Sutton Trust / Oxbridge / Top schools - yet more fatally flawed data

[Talkinpeece]

Yet again the Sutton Trust has released a report and press blurb based on fatally flawed analysis of their own data

Here is the BBC story
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46470838
Here is their press release
www.suttontrust.com/research-paper/access-to-advantage-university-admissions/
Here is the full report
www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AccesstoAdvantaged.pdf

My LEA got listed as one of the ones that hardly sends any kids to Oxbridge or the Russell Group
I know this to be untrue so I checked the data.
They deem the location of pupils to be where they sit their A levels.

Southampton kids mostly do A levels in Hampshire
so Hampshire is getting the credit for bright Southampton kids

Then you look at the other LEAs that are shamed for failing their kids
and discover that many also have good 6th forms in neighbouring LEAs

so the schools are NOT failing the kids
just the Sutton Trust does not know how to read a map
again

[expat96]

There is no consideration in their data for the selective nature of the schools sending kids to Oxbridge. A highly selective school is far more likely to send more to Oxbridge than a bog standard comp. That is not the fault of the comp. It would seem more strange if highly selective schools didn't send more

The Sutton Trust addressed this in an earlier report which did name individual schools (Tables 9-11 in Appendix 2).

[Talkinpeece]

expat96
Ah yes, the report that thinks a Catholic girls grammar is a comp

And no mention of Symonds in Table 8 because they have 2000 students per year so their "proportion" is too low

There are lies, damned lies and Sutton Trust statistics

Table 12 shows only 374 18 year olds per year in Portsmouth. Yeah right.

[Changemyname18]

Plenty of places that were just colleges in the 80s and 90s are now named 'university'. Places that wouldn't have got near an UCCA or PCAS form back in the day #reminiscing

[expat96]

Table 12 actually shows that an average of 374 students completed sixth form in Portsmouth LEA state schools between 2007 and 2009. I don't know Portsmouth at all, but a look at the DfE website doesn't show that number to be inconsistent with 2017 numbers. Furthermore, they specifically discuss Portsmouth LEA in detail on page 12 of the report; I suspect they checked the data for this LEA, at least.

It's fair enough to note the methodology of looking at locations of the school LEAs rather than the locations of the students' residence, but if you've got a problem with the data itself, I think you need to take it up with DfE, not the Sutton Trust.

Similarly if partially selective schools are categorized as Comprehensives. That is the government's decision, not the Sutton
Trust's. Btw, to which girl's Catholic grammar school are you referring?

[Talkinpeece]

To Clarify ....
THIS
www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-world#survey-answer
Is the Top200 list to which I refer

it does NOT include places like Solent

[Talkinpeece]

expat
My problem with the Sutton trust about definitions of schools
(multiple Catholic Girls Schools in the "Comprehensive" list)
is that they should be challenging the DfE not playing along with them

Portsmouth has nearly 1600 Year 11's but only 700 year 13's according to the DfE : cross border traffic is substantial
so the Sutton Trust should take that into account before "naming and shaming" LEAs

[expat96]

multiple Catholic Girls Schools in the "Comprehensive" list

I'm a little confused. Is your objection to a Catholic girls grammar being classified as a comprehensive to the "Catholic" bit, the "girls" bit, or to the "grammar" bit? I happen to believe that any of those adjectives is oxymoronic with "comprehensive" but then I didn't grow up in this system. Afaik, neither religion nor gender is considered to be a form of selection in this country, at least for purposes of education.

I suspect that the Sutton Trust does not have the resources to collect the data to do the type of analysis you think is more relevant; they have to work with what they can get. I also think they probably place higher priority on naming and shaming the private schools and overtly selective grammars than on highlighting the covert selection of nominally comprehensive schools.

[expat96]

Btw, the Sutton Trust have done analysis to highlight now non-comprehensive the top performing "comprehensives" are.

