Universities` admissions

Will Hutton asks whether the Labour party is "thinking big thoughts", and proceeds to outline a number of quite feasible ideas it should be discussing during its online conference (If the Labour conference were on now, would I be knocked over by a rush of ideas? 20.09.20). One strange omission, however, especially in view of the many positions Hutton has held in British universities, was education. With the recent shambles over external examinations, and a "campaign to end GCSEs" about to be launched, it certainly is an appropriate time to consider whether there would be far less mental health issues amongst our young people if teacher assessment, with a moderating role for exam boards, was to be adopted on a permanent basis (Schools make bid to kill off GCSEs, 20.09.20). Indeed, the arrival of the second wave of the coronavirus and the probability of examination cancellation again, make such discussion an urgent priority. As Hutton knows very well, the admission procedures of our universities are both outdated and biased, and reforms are essential if the country is not to continue to waste genuine talent. The only examination grades deemed acceptable for university academic places should be A-levels, the exams described by Ofqual as "national qualifications with content set by government". This would mean private schools would no longer be able to sidestep the highly regulated A-levels, by entering pupils for Pre-U exams, with their very high proportion of A*/A grades. Pupils from underprivileged backgrounds and understaffed state schools would also benefit from contextual information being taken into consideration when places are offered. "Best get started", as Hutton says, is good advice for Labour, but to omit education from its agenda most certainly was not!

No exams next year

With the government`s appalling test and trace system "needlessly disrupting" thousands of children`s education, and "94% of schools with pupils who have had to stay at home" because of Covid symptoms, it doesn't require a degree in rocket, or even moonshot, science to conclude that GCSE and A-level exams next year are in jeopardy (Star,18/09/20). Having an education secretary as on the ball as Gavin Williamson, one can assume therefore that he has ordered all examination boards both to give details to all secondary schools about the type of sample work of pupils which will be needed to justify the teacher assessed grades, and to make the necessary appointments of grade moderators! The need to avoid the use of an algorithm to enforce norm-referencing on state schools` examinations should be obvious to Ofqual, and perhaps even to Williamson, but no doubt private schools will still manage to dominate the so-called "top" universities with grade inflation allowed to continue unabated in their Pre-U exams. With a second wave now inevitable, teachers need to be told to prepare pupils for another year of exam-free assessment, and to set assessment exercises such as "mocks", classroom tests, and research or homework tasks which can be marked and sent to examiners for checking, and verification or amendment, of teachers` grades. To shorten the process, schools could be told that sample work will be required from any pupil, and then when work completed, asked for the work from, for example, numbers 1, 4, 7 and 12 in the teacher`s "order of merit", from a class of twelve pupils. For classes of 5 and under, work would be required for all pupils. Unions need to be involved, but a sensible secretary of state would have started preparatory work on this already.

