In recent decades, the democratisation of education and the social justice agenda in many countries have led to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) expanding, giving rise to an increasingly diverse student population (Hornsby and Osman, 2014, and Mok and Neubauer, 2016). The growth and diversification in the student population associated with such massification presents a tremendous challenge to the traditional ideal of universities as centres of elite education to which only a select few gain access (Marandet and Wainwright, 2010). This impacts the composition, character and aspirations of student populations and sees institutions welcoming significant numbers of students who differ markedly from the traditional 18-year-old undergraduate. 

In response to this, and in efforts to ensure inclusivity HEIs have begun to systematically gather, analyse and monitor data relating to key characteristics such as gender, age, disability, religion, and ethnicity.  Yet, whilst there has been a shift away from the one-dimensional perspective of the student towards a range of possibilities, students with parental responsibilities (Student-Parents) are notably absent from this data.  It was recommended by the NUS (2009) that data be routinely gathered by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) on the parental status of students over a decade ago yet this does not happen, meaning Student-Parents are in many respects invisible. To this end, resources cannot be accurately or equitably allocated, and the trials or triumphs of Student-Parents cannot be quantified. Furthermore, there are no requirements for systems of data collection that capture why students leave their studies. As experienced educators both researchers are aware, anecdotally, of a large proportion of mothers ‘encouraged’ to leave (post-compulsory) education while pregnant or ‘discouraged’ to stay following birth together with many who find the financial struggles and childcare juggling unbearable.

Student-Parents are often grouped into the category of ‘mature students’, despite their needs differing significantly from those who do not have parental or caring responsibilities (Murtagh, 2017).  The NUS (2009) highlighted student-parents are over-represented in the most disadvantaged groups, however, as Moreau and Kerner (2015, 218) observe, not all student-parents are mature students, and not all mature students are parents. They are not a homogenous group, what is said by and about Student-Parents matters, discourses inform responses. They include young parents, older parents, single or partnered parents. Some may also be employed in addition to studying. As such, whilst the Student-Parent population faces some similar challenges to the traditional student in university, their situation is complicated by the additional demands of employment together with parenthood, on top of the challenge of managing studies premised on an educational system designed for traditional students (Van Rhijn, Quosai and Lero 2011). And, Estes (2011) highlighted when the roles of parent and student are paired the value attached to both identities diminish.

Whilst Student-Parents are seemingly hidden in the data, research regarding their experience is also somewhat limited. We suggest the absence of empirical evidence and qualitative accounts from Student-Parents leads to both institutional and theoretical ‘blindness’ about how educational opportunities are enacted. 

Analysis of British Birth Cohort Studies consistently highlights the positive impact of parental education (Douglas,1964; Feinstein, 2003; Fogelman,1983; Marmot, 2010) while research in the USA proposed it brought increased access to human, cultural, and social capital (Harding et.al., 2015). Indeed, the Millennium Development Goals and UN Sustainability Goals (UN, 2015) both point to how protective the education of parents, especially mothers, is against poverty, ill-health and poor outcomes.

This researchris a case study of how one university identifies and supports Student-Parents from multiple perspectives.  This paper is of importance not only to the institution in which the study was conducted, but other HEIs and policy makers.

The research in the UK that already exists suggests that student-parents (and student mothers in particular) face unique challenges in the higher education environment due to managing competing demands. This research project had three key strategic aims to enhance and improve their student experience: • seeking to have a better knowledge of our student body, • accessing student voice about matters that affect them • reviewing and developing services for particular groups of students who are parenting This paper presents the findings of a case study (Bassey, 1999) of a university’s approach to supporting Student-Parents. We wanted to investigate how students with parental responsibilities navigate their university studies within the confines of societal expectations of parenting, and how they navigate and develop a sense of self within the institution . We sought insights into the particular enablers or barriers and consideration was not limited to policies and practices in place within the university but included appreciation of social, economic and cultural factors that influence students’ ability to engage with their studies. This paper reports on data gathered from analysis of institutional data to better understand the ‘make-up’ of the student body within one school in one university in the North of England. Much of the narrative will be about the challenge of locating data, prior to any subsequent analysis thereof. Following this an online survey was conducted with Student-Parents, taking advantage of computerised processes meant participation was easily accessible for busy learners and responses could be tabulated and analysed (Evans and Mathur, 2005) ensuring the unpicking of largescale data in a manageable way to gauge a broad view of student experiences quickly. Researchers complimented this data by offering participants the opportunity to elect to be interviewed about their experiences. This supported the researchers to comprehend the subjective views of students and consider the intricacies of their experiences. Members of staff were then also interviewed about their perspectives regarding identifying and supporting Student-Parents. The data generated from both were utilised these to inform potential organisational shifts. Acknowledging the subjective yet authentic voice of all participants was crucial to evaluate current systems and ensure that responses were reflective of student needs and the external pressures both groups of participants faced. Analysis of the data was undertaken through adopting a practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis (Srivastava and Hopwood, 2009).

