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?

That's a pretty good take on it, and true.
Well, whichever way it might be would be unfair for the one who look at it from the opposite side.

Never said that it was unfair for the 'privileged'. Did think it seemed unfair that some in the leafy comp top sets (where several go to Oxbridge, more than some local grammars/indies) get contextualised when those who are perhaps more disadvantaged at a grammar do not.

By the way, my kids are at an indie so no skin in the game for us and Bristol not on their list of unis they want to attend. Was surprised though about the very long list of schools being considered as contextualised for Bristol were surprising.

My son's London school is on the list for Bristol. Average A level grade is C- compared to A for local grammar school's.

Schools averaging C or above aren't on there by the looks of it.

Seems fair and reasonable that children at the best performing schools should be getting better grades.

Only issue I can see is potentially the secondary school attended should also be below average performing as well.

Our school is on the list, and some of our students go to Bristol and obviously take advantage of the 2 grade drop. However, the vast majority do not go there or even apply, you've got to actually want Bristol. We might be seen by appearances as a leafy comp, but we are a true comprehensive welcoming all students into sixth form who want to be there. Hence a full range of (A level) ability in all KS5 classes. E grades are more common than A*. And therefore the student experience is not at all akin to a grammar or otherwise selective school.

Did think it seemed unfair that some in the leafy comp top sets (where several go to Oxbridge, more than some local grammars/indies) get contextualised when those who are perhaps more disadvantaged at a grammar do not.

Grammars are selective and therefore will have better A level results, plus grammars have very low levels of disadvantaged students compared to comprehensive schools. It’s absolutely right that grammars are not on Bristol’s list.

Bristol's list is possibly fairer than most other unis, who ignore the school and include things like home postcode. When my dd was applying we lived in a very deprived postcode, but she had a bursary to an independent school for secondary and then went to a super selective grammar for sixth form. Her first choice uni had a standard AAA offer and she was predicted AstarAA. She got a contextual offer of ABB because of where we lived.

I think if I'd genuinely thought the standard offer was out of her reach and she'd only get in due to our postcode, I'd have discouraged her from applying, because I'd think she might not keep up! But she didn't need the contextual offer and got her predicted grades. The only worry I had is that they make a limited number of contextual offers and someone more deserving may have missed out, but I'm not sure if that's how it works.

Most students don't need the contextual offers. Lots of mine get all A stars where their offer might be ABB rather than AAA. Unis still only offer to those they think will manage the course.

My son had a contextual offer. It had nothing to do with any postcode. He went to college and did a Btec.
The factors taken into account for him were, ethnicity, disability and having been in the care system.

Exactly the students it should be aimed at as far as I'm concerned

Sure, but it's not surprising that the A-level grade for the grammar is higher if the students - who are selected - are more able to start with? Some kids will never get the A*/As regardless of how hard they work or the teachers they have.

Perhaps what should be measured is not the average A-level grade but the progress made (or not)? If that is below/average for the type of school surely that would be a better indicator?

The children at the Grammar have already been in a setting where they are working alongside academically inclined children and the pace of learning and tuition there will have reflected this. The children attending comprehensives will have been studying and socialising alongside people from all walks of life. I think this is a good thing but it’s undoubtedly more of a challenge for the teachers to ensure everyone is reaching their potential. As previous posters have pointed out recruitment & retention are more difficult in comprehensives. The DC at comprehensives (& remember it’s not all schools that feature on Bristol’s list) will simply not have had the educational advantages that private or grammar schools confer.

I think OP you are just pissed off that people who you are identifying as in the same bracket as you e.g affluent but who haven’t shelled out for private school are ending up with the same result - DC at a prestigious Uni that is looked upon favourably by people in your social circle. You think they have been given an easier route to get there but by virtue of the educational pathway taken they actually haven’t.

If more Uni’s took on a similar policy you’d be spitting feathers OP as one of the reasons you are paying for your DCs private education is to try and help them achieve top results that give educational advantage.

