Public Consultation on the Review of the Approach to Widening Participation in Higher Education - A Summary of Responses - Alt text tables
Accessible versions of the consultation response tables with full alt text.
Table 1 - Responses
Total Number of Respondents | Citizen Space Online Platform | |
32 | 15 | 17 |
A table showing a breakdown of the method used to respond to the consultation. There were 32 respondents in total. 15 responses were submitted through the Citizen Space online platform and 17 responses were submitted via email.
Table 2 - Respondent Profile
| Higher Education Institutions | 4 |
|---|---|
| Further Education Colleges | 3 |
Awarding Bodies | 2 |
| Local Councils | 1 |
| Political Party | 1 |
Organisation /Other | 21 |
A table showing a breakdown of the respondent profile. 4 respondents were from the Higher Education Institutions. 3 respondents were from the Further Education Colleges. 2 respondents were from awarding bodies. 1 response was from a local council. 1 response was from a political party. 21 responses were from organisations or other.
Table 3 - Vision and Principles
| Question | % of Respondents Agree | % of Respondents Disagree |
|---|---|---|
| Do you agree with the proposed vision for widening participation? | 100% | 0% |
| Are the proposed principles appropriate and sufficient to guide future action? | 81.25% | 18.75% |
| Are there additional principles that should be considered? | 56.25% | 43.75% |
A table summarising levels of agreement with proposals on vision and principles. 100% agreed and 0% disagreed on the question, “Do you agree with the proposed vision for widening participation?” 81.25% agreed and 18.75% disagreed on the question, “Are the proposed principles appropriate and sufficient to guide future action?” 56.25% agreed and 43.75% disagreed on the question, “Are there additional principles that should be considered?”
Table 4 - System Level Targets
| Question | % of Respondents Agree | % of Respondents Disagree |
|---|---|---|
| Would you support the introduction of a national target for underrepresented learners in higher education | 68.75% | 18.75% |
| Would a flexible model of targeting, focused on priority groups and institutional targets, be effective? | 87.5% | 0% |
| Are the principles identified sufficient to guide the development of a region-wide taxonomy of priority groups to ensure relevance and inclusivity? | 93.75% | 6.25% |
A table showing responses on system-level targets. 68.75% agreed and 18.75% disagreed on the question, “Would you support the introduction of a national target for underrepresented learners in higher education.” 87.5% agreed and 0% disagreed on the question, “Would a flexible model of targeting, focused on priority groups and institutional targets, be effective?” 93.75% agreed and 6.25% disagreed on the question, “Are the principles identified sufficient to guide the development of a region-wide taxonomy of priority groups to ensure relevance and inclusivity?”
Table 5 - Refining Target or Priority Groups
| Question | % of Respondents Agree | % of Respondents Disagree |
|---|---|---|
| Are the proposed priority groups appropriate and sufficient to guide future action? | 81.25% | 12.5% |
| Would a thematic model better reflect learner realities? | 87.5% | 0% |
| Are there additional thematic groupings that should be considered? | 56.25% | 43.75% |
| Are there too many priority groups for WP activities and financial support to be meaningful within the resources available? | 12.5% | 56.25% |
| Do you agree that all groupings should be priority groups? | 56.25% | 31.25% |
| Should any of the groups be prioritised over others? | 31.25% | 68.75% |
| Should institutions retain flexibility to support additional groups not formally designated as priorities, such as Travellers, asylum seekers, or refugees? | 87.5% | 12.5% |
| Should a formal mechanism be established to regularly review and update priority groups based on emerging data, lived experience, and stakeholder feedback? | 87.5% | 0% |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that would need to be considered | 62.5% | 37.5% |
