Contextualisation - are we missing a trick?

[devilsadvocate77]

I do believe it is a good thing to have a system which allows students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a chance to gain a foothold on the educational ladder.

However, I was quite surprised to find out that some unis have a list where virtually all state schools (non-grammar) are included for contextualisation. Many of these schools I know for a fact are in leafy suburbs where the top sets are frequently kids who could have gone to grammar, super selective or private schools (wealthy parents).

Some of these schools, admittedly, have a wide range of abilities in their student pool. But to use the measure of how you compare with the rest of your school year cohort seems odd.

So if you are at a super selective grammar (or selective indie) and 'only' achieve 8/9s - as opposed to all 9s - you are downgraded as you have performed lower than your year/school cohort. But it seems unfair as these kids are all able and virtue of them having been selected on ability in the first place!! Why should the grammar lot not be considered for contextualisation?

You could argue that the top set in a leafy area comp will get more attention and good teaching than those in grammar who are expected to 'get on with it' to an extent.

Should add that some of these comps are very happy to provide very high UCAS predictions (not based on current level of working) as opposed to many grammar and high achieving independent schools who seek to provide very accurate predictions.

Would also be interested to know what contextualisation looks like in other countries when it comes to applying to uni?

It’s definitely an imperfect system. I know of a state grammar educated kid that got a very advantageous contextual offer from a top
uni even though he lives in a massive 5 bed house. Because it’s not in a great postcode.

Sorry OP but what "trick" do you think we/you are missing here? I don't understand the point you are making. It seems like each university has very different criteria for their contextual offers. With some they look at a number of different factors, not just the school you attended.

I was amazed to find out that a very sought after university (asking for A* A* A for the subject my son wants to study) offers a contextual offer (so A A B I assume) to ALL students at my son's sixth form college. We triple checked this fact on the Open Day as we couldn't quite believe it. We live in a "naice" town, not remotely deprived. On the back of that I researched contextual offers at the other unis he is considering and none were based solely on the school/college attended. We wouldn't qualify for a contextual offer at any of the others in fact.

Should add that some of these comps are very happy to provide very high UCAS predictions (not based on current level of working) as opposed to many grammar and high achieving independent schools who seek to provide very accurate predictions.

Be fascinated to know where you get your evidence base for that assertion because all actual post covid research into eg CAGs suggests the opposite to be true.

Most YP live in areas with no grammars, let alone supper selectives, by the way.

The grammar 'lot' will be considered for contextualisation if they are , for example, care experienced, first gen , from particular postcodes, low income families - if grammar systems did better at inclusivity, they would have more of these pupils. But , the fact remains, that most grammar school pupils have many academic advantages (not least high prior achievement) and won't be held back from HE participation in any way.

The only uni that operates quite how you describe, in terms of looking at schools, does actually look at that school's record of progression to HE. It's Bristol. They recently took my DSs' school off probably unfairly) and my comp which sounds 'leafy' by your definition has never been on the list - but students form postcodes of high economic deprivation within our catchment have had contextual offers.. My understanding is Bristol did recently trim their list.

But the schools list is only one contextual factor,used by a few universities. Other factors are used more widely.

If parents really did thing this was so unfair, they would eschew grammars/super selective/ private schools and send their children to the local comprehensive.

@devilsadvocate77 that's not how contextual data is used. For ones that give a list of schools (not many) you'll get a lower offer, not lower application requirements. So there is no disadvantage going to any school as contextual stuff comes in only once offer is made.

Usually though contextual data is much more than just school. It's polar data, disadvantaged post code, carer etc, and usually a combination of at least 2 of these to be considered. This is a v v small proportion of applicants so doesn't really affect offers much at all. Most students at leafy comps get exactly the same conditions applied at those at Eton.

More students now apply from comps do more get in. It's no more complicated than that.

You could argue that the top set in a leafy area comp will get more attention and good teaching than those in grammar who are expected to 'get on with it' to an extent.

Again, if this were truly the case, parents could choose to send their children to the local comp with its super abundance of teachers (because that's always reported in the news), and their super skilled teaching, because the local grammar hasn't creamed off any of the staff , oh no.

Bristol?

Bristol is famous for their long list of comps with contextual offers, I haven't heard of anywhere else like it. So probably not the end of the world.