DS just got his contextual offer in from Bristol for Maths. A A B rather than A* A A.

I've just had a look at 2025 list and our state school isn't on it any more! It was last year.

Perhaps people on here could note that having highly educated, well off and well housed parents does not mean their children are academically high flyers. Genetics doesn't work like that

Thank you for highlighting the Bristol list. My daughters go to one of the schools on the list and I had no idea about this. We live in what would be considered a nice area of North London but right on the border with one with postcodes in the contextual offer list so a wide range of pupils attending the school.

No use for my eldest who is applying this year as she moved for 6th form to a mixed school but will be worth looking at for the younger ones.

The thought that the private/grammar schools are terribly accurate in their predicted grades in comparison to those dastardly comprehensives who mark up is the exact opposite to the reality seen across the boards, and has been seen for years.
One of the arguments for doing applications after the exams is exactly to stop the grammars and private schools gaining places with inflated predictions.

And, no, it wasn't that in lockdown they had far better teaching so they could prove it, or they would have been as far ahead with the first non teacher predicted grades wouldn't they, instead of having a massive drop?

We live in a "leafy suburb" on the list. They don't set apart from in maths so they dont benefit from "top sets". There are 270 kids in each year. They had virtually help on uni applications and my kid nearly missed a couple of deadlines as a result. My daughter has kids who are excluded in her class and they can't use the loos due to kids hanging out and vaping.

Getting 3A*s is way harder than her friends at an independent or the highly selective grammar an hour train ride away.

I too was a bit surprised the first time I looked at the Bristol list, as it includes a local Sixth form which is known to absorb a lot of ex-private pupils. But it also serves some pupils from deprived areas, so I think it does make sense.

I think the policy is designed as an easy, broad-brush way to 'catch' pupils who might benefit from such a scheme. If it also happens to catch a couple of pupils for whom it wasn't essential, then that isn't seen as a problem as the original purpose of the scheme has been fulfilled.

A scheme to fairly evaluate relative advantage and establish who is most deserving of a contextual offer would be almost incredibly time consuming to administer, as there are huge variations between pupils within the state sector. How would you weigh up the metrics of school type, postcode or SEND, even before you get onto factors like parental occupation or income?

Grammars are on Bristol's list though. Stroud High and Marling, both super selective Gloucestershire grammars. No idea why they are on there!

Because their A level results are in the bottom 40% in the country.

How on earth do super selective grammar schools manage that feat?

Not sure this one does. At least not going by the 2024 results. Looks like they have a joint sixth form. https://www.marlingsixthform.org/news-and-events/stories/marling-school-celebrates-an-exceptional-set-of-a-level-results

Yes, that's rather a lot better than my school not on the list

Some grammars were definitely on the list in the past, but don't seem to be on the current list. I think other Gloucestershire grammars were too (Ribston?), maybe it was a local connections/networking thing to encourage the school to encourage the pupils to choose Bristol. These pupils would have been classed as state school pupils and improved the stats (cynical take). Maybe they had low value-added scores given the high entry requirements. They aren't currently and never were failing or underperforming schools, and those disadvantaged pupils who attend will already be included in contextual offers because of their home address or first in the family to go to university or FSM etc. Those two mentioned are not exactly 'super' selective but AFAIK Gloucestershire grammars have quite high entry requirements. Considering the list is called 'aspiring' schools, these schools are more accurately 'aspirational' schools, but it's a historical oddity because they seem to have been removed from the list now.

I agree. So much sneering and generalisation about state schools as being full of uncontrollable oiks and crap teaching. Until it suits. Then they become 'leafy comprehensives' 🙄.

My Dd dropped a grade in her MFL a level
largely as a result of the excellent teachers moving from her state school to the local private schools. So forgive me this “contextualisation” issue is not actually giving me sleepless nights.

Her school doesn’t get contextual offers anyway but she’s up against the children from the highly resourced private schools. Hey ho.

Frankly we would have stumped up the cash and moved her but the teachers left after her A level courses had started so it was too late anyway.