A detailed table summarising views on priority groups, showing strong support for the proposed groups and thematic approach, alongside mixed views on prioritisation, number of groups, and allocation of resources. 81.25% agreed and 12.5% disagreed on the question, “Are the proposed priority groups appropriate and sufficient to guide future action?” 87.5% agreed and 0% disagreed on the question, “Would a thematic model better reflect learner realities?” 56.25% agreed and 43.75% disagreed on the question, “Are there additional thematic groupings that should be considered?” 12.5% agreed and 56.25% disagreed on the question, “Are there too many priority groups for WP activities and financial support to be meaningful within the resources available?” 56.25% agreed and 31.25% disagreed on the question, “Do you agree that all groupings should be priority groups?” 31.25% agreed and 68.75% disagreed on the question, “Should any of the groups be prioritised over others?” 87.5% agreed and 12.5% disagreed on the question, “Should institutions retain flexibility to support additional groups not formally designated as priorities, such as Travellers, asylum seekers, or refugees?” 87.5% agreed and 0% disagreed on the question, “Should a formal mechanism be established to regularly review and update priority groups based on emerging data, lived experience, and stakeholder feedback?” 62.5% agreed and 37.5% disagreed on the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that would need to be considered”
Table 6 - Communications and Outreach
| Question | % of Respondents Agree | % of Respondents Disagree |
|---|---|---|
| Is the proposed purpose of communications and outreach appropriate to guide future sector-wide action? | 87.5% | 0% |
| Would a coordinated sector-wide plan improve consistency and impact across institutions and communities? | 87.5% | 6.25% |
| Would a joint brand or visual identity strengthen recognition and trust in widening participation efforts? | 43.75% | 18.75% |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure outreach is inclusive, locally relevant, and sustainable? | 56.25% | 43.75% |
A table summarising views on communications and outreach, with high levels of support for the proposed purpose and coordinated delivery, but more mixed views on branding and identifying gaps. 87.5% agreed and 0% disagreed on the question, “Is the proposed purpose of communications and outreach appropriate to guide future sector-wide action?” 87.5% agreed and 6.25% disagreed on the question, “Would a coordinated sector-wide plan improve consistency and impact across institutions and communities?” 43.75% agreed and 18.75% disagreed on the question, “Would a joint brand or visual identity strengthen recognition and trust in widening participation efforts?” 56.25% agreed and 43.75% disagreed on the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure outreach is inclusive, locally relevant, and sustainable?”
Table 7 - Strengthening Contextual Admissions and Pathways
| Question | % of Respondents Agree | % of Respondents Disagree |
|---|---|---|
| Is the proposed approach to contextual admissions and alternative pathways appropriate to guide future sector-wide action? | 81.25% | 6.25% |
| Should a consistent framework/ approach for contextual admissions be developed across providers to ensure fairness and clarity for applicants? | 75% | 18.75% |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure admissions and pathways are inclusive, equitable, and sustainable? | 75% | 25% |
A table summarising views on strengthening contextual admissions and pathways. 81.25% agreed and 6.25% disagreed on the question, “Is the proposed approach to contextual admissions and alternative pathways appropriate to guide future sector-wide action?” 75% agreed and 18.75% disagreed on the question, “Should a consistent framework/ approach for contextual admissions be developed across providers to ensure fairness and clarity for applicants?” 75% agreed and 25% disagreed on the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure admissions and pathways are inclusive, equitable, and sustainable?”
Table 8 - Supporting Retention and Outcomes
| Question | % of Respondents Agree | % of Respondents Disagree |
|---|---|---|
| Is the proposed whole-journey support model appropriate to guide future sector-wide action? | 100% | 0% |
| Do you agree that WP support should be extended to include postgraduate learners? | 68.75% | 18.75% |
| Should support services be extended beyond graduation to assist WP learners during transitions into employment or further study? | 87.5% | 6.25% |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure retention and successful outcomes for WP learners? | 43.75% | 56.25% |
A table showing a breakdown of the percentage of respondents who agreed and disagreed with the proposals around retention and outcomes. 100% agreed and 0% disagreed on the question, “Is the proposed whole-journey support model appropriate to guide future sector-wide action?” 68.75% agreed and 18.75% disagreed on the question, “Do you agree that WP support should be extended to include postgraduate learners?” 87.5% agreed and 6.25% disagreed on the question, “Should support services be extended beyond graduation to assist WP learners during transitions into employment or further study?” 43.75% agreed and 56.25% disagreed on the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure retention and successful outcomes for WP learners?”
