Recent research has shown that, even in Labour’s third term, too few children from lower socio-economic groups are getting to university. David Lammy recently made an interesting speech pointing out that low teachers’ expectations can reinforce this imbalance. He is apparently frustrated, for example, by certain schools which, when offered the benefit of induction courses for universities such as Cambridge then don’t take them up, because they think the children won’t “fit in”. His comments struck an immediate chord with my own experience as a governor at an upper school. That is to say, although parental background is the key factor for underperformance, low expectations from teachers and even governors can also play a part.
All the teachers that I know are entirely professional and want the best for children in their care, but unconsciously, low expectations can slip in. When raising the subject of university entrance for the kids I sometimes sense that my comments are seen as snobbish or out-of-touch with working-class children who supposedly don’t have aspirations for higher education. But we tend to make assumptions about what the children and their parents want without actually asking them. And it is always dangerous to stereotype the school intake. When I joined my governing body the assumption was that a high proportion of the children came from a deprived background, but subsequently a statistical survey by the local authority to allocate extra funding demonstrated that several neighbouring schools are in fact more deprived. And some of these neighbouring schools are doing better.
An over-reliance on predictive measures such as Fischer Family Trust scores is another aspect of the problem. Used the right way, for example by Ofsted to measure teacher’s input, they are very useful, but an overemphasis can lead to what Ed Balls has called an “excuses culture”. I have heard some shocking stories of teachers going into classes of A1 students and telling them that they’re all destined for Ds and Es – this is not typical, but it shows the dangers. That’s why I believe the National Challenge scheme, that sets absolute standards for schools and gives intensive help to those that don’t reach the bar, has been an important move in the right direction.
Schools also vary enormously in the amount of careers advice that they give to leavers. Unfortunately, some teachers don’t regard it as part of their job to give any careers information whatsoever. And not all teachers are prepared to give the individual advice, encouragement and help with those all-important UCAS forms that every student – from whatever background – has a right to expect at the point of university entry.
A strong sixth form is the essential precursor for university entry but since the headline national league table measure is GCSE attainment this can, in struggling schools, have the perverse effect of devaluing sixth form effort and focus. There’s still a general confusion at school, local authority and national level about the role of sixth forms. The name is, in itself, significant and the weaker expression – “Post-16” – in my view demeans the students and should be dropped.
Of course it would be absurd to assume that all school students are destined for university. But if they don’t follow an academic path then they need high quality vocational qualifications – hence the Diploma initiative. At the moment, too many leavers are failing to achieve their potential, either way. That’s why I support the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills’ plan of asking all schools to identify high achieving pupils and provide them with intensive support towards higher education.
The political dividing lines between Labour and the Tories are clear – we want every qualified child that wishes to go to university to do so, whereas the Tories would restrict their numbers. But unless we demonstrate that we can achieve this in practice then the battle is lost.
James Valentine is a school governor and NPF member