4 letters on Pre-U`s scandalous results

As your excellent editorial said, the "evidence that educational inequality has grown" in recent months is, indeed, "dismaying", but there is another factor exacerbating the problem, which failed to get a mention (Poorer pupils lost most during the pandemic. Now they need help to catch up, 07/09/20). Disadvantaged pupils falling behind through lack of learning facilities and teaching opportunities is bad enough. When the algorithm moderating A-level examination results is geared to control grade inflation with a measure of norm-referencing, but obviously not applied to the preferred examination of schools in the independent sector, the Pre-Us, the inequality becomes even greater. For example, this year 73.8% of entries for the Pre-U history exam gained A*/A grades , or their equivalent, whilst only 24.2% managed the same at A-level. Similarly, Pre-U`s physics results revealed 75.5% awarded top grades compared with A-levels` 31%, French 83% compared with 46%, and Spanish 82.8% with 44%? Cambridge Assessment, which runs the Pre-U examinations, have in the past explained these results by claiming, rather dubiously, that brighter pupils take them, but what about the very bright pupils in state schools and sixth form colleges who were denied top grades by the algorithm? Sadly, although the education committee learned last week that the algorithm was set up with advice from, among others, Cambridge Assessment, no questions were deemed necessary on the subject of exam results in private schools, in over one and three quarters hours of inquiry! "Schools policy", indeed, cannot "on its own" solve all the problems associated with poverty and inequality, but when norm-referencing is only applied to the examinations described by Ofqual as "national qualifications based on content set by the government", and not to ones taken by already hugely advantaged pupils, that policy clearly is in need of reform. An earlier editorial made the point that pupils from the private sector will this year again be dominating the top universities (Ministers, not pupils, are the ones who have messed up this year`s A-levels, 14/08/20). Is it any wonder? The Sutton Trust CEO was right to say that "fair access to higher education is key to expanding opportunity", so why isn`t he making a massive fuss about Pre-U results (Star, 03/09/20)? More to the point, why didn`t the select committee on education, particularly its Labour members, at least raise the subject when it spent one and three quarter hours questioning the Ofqual leadership earlier this week? We know that in England overall, A*/A grades were up 2.4% on 2019 figures, and 4.7% in independent schools, and that most of the latter use Pre-U exams instead of A-levels as the means for getting their pupils into university. One would therefore expect someone on the committee to wonder how this came about and inquire about the final standardisation of Pre-U results. Should the public not be informed how, for example, 73.8% of entries for the Pre-U history exam gained A*/A grades, or their equivalent, whilst only 24.2% managed the same at A-level? Is there no interest on the committee about Pre-U`s physics results, 75.5% top grades compared with A-levels` 31%, or French 83% compared with 46%, or Spanish 82.8% with 44%? Cambridge Assessment, which runs the Pre-U examinations, have in the past explained these results by claiming rather dubiously that brighter pupils take them, whilst Ofqual might attribute them to the algorithm, which the committee learned was set up with advice from Cambridge Assessment! Grade inflation in A-levels is controlled by an element of norm-referencing, so that the percentage gaining top grades cannot rise very far above the previous year`s figure. Obviously this rule is overlooked when it comes to Pre-U exams, as it allows the privileged to continue to dominate numbers in our top universities. It`s not only Dominic Cummings`s eye-test nonsense which exposes the "one rule for us - another for them" scandal! "Ofqual`s senior leadership" did indeed endure "a long session before the MPs" on th education committee, but surprisingly, not one question was asked about inflated A-level results in the private sector (Williamson is to blame for A-level exam fiasco, Ofqual leaders tell MPs, 03/09/20). We know that in England overall, A*/A grades were up 2.4% on 2019 figures, and 4.7% in independent schools, and that most of the latter use Pre-U exams instead of A-levels as the means for getting their pupils into university. One would therefore expect someone on the committee to wonder how this came about and inquire about the final standardisation of Pre-U results. Should the public not be informed how, for example, 73.8% of entries for the Pre-U history exam gained A*/A grades , or their equivalent, whilst only 24.2% managed the same at A-level? Is there no interest on the committee about Pre-U`s physics results, 75.5% top grades compared with A-levels` 31%, or French 83% compared with 46%, or Spanish 82.8% with 44%? Cambridge Assessment, which runs the Pre-U examinations, have in the past explained these results by claiming rather dubiously that brighter pupils take them, whilst Ofqual might attribute them to the algorithm, which the committee learned was set up with advice from Cambridge Assessment! Whatever the explanation, having no questions on the subject in over one and three quarters hours of inquiry seems a wasted opportunity! The recent examination fiasco has, as Professor Collini says, revealed "tensions in our current assumptions about the nature and role of higher education" (Universities are in chaos. Yet still we`re told it`s "success", 01/09/20). It may well be "fantasy" that universities can "positively correct" problems emanating from our "class-divided society", but it is certainly true that many of our so-called "top" universities emphasise class division with their entrance requirements. After all the fuss of Gove`s assessment reforms, and the provision of highly regulated A-levels containing more "rigour", and described by Ofqual as "national qualifications based on content set by the government", it was ridiculous that universities should accept, as academic entrance qualifications, lightly-regulated Pre-U exams, set and marked by teachers in private schools, mostly for their pupils. Yet Oxbridge and others are allowed to get away with such bias, allowing hundreds of undergraduates to study in their colleges every year without A-levels. This year saw massive A-level grade inflation of 4.7% increase in A*/A grades in independent schools, but we saw no media outrage, or even clarification of whether this included Pre-U results! The phasing out of Pre-U exams is to be welcomed , but it still means that for another few years, the privileged will continue to have their university places guaranteed, and their monopoly of "educational advantage" continued. "Don`t faff around with entry tariffs" is the professor`s advice, but there are hundreds of students from disadvantaged schools and backgrounds whose potential is never fully realised. Cutting back to a 7% maximum of intake from private schools, in line with national figures, is an oft-requested reform, but ensuring all contextual information is taken into account before offering university places is essential, too!

