This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Universities urged to lower entry grades for comprehensive school pupils
Universities urged to lower entry grades for comprehensive school pupils
(about 7 hours later)
Pupils from comprehensive and poorly performing schools should receive lower entry grades to universities than those from grammar and private schools to recognise their greater academic potential and success rates, research published by the Department for Education has recommended.
Comprehensive school pupils should be allowed into universities on the back of lower GCSE and A-level grades than students from grammars and fee-paying private schools, according to new research.
The study tosses a firecracker into the noisy debate about university admissions and equality by finding that the bulk of university access campaigns appear to be misdirected, and that more effort could instead be put into improving GCSE results and subject choices to widen participation.
A study commissioned by the Department for Education concludes that students from comprehensives with equivalent GCSE and A-level grades outperformed their more expensively educated peers at university.
The research found that when pupils from different schools – including selective state schools, such as grammars, and independent schools – were compared on a like-for-like basis by their GCSE and A-level results, students from comprehensives and similar non-selective state schools outperformed their more expensively educated peers and were more likely to gain top results and complete their degrees, as well as being less likely to drop out.
Claire Crawford of Warwick University and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the author of the report, said: "If you have in front of you a student from a state school and one from a private school with the same A-level grades, on average – and I should emphasise it is on average – it does appear that the student from the state school background or less effective school will go on to do better given the grades that they are entering with."
Claire Crawford of Warwick University and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the author of the report commissioned by the DfE, said: "If you have in front you a student from a state school and one from a private school with the same A-level grades, on average – and I should emphasise it is on average – it does appear that the student from the state school background or less effective school will go on to do better given the grades that they are entering with."
An independent school-educated student was 10% less likely to get a first or a 2:1 degree than a student educated at a comprehensive when they had the same A-level results and were studying the same subject at similar universities.
The study confirms previous research conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). That study found that pupils from non-selective state schools outperformed their independent-school peers with the same A-level grades at university. It used a far wider data set, including primary school Key Stage Two results, and found that GCSE grades were as good an indicator of future academic performance as A levels.
Crawford's research suggested that Oxford, Cambridge and other universities "may wish to consider lowering their entry requirements for pupils from non-selective or low-value-added state schools". But she was careful not to propose any specific difference in grade requirements.
The DfE report, published on Friday, said: "When we compare pupils with the same background characteristics … pupils from independent and selective state schools, those from state schools with a low proportion of free school meal-eligible pupils and those from high-value-added state schools are now significantly more likely to drop out, significantly less likely to complete their degree and significantly less likely to graduate with a first or a 2:1 than their counterparts in non-selective state schools, state schools with a high proportion of FSM-eligible pupils and low-value-added state schools respectively."
Traditionally, Russell Group universities, such as Cambridge and Manchester, have insisted that A-level grade offers should remain the same for all applicants, regardless of school background.
It argues: "Amongst pupils with a given set of characteristics and prior attainment, those from non-selective or low-value-added state schools could be regarded as having higher 'potential' than those from selective or high-value-added state schools or independent schools.
Crawford added that the fact that "there are these systematic differences" in student performance means that "one thing that could be done is for universities to recognise that in the offers they are making to students… I'm definitely not saying everybody should do it, universities need to make their own decisions."
"While we cannot point to specific changes that should be made to the entry offers of particular universities, these results provide suggestive evidence that universities may wish to consider lowering their entry requirements for pupils from non-selective or low-value-added state schools (relative to pupils from selective or high-value-added state schools, or independent schools) in order to equalise the potential of students being admitted from these different types of school."
The research also found that comprehensive pupils with equivalent grades were less likely to drop out, failing to complete their degrees.
Crawford said: "If we look at pupils with the same grades, how well do they then go on to perform? And the fact that there are these systematic differences tells us that perhaps that pupils at less effective schools are under-performing relative to their potential or ability.
Crawford's study comes after research by the Higher Education Funding Council for England found that pupils from non-selective state schools outperformed their independent-school peers with the same A-level grades at university. It used a wider data set from the national pupil database of students who sat GCSEs between 2001 and 2008 and then followed their university career.
"It's never going to be that all schools are perfect and getting the maximum of their pupils. In the absence of that, one thing that could be done is for universities to recognise that in the offers they are making to students.
The study also finds that the bulk of university access campaigns, aimed at boosting the comprehensive school intake into some of Britain's best universities, - appear to be misdirected, and that more effort could instead be put into improving GCSE results and subject choices to widen participation.
"This report isn't saying that universities should do that. It's just saying there are these systematic differences, and this could be a reason why you might want to do it. I'm definitely not saying everybody should do it, universities need to make their own decisions."
University access programmes have often concentrated on outreach to state schools to encourage pupils to apply – but universities belonging to the Russell Group, such as Cambridge and Manchester, have insisted that A-level grade offers should remain the same for all applicants regardless of school background.
The report's authors said it should be "of particular concern to policymakers interested in widening participation in higher education" if pupils from certain backgrounds were less likely to go to top universities, especially if those same students "outperform those from elsewhere once they are at university, even after accounting for their qualifications, subjects and grades on entry".
This "might provide an indication of the types of characteristics that universities may want to consider taking into account when making offers to prospective students", it concluded.
The report notes that good GCSE grades "in highly regarded subjects and qualifications at Key Stage 4 are not only associated with a higher probability of staying in education beyond the age of 16 and doing well at Key Stage 5, but we find that they also continue to be significantly associated with higher education participation decisions and university outcomes even after accounting for subsequent measures of attainment".
University access schemes "targeted at students beyond the end of compulsory education are unlikely to be able to eliminate the differences in [higher education] participation that we observe between pupils from different types of schools", it says.
University access schemes "targeted at students beyond the end of compulsory education are unlikely to be able to eliminate the differences in [higher education] participation that we observe between pupils from different types of schools", it says.
HEFCE and the Office for Fair Access (Offa) – the government access watchdog – have previously said that universities can decide to use greater flexibility into their admissions policies.
"This valuable research confirms the importance of students getting good advice on their subject choices at school," said James Turner, director of programmes at the Sutton Trust, which campaigns on the need to widen university participation.
"All highly selective universities should consider whether they could make better use of contextual information in their admissions process and critically examine their entry requirements, polices and processes to ensure that they are not unduly disadvantaging certain groups of students who have the potential to succeed on their programmes," Offa and HEFCE said.
"It also shows there is an 'achievement against the odds' effect – students getting to university in spite of attending a poorer school are more likely to do well once they get there."
One of the report's eye-catching findings is that an independent school-educated student was 10% less likely to get a first or a 2:1 degree than a student educated at a comprehensive when they had the same A-level results and were studying the same subject at similar universities.
Dr Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group said: "Candidates' academic success is already considered in a broader context, and admissions tutors are skilled at assessing applicants individually and holistically to identify real talent and potential. The bottom line is we want to give places to the pupils with the qualifications, potential and determination to succeed.
The data for the study came from the national pupil database for pupils taking GCSE exams between 2001 and 2008, and followed them through their university career.
"Admission to university is and should be based on merit, and any decisions about admissions must also maintain high academic standards."
In the report Crawford concluded it should be "of particular concern to policymakers interested in widening participation in higher education" if pupils from certain backgrounds were less likely to go to top universities, especially if those same students "outperform those from elsewhere once they are at university, even after accounting for their qualifications, subjects and grades on entry".
