The Independent Schools Council is a politically independent, not-for-profit organisation representing 1,270 independent schools educating more than 500,000 children. It exists to promote choice, diversity and excellence in education, developing talent at all levels of ability and from all backgrounds.

Select Search Area: Enter Search Keywords:

Opening up higher education

10 April 2003

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to advance the debate on extending access to higher education in a way that is fair to everyone, including independent school candidates, and to provide an agenda for discussions with Government, HEFCE, UCAS, UUK and individual higher education institutions. It suggests ways in which the Government's aim of widening access to universities - which we support - can be pursued, while addressing the genuine concerns of schools and colleges.

Context
The independent sector's interest in the process of university admission is of long standing and of proportionately greater importance than is implied by reference to the oft-quoted seven per cent of the nation's pupils educated in independent schools.

The high staying-on rate ensures that nearly 20 per cent of all school sixth formers are in independent schools.

At A Level in 2001, more than 15 per cent of ALL candidates and 36 per cent of those achieving the equivalent of three A grades were from independent schools.

Between 40 and 50 per cent of the school candidates gaining A grades in ‘difficult' A-levels (maths, the sciences, modern languages, economics and history) came from independent schools.

More than 90 per cent of leavers from schools belonging to associations within the Independent Schools Council (ISC) go on to higher education.

About 20 per cent of university candidates from independent schools were the children of non-graduate parents who were not themselves educated in independent schools.

A survey of members carried out by GSA and HMC in summer 2002 highlighted concerns about high rates of rejection without interview by a small number of departments in a handful of universities. A follow-up survey in early 2003 singled out Bristol University as a particular source of anxiety. While objective evidence of actual discrimination by university admissions tutors against independent school candidates is very small, concern about inconsistencies in admissions procedures remain and extend beyond the independent sector. In the autumn of 2002, HMC and GSA were joined by the Secondary Heads Association (SHA) in issuing a statement which said:

"The associations believe that the criteria for university admissions should be more transparent. Too many students apply for university courses without a clear knowledge of the criteria by which their applications will be judged......We support unreservedly the efforts made by many universities to encourage more applications from students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. We believe that, if there is to be any additional funding, it should be concentrated on encouraging and developing this outreach work."

This paper aims to build on this consensus by setting out objectives and concrete proposals for improving the current system. It does so against the background of the government's proposals for an Office for Fair Access (OFFA).

Objectives

1. To clarify the roles and responsibilities of Government, OFFA, HEFCE and UCAS in relation to higher education admissions.

2.To make admissions procedures more open, transparent and fair.

3.To widen access for groups currently under-represented in higher education in the UK.

4.To help universities find objective and effective means of selecting candidates who can benefit from higher education, without undermining National Qualifications and without adding to the overall examination/assessment burden.

5.To make the admissions process more accessible, efficient and cost-effective.

6.To improve the research and evidence base upon which policy proposals are made.

Proposals

1.Roles and responsibilities
The HE White Paper makes it clear that nine out of ten people with two or more A levels go on to HE by the time they are 21 and that students from lower socio-economic groups who do achieve good A levels are just as likely to go on to university as young people from better off backgrounds. It is imperative that Government concentrates on improving teaching and learning in schools and colleges from the earliest ages in order that students from all backgrounds are able to fulfil their potential to meet university admissions requirements.

Universities should be free to operate their admissions procedures within the broad framework established by Government. HEFCE should confine itself to funding issues and UCAS to processing applications. The Government's proposals for OFFA are welcome insofar as they leave universities in control of their own admissions but we believe it could have a valuable additional function, not just in supporting universities in achieving open and transparent admissions procedures but in the application of those procedures in individual cases

The primary role of any authority concerned with access should be to ensure that universities have fair and transparent procedures which are applied consistently.

OFFA's other main role should be to act as an ombudsman to hear admissions appeals once those fair and transparent procedures have been established. (See 2, below)

2. Transparency and fairness
Much of the recently voiced public concern can be traced back directly to the absence of clear, transparent and objective admissions criteria, applied consistently to all candidates. Confidence will be fully restored only if this is addressed.

All universities should publish in full the criteria upon which they select applicants for each course, including minimum requirements for entry and any additional criteria taken into account.