Starmerism exists!

Alan Finlayson claims that "the shape of Starmerism-to-come is hard to make out" because of his lack of political speeches, but during the leadership campaign, there were plenty (Labour has to decide: is there such a thing as Starmerism? 10/09/20)! Thousands of us who voted for him remember his pledges to endorse the majority of the last election`s Labour manifesto; promises on increasing income tax for the wealthy and corporate tax, on state ownership, and on clamping down on tax avoidance, among many others, were made in an effort to unite the party. It may be inappropriate to repeat all of them now, but Labour members will not forget them. Clearly it is not the time for "retail politics", as Finlayson states, but the pandemic crisis cannot mean the end for political opposition or the continued support for "the institutions, people and professions most needed" not only during an emergency, but in more normal times when inequality has to be targeted. Remember how Starmer insisted that key workers "were last, and now should be first"? Finlayson is wrong to say that currently "there is no alternative", but it is certainly up to Starmer to be more forceful in its presentation.His speeches should be dominating the headlines, not the lack of recent ones occupying editorials and political columns!

Omnishambolic Tories!

Having a Conservative government packed to the rafters with arrogance and contempt for ordinary people is par for the course, but you might expect something different when the government is in the middle of the most serious health and economic crisis in over a hundred years. You might, but you will be disappointed. Johnson and his team of incompetents cannot even give the appearance of being serious politicians making important decisions in unprecedented times. Within days, we have the Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, repeatedly telling us "that there is a limit to working from home",in interviews with the media given from, of course, his home (Star, 29/08/20)! Is it too much to expect that an important member of the Cabinet would have the sense to see that this message would engender more positive reaction if delivered from his office at Westminster? The same applies to the rest of the Cabinet. Hancock and Sunak in particular are keen to get workers back into what in many cases will be "unsafe workplaces", but fail to persuade even their own staff to return to their offices. The numbers of civil servants who are still working from home are very high, with only a relatively small proportion taking what they clearly believe to be a risky undertaking. Considerations like adequate childcare provision, safety and cleanliness on public transport and Covid-secure workplaces, all matters which should have been high on the government`s agenda for months, are ignored. Profits still come before everything else! Should we expect any better from this omnishambolic government when its absentee leader sees nothing wrong with taking weeks off during this major crisis, and on returning, makes no effort to look other than idiotic. Visiting a school at the end of the holidays might seem a sensible move for a prime minister keen on photo opportunities and keen to get his message across via a speech to pupils going out "live" on a media platform. Indeed, unless the prime minister is Johnson! He tried to show some seriousness by taking out notes before starting, but clearly, if he was a smoker, they would have been on a cigarette packet! He didn`t even know the ages of the pupils in front of him, so could not relate to their situation in the education system whatsoever. After total confusion, Johnson finally ascertained what was imperative he knew all along, that they were Year 11 students. So to add to the litany of buffoonery, he then proceeded to talk about their examination results, unaware obviously that it is at the end of year 11 in school that GCSE assessment takes place! He then , as was well reported, claimed that results had been distorted by a "mutant algorithm", which really needs no further comment, except perhaps, that its further proof that this has to be the simply the most embarrassing government in memory!