited from state schools or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners colleges Percentage young degree entrants recruited from NS-SEC classes 4,5,6 & 7 Percentage young degree entrants recruited from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience Percent young first degree entrants from low participation neighbourhoods no longer in HE after first year of higher educationstudy The baseline figures will be the University’s performance in the most recently released PIs (which relate to the 2009-10 academic year). 6.5 Our targets . The proposed milestones for the period to 2015-16 are set over five yearsout in Annex B. For those measures where we are already performing strongly, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor such as state school recruitment, the target will be to maintain our current performance; for those measures where our current performance is less strong we will aim to improve both our absolute performance and our performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basisHEFCE benchmarks. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 The University notes WP and retention targets are monitored by the importance Access Agreement Scrutiny Group, which is actively chaired by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Strategy). They form part of monitoring success through achievements against the HESA Performance Indicatorsnew ‘student journey’ project upon which we embarked in the second semester of 2016/17, supplemented by targets for which is designed to track each student from the rates point of application and offer through to nonpost-traditional learnersgraduation. The projects described in section 2 xxxx a shift from short-term activities toward more substantial, sustainable ones, and overall our investment in HEAT will allow us to intensify this development in future. Although the work we are doing on student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator dataattainment with our partner schools is not, we believe that at present, a target, it is preferable a key part of our engagement with schools. In terms of retention, our Personal Tutoring scheme, which was introduced in 2016/17, allows us to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possiblemore closely initial student progress; we plan to expand the scheme (subject to the review of it showing it has been successful) to years 2 and 3 across the period 2017/2019. We monitor these same indicators internally have also, with the help of external consultants, reviewed our degree algorithms to ensure that bring them into line with the rest of the HE sector; this should have an immediate impact on Good Honours. Our Careers Centre now has a dedicated member of staff working with each of our 4 Schools to embed employability into the curriculum, and this work is monitored by our Teaching, Learning, Quality and Enhancement Committee, (TLQEC) which is chaired by the PVC (Academic Strategy) We are developing a St Mary’s Award Scheme, which will allow students to identify their graduate attributes by focussing upon the transferable skills they have developed during their time with us, both through their academic work and their extra-curricular activity. Once in place, the ‘Student Journey’ project will allow us to harvest data from each stage of the student’s progress at St Mary’s in order to feed it into improving the student experience, and helping us achieve and extend the milestones and targets upon which we comment in tables 7a and b in the annex. Section 7 outlines how we evaluate the success of our efforts, but we are well placed aware that more needs to understand be done in this area, and the impact of new Access Scrutiny Group will monitor progress on our workprojects each semester. HoweverIn addition to a new WP strategy, we are concerned that also examining the spend on student progression to ascertain how effective it is often difficult in delivering on the targets we have set ourselves for Access and WP students in particular. The University continues to identify recruit significant numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. As noted earlier, HESA PIs show that the University has a simple causal link between high number of state school students and is above the benchmark in this area. HESA data shows that in 2015/16, 27.6% of first year students with a known ethnicity were XXXX compared to 23.8% across the sector. Similarly, 13.2% of first year students at St Mary’s in 2015/16 declared a disability compared to 12.4% of students across the sector. As the rest of this documents outlines our activities in this area are growing and we expect to achieve the targets relating to access. Over recent years our continuation rate has fallen from 92.6% of young first degree entrants in 2012-13 continuing or qualifying to 88.4% in 2014-15, and we have a project underway to determine why this has happened, and we shall work which with our Schools to rectify this situation once the data has been undertaken within analysed by the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong)Planning Office. The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment of those from under-represented groups than had been anticipated, although we are not complacent and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by out in our Access Agreement are challenging, but reflect the stretch and commitment that the University reflect our current position, has made to improving continuation rates. The University recently published a new 10 year Strategic Plan which sets out ambitious plans in this area including Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) specifically relating to improving continuation rates. Performance in these areas has improved considerably in 2016/17 and our understanding we feel confident in meeting the targets set out in the Access Agreement. At Primary level the percentage of our own catchment area. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, men was 21% and the superior travel links percentage of BAME entrants was 17.5%. At Secondary level 16.4% of entrants to the south-east and LondonPGCE were XXXX. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small 2016/17 Actual 2020/21 Target The percentage of male students recruited to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely undergraduate ITT Primary Teaching programme. 11% 16% The percentage of male students recruited to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, our PGCE Primary course 21% 25% The percentage of BME students recruited to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience our ITT Primary Teaching programme 12% 15% The percentage of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because BME students recruited to our PGCE Primary course 18% 15% The percentage of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data BME students recruited to monitor progression and achievement will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review of courses, where trends can be reviewed over a number of years, although the recruitment and retention of non-traditional students is an important aspect of the Annual Course Review process, and is therefore considered by our Secondary PGCE course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each year, the relatively small numbers involved and the unreliability of some datasets (such as the socio-economic classification of the main earner in a household, or the precise impact of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealistic. We shall normally expect to have made progress against two-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this to be successful performance. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.16% 28%