Table 9 - Improving Financial Support
| Question | % of Respondents Agree | % of Respondents Disagree |
|---|---|---|
| Is the proposed approach to improving financial support appropriate to guide future sector wide action? | 68.75% | 6.25% |
| Would regional pooling of resources improve consistency and equity in financial support across institutions? | 43.75% | 6.25% |
| Are there additional actions or interventions that should be prioritised to ensure financial support reaches those most in need? | 43.75% | 56.25% |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure financial support is effective, equitable, and sustainable? | 50% | 50% |
A table summarising views on improving financial support. 68.75% agreed and 6.25% disagreed on the question, “Is the proposed approach to improving financial support appropriate to guide future sector wide action?” 43.75% agreed and 6.25% disagreed on the question, “Would regional pooling of resources improve consistency and equity in financial support across institutions?” 43.75% agreed and 56.25% disagreed on the question, “Are there additional actions or interventions that should be prioritised to ensure financial support reaches those most in need?” 50% agreed and 50% disagreed on the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure financial support is effective, equitable, and sustainable?”
Table 10 - Enhancing Data, Accountability and Reporting
| Question | % of Respondents Agree | % of Respondents Disagree |
|---|---|---|
| Do you agree with the proposal to develop a regional WP data plan with common definitions, indicators, and reporting formats? | 100% | 0% |
| Would a regional WP dashboard be a useful tool for monitoring progress and informing decision-making? | 100% | 0% |
| Would you support the introduction of annual WP impact reviews or peer learning mechanisms? | 87.5% | 6.25% |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach to enhancing data, accountability, and reporting that should be addressed to ensure financial support is effective, equitable and sustainable? | 43.75% | 56.25% |
A table summarising views on enhancing data, accountability and reporting. 100% agreed and 0% disagreed on the question, “Do you agree with the proposal to develop a regional WP data plan with common definitions, indicators, and reporting formats?” 100% agreed and 0% disagreed on the question, “Would a regional WP dashboard be a useful tool for monitoring progress and informing decision-making?” 87.5% agreed and 6.25% disagreed on the question, “Would you support the introduction of annual WP impact reviews or peer learning mechanisms?” 43.75% agreed and 56.25% disagreed on the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach to enhancing data, accountability, and reporting that should be addressed to ensure financial support is effective, equitable and sustainable?”
Table 11 - Support and Structures
| Question | % of Respondents Agree | % of Respondents Disagree |
|---|---|---|
| Do you agree with the proposal to formalise and expand the WP Forum as the central cross sector body for oversight and implementation of WP policy and practice? | 100% | 0% |
| Would a WP Data and Insights Hub be a valuable addition to support evidence-based decision-making and benchmarking? | 93.75% | 6.25% |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure effective and consistent support for WP learners? | 31.25% | 68.75% |
A table summarising views on support and structures.100% agreed and 0% disagreed on the question, “Do you agree with the proposal to formalise and expand the WP Forum as the central cross sector body for oversight and implementation of WP policy and practice?” 93.75% agreed and 6.25% disagreed on the question, “Would a WP Data and Insights Hub be a valuable addition to support evidence-based decision-making and benchmarking?” 31.25% agreed and 68.75% disagreed on the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure effective and consistent support for WP learners?”
Tables within the Annex
Table 12 - Vision and Principles
| Question | No of respondents Agree (%) | No of Respondents Disagree (%) | No of Respondents who don’t know (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do you agree with the proposed vision for widening participation? | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Are the proposed principles appropriate and sufficient to guide future action? | 13 (81.29) | 3 (18.75) | 0 (0) |
| Are there additional principles that should be considered? | 9 (56.25) | 7 (43.75) | 0 (0) |
A table summarising views on the vision and principles. On the question, “Do you agree with the proposed vision for widening participation?” 16 respondents agreed (100%), 0 respondents disagreed (0%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%). On the question, “Are the proposed principles appropriate and sufficient to guide future action?” 13 respondents agreed (81.25%), 3 respondents disagreed (18.75%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%). On the question, “Are there additional principles that should be considered?” 9 respondents agreed (56.25%), 7 respondents disagreed (43.75%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%).