Insights offered from a preliminary analysis of the data demonstrate that statistics, both at national and institutional level do not fully capture the make-up of our student body, and what information is held is not used in any seemingly systematic way to directly impact the experience of a particular student group. Neoliberalism places great emphasis on the hard work of the individual but a critical appreciation of the political and economic demands, social and individual needs of this distinct group of learners furthered understanding of the complexity of managing both roles. In common with what Lyonette et.al, (2015) found, policies continue to fail to fully address the needs of students with parental/caring responsibilities. Once identified, understanding of their needs within individual educational settings, and particular localities is required, for it is only they who can speak of the experiences, needs and issues of this ‘hidden’ student group. Until this distinct group of students is ‘quantified’ nationally and locally, and their needs ‘qualified’ resources cannot be equitably allocated. As an invisible and diverse group the lack of collective voice is apparent, and their exclusion from decision making processes very real. When policy and practice responses are designed without a range of diverse stories academic success, and retention levels will be vulnerable. Molyneux (2020) highlights a notable lack of collective ‘lobby’ of the diverse concerns of young people and Brearley (2021) suggests are the missing stories of the wonderful, diverse mothers of the UK – lack of understanding of such stories in UK social policy results in a one ‘type’ of response with the unintended consequence of new types of inequalities. As such, this paper has implications for the wider HEI community.

Bassey, M. (1999), Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Douglas, J. W. B., (1964) The Home and the School. London: MacGibbon and Kee. Estes, D.K. (2011), Managing the Student-Parent Dilemma: Mothers and Fathers in Higher Education, Symbolic Interaction, 34, 198-219 Evans, J.R. and Mathur, A. (2005), "The value of online surveys", Internet Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 20 21 195-219 Feinstein, L., (2003) Inequality in Early Cognitive Development of British Children in the 1970 Cohort. Economica. 70. 73-97. Fogelman, K. R., (1983) Growing up in Great Britain. London: Macmillan. Harding, J.F., Morris, P.A. and Hughes, D. (2015), The Relationship Between Maternal Education and Children's Academic Outcomes: A Theoretical Framework. Fam Relat, 77: 60-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12156 Hornsby, D. J. and Osman, R. (2014), Massification in higher education: large classes and student learning, Higher Education, 67, 711–719 Marandet, E. and Wainwright, E. (2010), Invisible experiences: Understanding the choices and needs of university students with dependent children, British Educational Research Journal, 36(5), 787-805. Marmot, M. Allen, J. Goldblatt, P. (2010). Fair society, healthy lives: strategic review of health inequalities in England post 2010. London: Marmot Review Team. Mok, K. H. and Neubauer, D. (2016), Higher education governance in crisis: a critical reflection on the massification of higher education, graduate employment and social mobility, Journal of Education and Work, 29(1), 1-12 Molyneux, M. (2020). Adolescence: policy opportunities and challenges. Available at: https://www.unicef-irc.org/article/1955-how-social-protection-can-work-better-for-adolescents.html Moreau, M. and Kerner, C. (2012), Supporting Student Parents in Higher Education: A policy analysis. Final Report. University of Bedfordshire: Nuffield. Murtagh, L., (2017), Invisible perceptions: understanding the perceptions of university tutors towards trainee teachers with parental responsibilities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(4), pp.383-398. NUS. (2009). Meet the Parents. Available at : https://nusdigital.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document/documents/60223/8bcb5ad47fe69c523d8b6b1714c6cffb/Meet_the_Parents_report.pdf . Srivastava, P., and Hopwood, N. (2009), A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8(1), 76-84. UN (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: UN Publishing. Van Rhijn, T. M., Quosai, T. S., and Lero, D. S. (2011), A profile of undergraduate student parents in Canada, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 41(3), 59.