Socio-economic hardships put children in an underprivileged position. This systematic review was conducted to identify factors linked to underachievement of disadvantaged pupils in school science and maths. What could be done as evidence-based practice to make the lives of these young people better? The protocol from preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) was followed. Major electronic educational databases were searched. Papers meeting pre-defined selection criteria were identified. Studies included were mainly large-scale evaluations with a clearly defined comparator group and robust research design. All studies used a measure of disadvantage such as lower SES, language barrier, ethnic minority or temporary immigrant status and an outcome measure like attainment in standardised national tests. A majority of papers capable of answering the research question were correlational studies. The review reports findings from 771 studies published from 2005 to 2014 in English language. Thirty-four studies were synthesised. Results suggest major factors linking deprivation to underachievement can be thematically categorised into a lack of positive environment and support. Recommendations from the research reports are discussed.

Universities are increasingly making decisions about undergraduate admissions with reference to contextual indicators to identify whether an applicant comes from a disadvantaged family, neighbourhood or school environment. However, the indicators used are often chosen because they are readily available, without consideration of the quality of possible alternatives. A review of existing research literature to assess potential contextual indicators yielded around 120,000 reports, and 28 categories of indicators. Each indicator was assessed on the basis of existing evidence concerning its relevance, reach, availability, accuracy, reliability and completeness. Many possible indicators are not readily available, or accurate enough for use in practice. Indicators concerning individual circumstances are generally safer than area-based or school characteristics. There are some indicators for very small categories that can be used relatively un-problematically as long as the data can be made available at time of candidate selection. None of these is a solution to the more general issue of contextualised admissions. Having a disability or special educational need is clearly linked to lower attainment and participation but not for all categories. The most suitable general indicator is eligibility for free school meals (FSM), based on the number of years an applicant has been known to be FSM-eligible.

The higher education regulator for England has set challenging new widening access targets requiring universities to rethink how merit is judged in admissions. Universities are being encouraged to move away from the traditional meritocraticequalityof opportunity model of fair access, which holds that university places should go to the most highly qualified candidates irrespective of social background, in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness. Instead, they are being asked to move towards what we term the meritocraticequityof opportunity model, which holds that prospective students’ qualifications should be judged in light of the socioeconomic circumstances in which these were obtained to enhance distributive fairness, a practice known in the UK as contextualised admissions. In this paper, we critically discuss the theoretical underpinnings of these two competing perspectives on fair access and review the existing empirical evidence base, drawing together for the first time insights from our ESRC and Nuffield Foundation funded studies of fair access to highly academically selective universities in England. We argue that reconceptualising fair access in terms of distributive fairness rather than procedural fairness offers a more socially just set of principles on which to allocate valuable but scarce places at the most academically selective universities in England, unless or until such time as the vertical stratification of higher education institutions is reduced or eliminated entirely.