Table 13 - System Level Targets
| Question | No of respondents Agree (%) | No of Respondents Disagree (%) | No of Respondents who don’t know (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Would you support the introduction of a national target for underrepresented learners in higher education | 11 (68.75%) | 3 (18.75%) | 2 (12.5%) |
| Would a flexible model of targeting, focused on priority groups and institutional targets, be effective? | 14 (87.25) | 0 (0) | 2 (12.5) |
| Are the principles identified sufficient to guide the development of a region-wide taxonomy of priority groups to ensure relevance and inclusivity? | 15 (93.75) | 1 (6.25) | 0 (0) |
A table summarising views on system level targets. On the question, “Would you support the introduction of a national target for underrepresented learners in higher education” 11 respondents agreed (68.75%), 3 respondents disagreed (18.75%), and 2 respondents did not know (12.5%). On the question, “Would a flexible model of targeting, focused on priority groups and institutional targets, be effective?” 14 respondents agreed (87.5%), 0 respondents disagreed (0%), and 2 respondents did not know (12.5%). On the question, “Are the principles identified sufficient to guide the development of a region-wide taxonomy of priority groups to ensure relevance and inclusivity?” 15 respondents agreed (93.75%), 1 respondent disagreed (6.25%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%).
Table 14 - Refining Target or Priority Groups
| Question | No of respondents Agree (%) | No of Respondents Disagree (%) | No of Respondents who don’t know (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the proposed priority groups appropriate and sufficient to guide future action? | 13 (81.25%) | 2 (12.5%) | 1 (6.25) |
| Would a thematic model better reflect learner realities? | 14 (87.5%) | 0 (0) | 2 (12.5) |
| Are there additional thematic groupings that should be considered? | 9 (56.25%) | 7 (43.75) | 0 (0) |
| Are there too many priority groups for WP activities and financial support to be meaningful within the resources available? | 2 (12.5%) | 9 (56.25) | 5 (31.25) |
| Do you agree that all groupings should be priority groups? | 9 (56.25%) | 5 (31.25) | 2 (12.5) |
| Should any of the groups be prioritised over others? | 5 (31.25%) | 11 (68.75) | 0 (0) |
| Should institutions retain flexibility to support additional groups not formally designated as priorities, such as Travellers, asylum seekers, or refugees? | 14 (87.5%) | 2 (12.5) | 0 (0) |
| Should a formal mechanism be established to regularly review and update priority groups based on emerging data, lived experience, and stakeholder feedback? | 14 (87.5%) | 0 (0) | 1 (6.25) |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that would need to be considered | 10 (62.5%) | 6 (37.5) | 0 (0) |
A table summarising views on refining target or prioity groups. On the question, “Are the proposed priority groups appropriate and sufficient to guide future action?” 13 respondents agreed (81.25%), 2 respondents disagreed (12.5%), and 1 respondent did not know (6.25%). On the question, “Would a thematic model better reflect learner realities?” 14 respondents agreed (87.5%), 0 respondents disagreed (0%), and 2 respondents did not know (12.5%). On the question, “Are there additional thematic groupings that should be considered?” 9 respondents agreed (56.25%), 7 respondents disagreed (43.75%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%). On the question, “Are there too many priority groups for WP activities and financial support to be meaningful within the resources available?” 2 respondents agreed (12.5%), 9 respondents disagreed (56.25%), and 5 respondents did not know (31.25%). On the question, “Do you agree that all groupings should be priority groups?” 9 respondents agreed (56.25%), 5 respondents disagreed (31.25%), and 2 respondents did not know (12.5%). On the question, “Should any of the groups be prioritised over others?” 5 respondents agreed (31.25%), 11 respondents disagreed (68.75%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%). On the question, “Should institutions retain flexibility to support additional groups not formally designated as priorities, such as Travellers, asylum seekers, or refugees?” 14 respondents agreed (87.5%), 2 respondents disagreed (12.5%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%). On the question, “Should a formal mechanism be established to regularly review and update priority groups based on emerging data, lived experience, and stakeholder feedback?” 14 respondents agreed (87.5%), 0 respondents disagreed (0%), and 1 respondent did not know (6.25%). On the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that would need to be considered” 10 respondents agreed (62.5%), 6 respondents disagreed (37.5%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%).
