Unfair contextualisation for uni entry

[helparoundthehouse]

I'm absolutely supportive of the efforts to widen access e.g. considering applicants being the first in the family to university, receipt of free school meals, and CERTAIN contextualisation of attainment.

BUT, I don't agree with the contextualisation where a student is judged against the cohort & their school's GCSE/A-level results when that school is selective.

E.g. 'strong but not as strong as peers' applicant, who attended a highly selective school at GCSE, might have a contextualised GCSE of zero or even below/minus even if they have all 8s/9s!

I get that highly selective schools MAY provide superior teaching but, frankly, in a lot of cases - whether grammar or indie - the results are more likely a result of the school being selective in the first place.

So AIBU to think that this type of contextualisation is not helpful and, in fact, rather unfair.

But it is helpful for those who go to underperforming schools.

How many unis offer that though? Some universities don't even consider students with disabilities as meeting their criteria for widening participation - it often seems like a random selection of things each uni takes into account.

It’s up to the university, and right now top universities are stuffed with mediocre private school kids and those from wealthy backgrounds… something needs to be done to give other deserving students more opportunities.

Whoops sorry, your point that the good results come from the schools being selective is kind of the reason why. Those children who get into selective school must have parents who care/can afford to care about their education. They are advantaged in that way. if a child gets all 8s and 9s but has been tutored their whole life, have encouraging parents who themselves went to uni, go to a supportive and experienced school with the majority of the cohort gets such grades , its not as impressive than those from disadvantaged backgrounds where parents and teachers only want them to pass and the majority fail

I completely support efforts to widen access, so long as it doesn't affect my child's prospects.

If you think that the school is making no difference to a child's results, why would you send your child to a selective school (with all the resulting stress around having to prepare for the selection process) in the first place?

If you do think the school/peer group makes a difference, then it's right this is recognised.

Of course the selectiveness makes a difference. You're surrounded by children for 5 years whose parents value education.

This policy isn't unfair. It helps widen participation.

It seems a pretty scientific way to do it, actually

Of course it's fair. It's a scoring system, based on attainment of previous cohorts, which accounts for the obvious fact that a student getting 8's and 9's from a selective school is not as impressive as one getting the same results at a non-selective, or failing, school.

And it's not about superior teaching (believe me, I've witnessed the full spectrum of teaching quality across all educational sectors), it's about the fact that any child who gets a place at a selective school is more likely to come from a privileged and supportive environment, with all the advantages that entails.

Being at a selective school carries a huge number of advantages when it comes to university applications. I find it hard to understand why any contextualisation would be given based on position in a cohort within a highly academically successful or selective school.

YABVU.

You're being really unreasonable. Of course it's a fair policy.

The attainment gap remains stubbornly high despite any “attempts” to fix it. The Widening Access scheme puts students from impoverished backgrounds on the same footing as those who don’t face the same barriers. It is far easier to gain university entry level grades if you are from a comfortable family who support your goals. Not all children living in poverty will suffer, just as not all those who aren’t, won’t, but statistically those children will face barriers even after they graduate so giving them the same opportunities makes the system more equitable.

It isn’t random, the criteria are set centrally using metrics from reputable sources.

If your child isn’t from a poorer home and makes the grade, it’s because they have been given the opportunity to do so, and they will get the place. Children who have been hampered on getting grades because of their circumstances is given credit for that. Anyone who has a problem with it should check their privilege.

Equally, lots of middle class parents I know locally have chosen an excellent comp - but as not selective, very wide range of abilities - and have tutored. They get contextualised even though they have have parents who are doctors, lawyers, and tutored. Tutoring is probably more common in state school than in private tbh!

Really? I'd love to see the stats or sources for this. Genuinely interested...

Because a child who has space and quiet to study at home, with parents who support them, will find it easier than a child who lives in a crowded noisy home who’s parents can’t support them and they end up having to care for siblings, have a job etc.

So you support wider access to uni as long as it doesn’t affect your child 🤔

Wider access by definition means that some mediocre or borderline person will lose out. Even the most selective school can’t guarantee that everyone gets 8s and 9a.

I bet that your GCSE grade 8/9 child will be fine. You got them an advantage and they performed as expected for the school which is great. It is fair that people who worked harder in more difficult circumstances get the recognition that they deserve. You chose your child’s school and the advantages that it brings so don’t pretend that they are disadvantaged because there are kids in comps who worked harder. 🤷‍♀️

I think it should be based on family income, parents' education and occupation - and the school cohort only if the school has failed to send significant numbers to university.

There are plenty of very good comprehensives where the wealthy, middle class parents who are lawyers, doctors even teachers - that's an advantage if ever was one - choose to send their kids who then end up in the top set, but these kids STILL get contextualised.

It just seems such a blunt tool and doesn't seem to at all ensure the most worthy are contextualised. As @BoredZelda mentions, the current contextualisation and current programmes don't seem to have made a difference.

I have no issue with contextual offers, but there has to be a way of really talented students still being identified and selected and I’m not convinced we have that.

For instance, I live in Scotland. Universities have quotas for the number of children from deprived backgrounds that they have to take. Deprivation is seen as coming from the 20% poorest postcode areas. Theee areas are quite big so if a postcode covers a remotely mixed area you aren’t classified as deprived. So you could live in a shed with no running water, but if Balmoral is in your catchment area you aren’t classified stuffed. And some universities had a policy of filling up courses with those from those 20% most deprived areas who had the contextual grades first, only letting others in if there was space. This led to applications from 80% of Scottish kids being binned regardless of quality just because they weren’t seen as poor enough. This is not treating our children fairly at all.

Universities individually decide these criteria. In my experience, there isn't very much advantage in the widening access offers that are made. They may drop a grade requirement or sometimes if there were two equal candidates, they might be more likely to offer the place to the child with a less privileged profile. That can be a child who's been in care or any other criteria that they specify.

As I say, I do support some contextualisation where it makes sense.

Parental income and occupation would in my mind be the best ones. And whether they went to uni or not (and in fact, maybe go as far back as grandparents - the advantage of cultural capital not found only in private/grammar schools!).

I do think that some children in e.g. grammar come from very poor backgrounds and these are precisely the ones who are disadvantaged if they're at a super selective.

My child is doing very well, we're very happy but I don't actually only post on MN from my own perspective; I have a huge interest in education more broadly.

There are plenty of very good comprehensives where the wealthy, middle class parents who are lawyers, doctors even teachers - that's an advantage if ever was one - choose to send their kids who then end up in the top set, but these kids STILL get contextualised.

Can you name one such school? My dc attended a school that fits that description - I'm fairly certain they didn't get contextualised offers.

It sounds like you're annoyed because widening participation is reducing the advantage your child has. That's pretty pathetic of you.

Did you actually read what I wrote.

A student in the circumstances you describe would probably be eligible for a contextual offer based on other factors - such as having caring responsibilities or living in a postcode with a high level of deprivation. Nothing about being in a selective school in and of itself should make a student eligible fora contextual offer..

Surely “excellent comp” students don’t get contextual offers?

As I say, I'm very happy with my kids - I don't only write or have issues in relation to the context of my own kids. I have a wider interest in this topic.

Well, Bristol e.g. has a list of 100s, if not 1000s of schools - when I looked it seemed like pretty all of the schools locally - where students have received contextualised offers even though their parents are wealthy, middle class and these being in leafy suburbs. So yes, there are such examples!