Targets and Milestones. 6.1 Detailed targets and milestones are set out at the end of this Agreement. The University notes majority of the importance of monitoring success through achievements against ten targets we have chosen to set are based on the HESA Performance Indicatorswidening participation performance indicators and benchmarks and include those on state schools, supplemented by targets for the rates of application and offer to NS-SEC classes 4-7, low participation neighbourhoods, non-traditional learners, continuation and overall student satisfaction ratings for those in receipt of support. 6.2 Whilst acknowledging the delay in publication of Performance Indicator data, we believe that it is preferable to monitor our performance through publicly available information where possible. We monitor these same indicators internally to ensure that we are well placed to understand the impact of our work. However, we are concerned that it is often difficult to identify a simple causal link between work which has been undertaken within the widening participation field, and achievement (whether improved or less strong)disabled students. The fact that work to raise aspiration may well take place 3-4 years before prospective enrolment, which is then reported 18 months later, makes it extremely difficult to propose actions in direct response to performance. It is for this reason that some of our targets remainder relate to activities, as well as achievement, although these activities are also strongly monitored for successful progression. 6.3 We were concerned that the new financial arrangements were poorly understood by many prospective students, and were likely to be a particular impediment to those from non-traditional backgrounds. However, we are reassured that the early signs indicate that there has been a less significant short-term impact on the recruitment increased enrolments of those from other specific under-represented groups than had been anticipatedof students, although we are not complacent including care leavers and will continue to promote the value and benefits of higher education. 6.4 The targets set by the University reflect our current position, and our understanding of our own catchment areaCompact Plus students. Most applicants and enrolments are from those within 100 miles of the University, spread evenly across the south-east and south-west regions. This is not surprising, given our location on the boundary between these two regions, and the superior travel links to the south-east and London. In addition, we have not set targets in those areas where numbers are too small to be meaningful; or where our experience over the last ten years indicates that activity is unlikely to have significant impact (this applies, for instance, to mature learners from low participation neighbourhoods without previous experience of higher education). 6.5 Our targets are set over five years, with annual milestones. We routinely monitor performance against these criteria on an annual basis and have noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, apparent performance can vary considerably year on year. Data to monitor progression and achievement These will be most effectively looked at within the periodic review monitored using internal University of courses, where trends can be reviewed over Brighton data. The University of Brighton has a strong track record in performance on a number of yearsthe widening participation performance indicators and the targets and milestones set out in this Access Agreement aim either to maintain good performance (entrants from state schools and students in receipt of DSA - above benchmark and sector), although the recruitment improve absolute performance (LPN) or to improve performance in both absolute and retention of relative terms (NS-SEC and non-traditional students is an important aspect of continuation). Three targets have been set with regard to achieving improvements in non-continuation rates to reflect the Annual Course Review process, increased and is therefore considered by course teams on a yearly basis. 6.6 We wish to ensure that milestones are meaningful, and additional efforts in this area. Two are based on the actual circumstances rather than speculation. Therefore, we shall not seek to revise any targets or associated milestones at this stage. In general, at institutional level, we note that whilst we aim to make progress against each objective in each yearHESA performance indicators (full-time first degree entrants and young full-time first degree entrants from low participation neighbourhoods), the relatively small numbers involved other will be based on internal data, which analyses non- continuation rates by NS-SEC. The University has set targets that it believes are stretching given the changes being imposed from 2012 onwards and the unreliability significant challenges the sector as a whole faces as a result of some datasets the significant increases in contributions expected from students. As a result of the recently implemented changes to the student number controls across the sector and the successful outcomes of our Partner College bids to HEFCE in this regard it has been necessary to revisit a number of our previously approved targets and milestones, due to the impact this will have on our student profile. Our performance indicators have been reviewed and the effect of the removal of these numbers from our student cohort has been assessed. As such it has been necessary to adjust slightly a number of our targets and milestones to reflect the change in our student body. See the summary targets and milestones section at the end of this Agreement and Annex B. We recognise that we may wish to revisit our targets in the future in the light of any other significant changes to the context within which we are operating. Also included are a range of targets and milestones around our outreach work. These continue to build on existing work and the Widening Participation Outreach Plan produced in 2010. Our targets include modest increases in the number of schools and pupils we work with. One of the aims is to increase the intensity of the work for schools in the need of the most support. Our partner schools – which have been targeted through analysis of a range of indices of mass deprivation – will be offered access to high and significant intensity activities such as Summer Schools, subject mentoring, subject specific taster events and attainment raising programmes. These targets will be monitored and evaluated through HEAT – a collaborative database developed from the records kept by Aimhigher South East. Although we intend to continue with certain strands of aspiration raising mentoring (such as the socio-economic classification of our Suitable Boy and Primary mentoring programmes), we are planning to shift the main earner in a householdemphasis of our intensive and continuous support for pupils to centre around subject specific modules, or which will be available to University of Brighton students on some courses, as we believe such projects are beneficial to attainment raising and help raise the precise impact profile of a low participation neighbourhood) mean that this is unrealisticWP across the University. We shall normally expect also propose to have made progress against twoconvert our residential Summer School to a non-thirds of the statistical targets in each year, and will consider this residential event to be successful performanceenable us to redistribute our resources into developing more non-residential subject specific Schools. 6.7 The University considers each of its targets to be minima, and hence where targets have been exceeded, there will be no activity designed to reduce subsequent achievement. However, targets will not themselves necessarily be revised upwards.