Table 15 - Communications and Outreach
| Question | No of respondents Agree (%) | No of Respondents Disagree | No of Respondents who don’t know |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the proposed purpose of communications and outreach appropriate to guide future sector-wide action? | 14 (87.5) | 0 (0) | 2 (12.5) |
| Would a coordinated sector-wide plan improve consistency and impact across institutions and communities? | 14 (87.5) | 1 (6.25) | 1 (6.25) |
| Would a joint brand or visual identity strengthen recognition and trust in widening participation efforts? | 7 (43.75) | 3 (18.75) | 6 (37.5) |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure outreach is inclusive, locally relevant, and sustainable? | 9 (56.25) | 7 (43.75) | 0 (0) |
A table summarising views on communication and outreach. On the question, “Is the proposed purpose of communications and outreach appropriate to guide future sector-wide action?” 14 respondents agreed (87.5%), 0 respondents disagreed (0%), and 2 respondents did not know (12.5%). On the question, “Would a coordinated sector-wide plan improve consistency and impact across institutions and communities?” 14 respondents agreed (87.5%), 1 respondent disagreed (6.25%), and 1 respondent did not know (6.25%). On the question, “Would a joint brand or visual identity strengthen recognition and trust in widening participation efforts?” 7 respondents agreed (43.75%), 3 respondents disagreed (18.75%), and 6 respondents did not know (37.5%). On the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure outreach is inclusive, locally relevant, and sustainable?” 9 respondents agreed (56.25%), 7 respondents disagreed (43.75%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%).
Table 16 - Strengthening Contextual Admissions and Pathways
| Question | No of respondents Agree (%) | No of Respondents Disagree (%) | No of Respondents who don’t know (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the proposed approach to contextual admissions and alternative pathways appropriate to guide future sector-wide action? | 13 (81.25) | 1 (6.25) | 2 (12.5) |
| Should a consistent framework/ approach for contextual admissions be developed across providers to ensure fairness and clarity for applicants? | 12 (75) | 3 (18.75) | 1 (6.25) |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure admissions and pathways are inclusive, equitable, and sustainable? | 12 (75) | 4 (25) | 0 (0) |
A table summarising views on strengthening contextual admissions and pathways. On the question, “Is the proposed approach to contextual admissions and alternative pathways appropriate to guide future sector-wide action?” 13 respondents agreed (81.25%), 1 respondent disagreed (6.25%), and 2 respondents did not know (12.5%). On the question, “Should a consistent framework/ approach for contextual admissions be developed across providers to ensure fairness and clarity for applicants?” 12 respondents agreed (75%), 3 respondents disagreed (18.75%), and 1 respondent did not know (6.25%). On the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure admissions and pathways are inclusive, equitable, and sustainable?” 12 respondents agreed (75%), 4 respondents disagreed (25%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%).
Table 17 - Supporting Retention and Outcomes
| Question | No of respondents Agree (%) | No of Respondents Disagree (%) | No of Respondents who don’t know (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the proposed whole-journey support model appropriate to guide future sector-wide action? | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Do you agree that WP support should be extended to include postgraduate learners? | 11 (68.75) | 3 (18.75) | 2 (12.5) |
| Should support services be extended beyond graduation to assist WP learners during transitions into employment or further study? | 14 (87.5) | 1 (6.25) | 1 (6.25) |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure retention and successful outcomes for WP learners? | 7 (43.75) | 9 (56.25) | 0 (0) |
A table summarising views supporting retention and outcomes. On the question, “Is the proposed whole-journey support model appropriate to guide future sector-wide action?” 16 respondents agreed (100%), 0 respondents disagreed (0%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%). On the question, “Do you agree that WP support should be extended to include postgraduate learners?” 11 respondents agreed (68.75%), 3 respondents disagreed (18.75%), and 2 respondents did not know (12.5%). On the question, “Should support services be extended beyond graduation to assist WP learners during transitions into employment or further study?” 14 respondents agreed (87.5%), 1 respondent disagreed (6.25%), and 1 respondent did not know (6.25%). On the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure retention and successful outcomes for WP learners?” 7 respondents agreed (43.75%), 9 respondents disagreed (56.25%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%).