I guess the trick is to send your kids to state school rather than grammar if you thinks the teaching and attention is better there and the opportunities are greater?

It's Bristol. And the school in question in in a very privileged area, and with most of those in the very top set going to achieve very highly (funnily enough, most int the top set are from families where parents are uni educated, well off with detached home in the 800k + bracket).

And many other schools like that in our borough.

Send your kids to the comp instead of the grammar then.

My dc got contextual offers, and have also benefitted from Oxford’s UNIQ summer school programme. We live in a pleasant, large house. My dc all attended state grammars. Their dad and I have half a dozen degrees between us. He is a university lecturer. But we just happen to live in a very deprived ward. I sometimes wonder whether I should feel guilty. But I don’t.

CAGs are perhaps different though? I believe the reason so many indies did get elevated grades in this way is because they have many teachers, there is much ongoing assessment and coursework assessments - i.e. probably more 'evidence' to support the teacher assessed grades than in a state school.

Certainly from people I know - across at least 15 schools, granted not an exhausted data pool - the predictions from the indies have been much nearer to the outcome than the leafy comps.

I wouldn't feel guilty but I do wonder whether on a broader scale, the contextualised 'help' actually help those who perhaps are most in need of getting a supporting hand and are still being overlooked.

My friend lives in a mining village. It's a deprived area. My friend however lives in the ten bedroom manor house. Her DS went to Eton and her DD went to a selective independent.

Her DD got a contextual offer from Bristol..

Its a stupid system.

Given that people on MN go on about the hallowed grammars as basically better than private schools it should be fairly clear that top set in a comp is nowhere near comparable.

Grammars do certainly hoover up all the experienced teachers in their area.

I think if you are top set in a leafy comps your chances of getting onto the most competitive uni courses is likely much greater.

But our family value other aspects than just the academics, e.g. sport, so we've chosen on the basis of that and are prepared that our kids will have to get higher grades to get onto the same courses. It's fine.

I still don't think the most in need are necessarily getting the chances that the programme was designed to do.

And would love to know if anyone knows about contextualisation in other countries, and what countries actually do what happens here, i.e. essentially asking for higher grades if you are in private or some grammar schools?

There is no evidence whatsoever to support this. You are spreading toxic myths about state schools.

If it makes you feel better think the better comprehensives actually get the worst of all worlds. A decent comp so no contextualised offers at all yet still the negatives of state school (teacher shortage/inability to expel troublesome pupils/having to accept all comers who live in the catchment). Hey ho.

Other countries assess in entirely different ways. Many European countries have better and broader access anyway.

Our systems were adopted to attempt to right generations of inequality of access.

Find me another country that has such a significant proportion of its population privately educated and has grammar schools with terminal exams and pre result applications. Then we can talk.

@Piggywaspushed Many countries have a similar, or higher, percentage of privately educated.

Difference is that in those countries (81% of European countries offer some form of funding) the state funds the cost to a large extent whereas in the UK, the cost is borne purely by the parents who decide to opt for this. Again, not all privately educated kids are from 'wealthy' families, many are from different ethnic and cultural background. I'd hazard a guess that many private schools are more diverse in this sense than many of the leafy comps.

I believe the US look at cases on a more holistic basis, more case-by-case as I understand and not a 'blanket' approach.

Do have a look at that Bristol list. I think most comps - including highly sought after ones in our area - are on it.

The 'missing the trick' is how likely large numbers of students still don't get picked up by the 'system'. It's generally still kids from families that are supportive, fairly well off rather than the truly disadvantaged (yes of course there are exceptions).

To be fair, most of the 'toxic' stuff I see on MN is against independents...

I would have thought my initial post rather revealed I have looked at the Bristol list.

Each uni has different criteria for contextual offers. I've done the UCAS process for 3 DC which are considered disabled by some unis, and not by others. Do I think my disabled DC need a contextual offer more or less than a child who is the first in their family to go to uni, or who live in a POLAR 4 area, or who isn't White British, or who has had free school meals at some point - I really don't know.

I do know I'm not playing the system though, unlike a friend of a friend who pulled DC out of their private school and moved to their second home to do A levels in a deprived area.

Your whole generalised OP is about one university.

Yes, surely the ‘trick’ is not to apply to Bristol.