[Talkinpeece]

neither religion nor gender is considered to be a form of selection in this country
Which is insane when you read the multiple, multiple threads about getting into faith schools
AND
when you compare the FSM between faith schools and non faith

Single sex schools outside London / Birmingham are primarily of religious denomination
Single sex schools in those cities are often academically selective as well

The data is easy to extract (the spreadsheet categories allow easy identification of true comprehensive schools)
but that would not fit with the Sutton Trust's agenda of bashing fee paying schools

[expat96]

the Sutton Trust's agenda of bashing fee paying schools

They're not exactly friendly to grammar schools either.

[ForgottenHowGoodQuaversAre]

It annoys me that some state boarding schools are classed as 'comprehensive' when you can't actually go there unless you pay the day boarder fees at the very least.

[dapplegrey]

Sutton Trust is a charity btw - it doesn't receive any statutory Government funding.

That’s interesting titchy. I wonder where it does get funding from - I’ve never seen advertisements asking for donations, but then I’m sure there are loads of charities which don’t advertise for funding.

[expat96]

I wonder where it does get funding from

www.suttontrust.com/support-us/

If you expand "Our Programme Sponsors", you'll see lots of law firms, consultancies and banks, among others.

If you expand "Our Research and Policy Supporters", you'll see some very wealthy people.

[dapplegrey]

Oh thank you expat.

[dapplegrey]

I looked at the link - Cafcass is a donor so I suppose the government contribute through that.
Very interesting - thank you expat for the link.

[expat96]

Looking through the list of Programme Sponsors, the National Audit Office is clearly an arm of the government as is Health Education England. The Legal Education Foundation is a charity, but I wouldn't be surprised if they received some government grants themselves.

It's interesting that the Sutton Trust make a distinction between their Programme Sponsors, i.e., for outreach, etc., and their Research and Policy Supporters - and that these supporters mostly seem to be wealthy individuals.

[dapplegrey]

I wonder if the Lampls children go to private school.

[goodbyestranger]

It doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to work out that it's more likely to be very wealthy people who contribute funds for research than anyone else.

The Sutton Trust does an enormous amount of good work. Do you have an issue with the work they do OP or is this simply about the minutaie of data. Bottom line is: how to get more less well off kids to Oxbridge. Is that a problem?

Why on earth should it matter if Peter Lampl's kids went private or state . He's wealthy. His mission is to help less well off kids. He's not hung up on school type but on social mobility.

The Sutton Trust is strongly supportive of grammars with the important caveat that they need to work hard on access and to be inclusive. It's more open minded than a lot of contributors to MN.

[expat96]

It doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to work out that it's more likely to be very wealthy people who contribute funds for research than anyone else.

Where I come from, archbishops are not noted for their brains.

That aside, please tell us, your Excellency, why the many organizations which support the outreach programs do not appear to support the research, while the wealthy individuals seem to prefer supporting the research to supporting the outreach programs?

[dapplegrey]

Why on earth should it matter if Peter Lampl's kids went private or state confused

I think it does matter. The Sutton Trust makes frequent mention of the high proportion of privately educated students who get places at Oxford and Cambridge - which is unfair.
Therefore if his children are privately educated he is buying advantage.

[goodbyestranger]

expat I said it didn't require the brains of an archbishop, so no need for deference on that score.

Your premise is false.

[goodbyestranger]

dapplegrey Peter Lampl is interested in raising aspirations and increasing the life chances among the least well off, not in depressing aspiration and opportunity for the very well off. Surely its enough that he devotes his money and time to the former, without requiring his family to take a hit for no valid purpose whatsoever.

[Talkinpeece]

I could not give a stuff where the funder of the Sutton Trust sends his kids to school.

I am angry that certain LEAs are being named and shamed for not supporting the children who live there
when the data does not support that conclusion.

If the Sutton Trust really wanted to put the wind up Oxbridge about being exclusive, they should list any and all courses that have not admitted a state school pupil in the last three years

If the Stutton trust really want to support better outcomes for the disadvantaged they should cease all support for selection in state schools

AND stop using the DfE's deeply misleading categorisation of comprehensive schools

[dapplegrey]

Goodbye. Ok but I don’t agree with you.

[goodbyestranger]

I disagree about selection OP. The Sutton Trust will know more than you do about the merits of selection for able but least well off, despite all the emphases in your post - which is why they support it.