Table 18 - Improving Financial Support
| Question | No of respondents Agree (%) | No of Respondents Disagree (%) | No of Respondents who don’t know (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the proposed approach to improving financial support appropriate to guide future sector wide action? | 11 (68.75) | 1 (6.25) | 4 (25) |
| Would regional pooling of resources improve consistency and equity in financial support across institutions? | 7 (43.75) | 1 (6.25) | 8 (50) |
| Are there additional actions or interventions that should be prioritised to ensure financial support reaches those most in need? | 7 (43.75) | 9 (56.25) | 0 (0) |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure financial support is effective, equitable, and sustainable? | 8 (50) | 8 (50) | 0 (0) |
A table summarising views improving financial support.On the question, “Is the proposed approach to improving financial support appropriate to guide future sector wide action?” 11 respondents agreed (68.75%), 1 respondent disagreed (6.25%), and 4 respondents did not know (25%). On the question, “Would regional pooling of resources improve consistency and equity in financial support across institutions?” 7 respondents agreed (43.75%), 1 respondent disagreed (6.25%), and 8 respondents did not know (50%). On the question, “Are there additional actions or interventions that should be prioritised to ensure financial support reaches those most in need?” 7 respondents agreed (43.75%), 9 respondents disagreed (56.25%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%). On the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure financial support is effective, equitable, and sustainable?” 8 respondents agreed (50%), 8 respondents disagreed (50%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%).
Table 19 - Enhancing Data, Accountability and Reporting
| Question | No of respondents Agree (%) | No of Respondents Disagree (%) | No of Respondents who don’t know (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do you agree with the proposal to develop a regional WP data plan with common definitions, indicators, and reporting formats? | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Would a regional WP dashboard be a useful tool for monitoring progress and informing decision-making? | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Would you support the introduction of annual WP impact reviews or peer learning mechanisms? | 14 (87.5) | 1 (6.25) | 1 (6.25) |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach to enhancing data, accountability, and reporting that should be addressed to ensure financial support is effective, equitable and sustainable? | 7 (43.75) | 9 (56.25) | 0 (0) |
A table summarising views enhancing data, accountability and reporting. On the question, “Do you agree with the proposal to develop a regional WP data plan with common definitions, indicators, and reporting formats?” 16 respondents agreed (100%), 0 respondents disagreed (0%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%). On the question, “Would a regional WP dashboard be a useful tool for monitoring progress and informing decision-making?” 16 respondents agreed (100%), 0 respondents disagreed (0%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%). On the question, “Would you support the introduction of annual WP impact reviews or peer learning mechanisms?” 14 respondents agreed (87.5%), 1 respondent disagreed (6.25%), and 1 respondent did not know (6.25%). On the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach to enhancing data, accountability, and reporting that should be addressed to ensure financial support is effective, equitable and sustainable?” 7 respondents agreed (43.75%), 9 respondents disagreed (56.25%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%).
Table 20 - Support and Structures
| Question | No of respondents Agree (%) | No of Respondents Disagree (%) | No of Respondents who don’t know (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do you agree with the proposal to formalise and expand the WP Forum as the central cross sector body for oversight and implementation of WP policy and practice? | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Would a WP Data and Insights Hub be a valuable addition to support evidence-based decision-making and benchmarking? | 15 (93.75) | 1 (6.25) | 0 (0) |
| Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure effective and consistent support for WP learners? | 5 (31.25) | 11 (68.75) | 0 (0) |
A table summarising views on support and structures. On the question, “Do you agree with the proposal to formalise and expand the WP Forum as the central cross sector body for oversight and implementation of WP policy and practice?” 16 respondents agreed (100%), 0 respondents disagreed (0%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%). On the question, “Would a WP Data and Insights Hub be a valuable addition to support evidence-based decision-making and benchmarking?” 15 respondents agreed (93.75%), 1 respondent disagreed (6.25%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%). On the question, “Are there any gaps in the proposed approach that should be addressed to ensure effective and consistent support for WP learners?” 5 respondents agreed (31.25%), 11 respon dents disagreed (68.75%), and 0 respondents did not know (0%).