By Dale Bassett, Senior Researcher, Reform
As A-level students and universities gear up for the coming “college crunch” – as too many pupils try to cram into too few places – Lord Mandelson has decided to add to the chaos by proposing that disadvantaged pupils be given a two grade “head start” over their better-off peers. The plan, which could see medical students admitted with two Bs and a C rather than the standard three As, is the latest instalment of the Government’s well-intentioned but dangerous “widening participation” agenda.
The obvious objection to this, as Andrew Cunningham notes in today’s Telegraph, is that high-performing pupils from better schools could miss out on university places. Disadvantaged kids certainly deserve a good education, but it seems equally unfair to discriminate against those who are fortunate enough to go to a good school.
There are other, practical problems. The idea is to help pupils who have been unable to realise their potential. But while exam grades are simple to measure, “potential” is not so easily quantified. Elite universities are finding it hard enough to identify the real high-fliers due to the proliferation of A grades. If admissions tutors can’t tell whether a pupil has what it takes with three As, how can they accurately account for all sorts of other factors resulting in a lower performance?
Worse, admitting pupils who have under-achieved relative to the rest of their intake will put them at a huge disadvantage, whatever their potential. As Reform’s research has shown, there are already strong concerns from across the higher education sector that A-levels are leaving students under-prepared for the demands of university education. There is a danger that pupils who have not achieved the most they can from A-level will simply be unable to cope due to inadequate background knowledge and skills, leaving them to fall further behind. While universities could address this to some extent with remedial classes, whether these can entirely fill the gap and how to pay for them on a large scale remain unanswered questions.
The reality is that 18 is the wrong stage of education to be widening participation in this way. It is in some ways too late, since however bright the student they will not be able to take full advantage of their degree course unless they have been adequately prepared. Raising the quality of education in all comprehensives is the only long-term solution, and the only one that will give the disadvantaged a real chance in life. It’s a daunting task, but an achievable one, and Michael Gove’s proposed reforms are an encouraging first step. Patching the holes with access schemes will only let our educational institutions, our economy and our bright, poor youngsters down.