Purpose: The primary aim of this paper is to illuminate the critical issue of the degree awarding gap in the UK, which significantly impacts students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and minority groups. By conducting a systematic review of existing literature following the PRISMA protocol, this study seeks to uncover the complex web of explanatory factors that mediate the relationship between contextual indicators, institutional culture, and degree awarding disparities. Addressing this gap is vital for promoting social justice, enhancing the economy, safeguarding the reputation of UK universities, and adhering to legal responsibilities. This paper endeavours to provide a comprehensive understanding of the underlying causes of degree awarding gaps and offer evidence-based recommendations for the higher education sector to mitigate these disparities.Design/methodology/approach: This study employs a systematic review design, adhering to the PRISMA protocol, to meticulously analyse the existing body of literature concerning the degree awarding gap in UK higher education. By systematically gathering, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant studies, the review aims to identify and understand the multifaceted factors mediating the link between contextual indicators, institutional culture, and the disparities observed in degree awarding. This methodological approach ensures a rigorous and transparent examination of the literature, enabling the identification of both the breadth and depth of research on the topic. Through this design, the paper aspires to uncover nuanced insights into the mechanisms driving degree awarding gaps.Findings: The review’s findings reveal that degree awarding gaps in UK universities are influenced by a constellation of factors, highlighting the complexity of this issue. Key among these are unconscious bias, limited student engagement opportunities with academic staff, institutional racism, inadequate support systems, and a scarcity of social and cultural capital. These factors collectively contribute to significant disparities in degree outcomes, disproportionately disadvantaging students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and minority groups. The evidence suggests that institutional practices and culture play a pivotal role in either exacerbating or alleviating these disparities, indicating the need for targeted interventions to address the root causes of degree awarding gaps.Research limitations/implications: One strength of conducting a systematic review is its rigorous and meticulous nature, which ensures that the process is carefully planned and executed. This comprehensive approach allows for the elimination of biases, as the review systematically gathers and analyses existing literature on the topic. By adhering to a structured methodology, the systematic review enhances the validity and reliability of the findings, providing a robust and unbiased synthesis of the available evidence. This strength lends credibility to the research and reinforces the confidence in the conclusions drawn from the review.Practical implications: The practical implications arising from this information indicate that universities need to address the identified issues directly by implementing supportive strategies and interventions. By doing so, they can create a learning environment that is more inclusive and equitable, allowing all students to unlock their full potential. This may involve measures such as raising awareness about unconscious bias, promoting engagement between academic staff and students, implementing anti-racist policies, establishing comprehensive support systems, and actively fostering social and cultural capital. Such practical actions will contribute to reducing the degree awarding gaps and promoting equal opportunities for all students, ultimately leading to a more equitable and successful educational experience.Social implications: The social implications derived from this information are significant. By implementing supportive strategies and interventions to address the identified issues, universities can contribute to creating a more inclusive and equitable learning environment. This has the potential to have a transformative impact on society by providing equal opportunities for all students to unlock their full potential. By raising awareness about unconscious bias and implementing anti-racist policies, universities can foster a more diverse and inclusive community. Promoting engagement between academic staff and students and establishing comprehensive support systems can enhance social cohesion and create a sense of belonging. Ultimately, these efforts can lead to reduced degree awarding gaps and contribute to a more equitable and successful educational experience, positively influencing broader social equality and cohesion.Originality/value: This paper contributes significantly to the literature by offering a comprehensive, systematic review of the factors contributing to the degree awarding gap in UK higher education, highlighting its originality and value. By focusing on the interplay between contextual indicators, institutional culture, and degree awarding disparities, the study provides novel insights into how these dynamics contribute to educational inequities. Furthermore, the evidence-based recommendations for institutional interventions presented in this paper furnish the higher education sector with actionable strategies to foster a more inclusive and equitable learning environment. This work not only advances academic understanding of degree awarding gaps but also offers practical value to policymakers and educational institutions aiming to enhance social justice in higher education.

This paper summarises research findings from a longitudinal national evaluation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics ( STEM ) ‘enrichment and enhancement activities’. The activities included science practical lessons, supported by ambassador visits, trips to laboratories, STEM centres and higher education institutions. The common theme for these activities was their aim to improve understanding and enjoyment of science in the short term and encourage STEM participation in the long term. The 2007 cohort across all state maintained secondary schools in England was followed up from the beginning of key stage 3 to the end of key stage 5 making use of school and pupil level datasets from the national pupil database. The study investigated whether engaging in these STEM programmes, run for 11–16 year olds, in secondary school is likely to affect subject choices during post‐compulsory education? Do young people sparsely represented in STEM courses such as those from a lower socio‐economic class and black ethnic minority engage better with STEM subjects because of actively participating in these activities? A direct noticeable impact of these activities was not seen on STEM take‐up. The analysis presented here concludes there is no evidence to suggest continued engagement in these activities is manifested in terms of increasing or widening STEM participation.

This paper summarises the research plan for a longitudinal evaluation project conducted on the population of secondary schools and pupils in England. STEM enrichment and enhancement activities are delivered for pupils across the United Kingdom with the aim of improving pupil engagement. These activities give students the chance to explore these subjects as done outside classrooms. The impact of these activities will be evaluated in terms of school and pupil educational outcomes. The study makes use of secondary official datasets—the National Pupil Database. Year 7 cohort will be followed up to their learning trajectories. Research findings from the study will form evidence base for policy and practice and recommendations will be useful for academic and non academic beneficiaries.