Tariff Groupings
The publication previously used provider tariff groupings produced by HESA. However, HESA no longer produce these groupings and stopped updating them from 2019/20.
The method used for the 2024 publication onwards is a simplified version of the previous HESA methodology. The calculation is now based on the total UCAS tariff points (from all qualifications) for each individual capped at the equivalent of three A* grades at A level. The calculation is now restricted to English domiciled entrants rather than UK domiciled.
The previously used HESA methodology differed in that it built up the tariff points for each individual based on their top three A level or equivalent qualifications before being normalised against the maximum points score (equivalent to three A* grades at A level). The calculation was based on UK domiciled entrants.
In addition, under the previous methodology, providers were allocated to low, medium and high tariff groupings so that each formed roughly a third of students who had tariff points recorded. The updated methodology instead uses the full cohort of students to allocate providers to tariff groups. This ensures that the likelihood of an individual progressing to a high tariff provider is more consistent over time.
The 2024 methodology update has had a small impact on the mean tariff scores of the vast majority of institutions but does lead to some providers changing tariff groups.
However, the measure is more stable because we now restrict to English domiciled entrants rather than UK domiciled, which provides closer alignment with the cohort of pupils in English schools and colleges used as the basis of this publication.
Restricting to English domiciled students increases the progression rates compared to UK domiciled. This is because non-English HE providers have less weight in the calculation and English school and college students are more likely to attend English HE providers than non-English providers.
Note the calculation is carried out for entrants in each individual year and so providers may change between groupings year on year
Impact of changes
The tables below compare the high tariff progression rates for the old HESA method against the new method.
The old method was based on UK domiciled entrants and the new method is restricted to English domiciled. In order to allow a direct comparison of the impact of the methodology change, a UK domiciled version of the new method is shown to give the closest possible comparison to the old method. Note, however, that this publication uses the English domiciled version for tariff groupings.
Note that the old HESA method hasn't been updated since 2019/20, hence the figures for 2020/21 onwards relate to the provider groupings calculated in 2019/20
The table below shows the high tariff progression rates for state-funded pupils at age 15 under each of the methods.
The new method gives similar high tariff progression rates in most years from 2011/12 to 2019/20 when looking at UK domiciled entrants. For 2020/21 onwards, the old method figures relate to the provider groupings calculated in 2019/20 and so this doesn't provide a direct comparison of the impact of the methodology change.
When we restrict to English domiciled entrants (as used for this publication) we see a greater increase in high tariff progression rates in the most recent years.
High tariff progression rates for state-funded pupils - comparison of methods
| Academic Year | New Method - English Domiciled | New Method - UK Domiciled | Old Method - UK Domiciled |
|---|
| 2009/10 | 9.8% | 9.8% | 8.4% |
| 2010/11 | 9.8% | 9.4% | 8.6% |
| 2011/12 | 10.3% | 9.8% | 9.6% |
| 2012/13 | 9.2% | 9.0% | 8.6% |
| 2013/14 | 10.0% | 9.8% | 9.0% |
| 2014/15 | 11.3% | 10.7% | 10.2% |
| 2015/16 | 11.0% | 10.4% | 10.2% |
| 2016/17 | 11.4% | 10.8% | 9.7% |
| 2017/18 | 12.0% | 10.7% | 10.1% |
| 2018/19 | 11.8% | 10.6% | 10.9% |
| 2019/20 | 12.4% | 10.6% | 10.9% |
| 2020/21 | 12.1% | 10.3% | 11.4% |
| 2021/22 | 13.0% | 11.6% | 13.4% |
| 2022/23 | 15.3% | 13.6% | 14.0% |
The table below shows the high tariff progression rates for Key State 5 students at age 17 under each of the methods.
We see a similar pattern to that seen for state-funded pupils with the new method giving similar high tariff progression rates in most years from 2011/12 to 2019/20 when looking at UK domiciled entrants. Again for 2020/21 onwards, the old method figures relate to the provider groupings calculated in 2019/20 and so this doesn't provide a direct comparison of the impact of the methodology change.
When we restrict to English domiciled entrants we see a greater increase in high tariff progression rates in the most recent years.
High tariff progression rates for KS5 students - comparison of methods
| Academic Year | New Method - English Domiciled | New Method - UK Domiciled | Old Method - UK Domiciled |
|---|
| 2009/10 | 28.1% | 28.2% | 24.6% |
| 2010/11 | 26.5% | 25.6% | 23.8% |
| 2011/12 | 25.7% | 24.7% | 24.1% |
| 2012/13 | 22.3% | 22.0% | 21.1% |
| 2013/14 | 23.1% | 22.6% | 21.1% |
| 2014/15 | 24.2% | 23.2% | 22.3% |
| 2015/16 | 22.9% | 21.9% | 21.5% |
| 2016/17 | 23.7% | 22.6% | 20.7% |
| 2017/18 | 25.2% | 23.0% | 21.9% |
| 2018/19 | 24.7% | 22.6% | 23.1% |
| 2019/20 | 30.0% | 26.7% | 27.2% |
| 2020/21 | 28.6% | 25.3% | 27.1% |
| 2021/22 | 29.7% | 26.7% | 30.3% |
| 2022/23 | 33.8% | 31.0% | 31.3% |
Changes to matching methodology
The methodology used to match the National Pupil Database (NPD) to the Higher Education Statistics Agency’s (HESA) Student Record and the Individualised Learner Record (ILR) has been revised.
Whilst every effort has been made to have consistency with the match carried out in previous years, it is likely that the change in matching has had some impact on outputs. We believe any impact on the numbers in this publication is very small but it may affect comparisons between 2022/23 and earlier years for small groups in particular.
Ethnicity
The ethnic groups have been revised to align with GSS standards. The main change from previous releases is that the Chinese ethnic group is contained within Asian / Asian British. In addition the names of some ethnic groups have been amended.
Sex and gender
From the 2023/24 academic year, the gender data item in the School Census has been replaced by a new sex data item.
Data is collected on sex (a value which identifies the sex of a person as recognised in law) on a mandatory basis and schools are required to record it as ‘F’ female or ‘M’ male except for rare instances where the legal sex of a pupil cannot be established by the school.
For publication purposes the historical gender variable and the new sex variable will be conflated into a single time series under the sex heading.
Historical use of the word “gender” in data collections may have meant that “gender identity” was reported in some cases, as opposed to legal sex.
While this is unlikely to have a significant effect on overall figures, it may affect figures in more granular subdivisions. The definitions used in the data collection relating to this publication will be revised in due course and time series that contain sex as a category may be affected.
TEF
The section on the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) is no longer included in the publication following consultation on its removal.
Provider details
Provider names and their UK Provider Reference Number (UKPRN) are now sourced from the All Providers Enhanced file published by HESA to ensure consistent naming over time:
HESA - Experts in higher education data and analysis (opens in a new tab)