Universities should be encouraged to establish a procedure whereby a clear ‘audit trail' of an individual's application can be verified.

There should be a national system for independent observers from schools and colleges to observe and monitor admissions procedures, reporting to OFFA in its access ombudsman role if they have concerns.

3. Widening access
We reiterate our support for the Government's objective of widening access to individuals from groups traditionally under-represented who would benefit from higher education. We believe that the schools and colleges, including the independent sector, have a key role in helping to achieve this objective.

The effectiveness of additional funding earmarked for outreach activities, designed to increase applications from currently under-represented groups, should be measured by the increase in applications across the HE sector as a whole, rather than individual institutions.

Funding should be targeted to encourage regional collaboration between universities and schools and colleges.

More use should be made of evidence from school's own assessments to assist in the early identification of potential to benefit from higher education.

More use might be made of the experience of independent schools in balancing achievement and potential in the selection process.

4. Selection
We acknowledge that universities have a very difficult task in discriminating between equally well-qualified candidates for high-demand courses. But we do not believe there is evidence or justification for the making of differential offers to candidates merely on the grounds of average school performance based on raw examination results. Moreover, we continue to believe the universities should make more use of the interview as a selection tool. Schools and colleges would resist anything which adds to the overall assessment burden.

Serious consideration should be given to developing simple and objective means for universities to assess students' attitude, application and wider key skills as an important complement to National Qualifications, the personal statement and references.

Universities should be free to expand popular and successful courses to meet the demands of suitably qualified students.

Information about a student's background (social class, schooling, parental education and income) should not be available to those making the selection but should be recorded separately for national monitoring.

Universities should consider moving to fully professional admissions staff to reduce concerns over departmental inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies.

University staff should be encouraged to have a greater involvement in the setting and marking of national examinations.

5. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness
We recognise the need to have a cost-effective admissions process and higher education system. Too much time and effort is wasted in a pre-results system; this can never be an exact science and is particularly haphazard in the arts and humanities. Although UK drop-out rates are at present the lowest in Europe, this could be endangered by higher participation unless better pastoral support is available in HE institutions.

A system of post-qualifications application and admission (PQA) should be introduced as soon as possible with entry to university for first year undergraduates being moved to January. This would require a realignment of the university year but could be achieved by the introduction of a two-semester year eg: February - May and September - December.

Under this system, A Level examinations could start at least a week later and this would enable busy teachers to mark during the first weeks of the summer break. There would be more time for teaching and learning in Year 13.

Applications to university would be made during September and October once exam results and appeal outcomes were known. (Mechanisms for supporting students who have left school will need to be considered).

The six month gap would provide opportunities for mentoring, work placements, teaching taster experiences, developing citizenship skills and HE bridging courses.

Education maintenance allowances should continue during this period for those students eligible to receive them.

Under a post-qualifications system, the number of choices a student can make could be reduced.

Universities should examine their pastoral care arrangements to ensure adequate support for students at risk. It is essential that any central government funding to support retention and combat drop-out should be additional, ring fenced funding. It should not be diverted from core funding needed to support teaching and learning.

6. Research and evidence
The Government says it is committed to evidence-based policy making. Such evidence as exists in this area is limited, outdated, inconclusive and contested.

With the introduction of Curriculum 2000, it is essential that new research is carried out to assess the predictive validity of National Qualifications as indicators of degree outcomes.

There should be an independent review of the research literature on US Scholastic Aptitude Tests to identify the extent to which they are culturally biased and the effect of coaching on test scores.

Conclusion
Consistently over the past 150 years, independent schools have sought to widen opportunities and expand their educational provision for all social classes. This was the main thrust of the broader creation of public schools in the 1830s, of the Direct Grant Scheme, of the Assisted Places Scheme, of the initiatives currently being undertaken with the support of the Sutton and Ogden Trusts, and the motivation behind increases in the funds allocated by schools themselves to means-tested bursaries. Historically, reforming governments, independent schools and universities have been trying to do exactly the same thing: to widen access and opportunity, without compromising standards. We believe the measures outlined in this paper, if implemented, would do much to increase public understanding of the admissions process and confidence in the higher education system.