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!