Responses to the Sutton Trust

The background

This is an update to a 2005 report from the Sutton Trust[i] which studied the relationship between fathers’ income, sons’ education and mobility between the four quartiles of income. In 2005, attempts were made to distinguish between the effects of fathers’ income and sons’ schooling. Comparisons between the UK, USA, Canada, the Nordic countries and Germany showed that between 1970 and 1998 intergenerational mobility was relatively high and increasing in the Nordic countries and Canada. Intergenerational mobility was relatively low in the USA and the UK where the rewards to education and income inequality are highest. The evidence strongly suggested that family wealth had a large influence on educational attainment and especially on access to higher education. Family wealth is particularly well transmitted from generation to generation in the USA, Italy and the UK. Other factors influencing educational attainment were: ethnic origin, family size and structure, and the socio-economic and cultural background of the parents[ii]. The number of books in the home and parents’ scores in mathematics tests were particularly revealing indicators. The impact on student scores of living in a single parent household against other households varied from no difference in Austria to approximately a year of education (grade) in the United States. The wealth effect is common to the UK, USA and the other countries in the OECD study but independent schools are not. Is it possible that school attended is correlated with wealth but not a causative factor in the educational out-performance of the children of the well-to-do?

The OECD study has an interesting summary of what equality of opportunity actually means, and how far governments are justified in interventions to promote it. It is illuminating to study the OECD report’s conclusions in the light of UK policy initiatives, many of which are in sympathy. In recent years, there has been little or no improvement in the UK’s educational equality; it may be a multi-generational task.

What the 2007 Sutton report says

The actual report can be found on the Guardian web site[iii].

The very short version is that a very few schools dominate the entry to both Oxbridge and the Sutton Trust 13 - the thirteen leading research universities based on the league tables. In the last five years a mere 100 of the 3,700 institutions which sent anyone at all to a university supplied a third of those admitted to Oxbridge and one sixth of those admitted to the Sutton Trust 13. From the top 200 schools as many as four in ten pupils go to Oxbridge against an average of one in a hundred from the other 3,500 schools. Proportionately few university entrants to the top universities are from poor families, as judged by receipt of free school meals.

SFS Group, which sells insurance products and offers advice to parents wishing to fund a private education, illustrated the wealth effect by quoting independent school heads on how grandparents are paying for the private education of their grand-children as a means of mitigating inheritance tax[iv].

Although the wealth effect is extremely clear, simple income redistribution through the tax and benefits system from richer to poorer families is politically and practically problematic. So, while there is some income redistribution, most efforts are targeted more broadly via neighbourhood action schemes, free nursery schooling, school improvements, remedial teaching, educational target setting etcetera.

The most successful schools, judged by examination scores, are overwhelmingly from the independent sector. Most of the state schools in the top 200 are academically and socially selective. A high proportion has a religious affiliation. The average comprehensive in the top 200 schools has 5.9 per cent of pupils in receipt of free school meals compared to 11.5 per cent of pupils in their post code catchment area and 14.3 per cent in secondary schools nationally. This domination of admissions to top universities is only partly explained by A-level scores, since the independent schools by and large do far better than their A-level results would suggest and the state schools, particularly non-selective comprehensives, do far worse. The report discusses possible reasons for the apparent discrepancy and details some of the extensive efforts made by Oxbridge and Russell Group universities to attract a higher proportion of students from non-traditional backgrounds.

Some reasons for not applying to Oxbridge are relatively straightforward. For example, a MORI survey conducted for the Sutton Trust showed that secondary school teachers grossly underestimate the proportion of state sector pupils at Oxbridge. A majority incorrectly believed that fees at Oxbridge were higher than elsewhere. Barely half would generally recommend that their pupils apply to Oxbridge and 45 per cent would rarely or never do so. Whether these teachers have no confidence in their pupils, or in the reception they might receive from the universities, is unclear. The Financial Times[v] made the suggestion that many state school teachers discourage their pupils from applying because Oxbridge is not a ‘desirable environment’.

Elite schools dominate admissions to top universities[vi].

Why it matters

Alumni of the elite universities dominate the top jobs in politics, law, journalism, medicine and business[vii]. In recent years there has been increased social and educational diversification in the backgrounds of leading figures, although this can be misleading, as in the case of FTSE 100 chief executives. An apparent increase in diversification among business leaders is largely accounted for by the increased proportion of foreign owners and managers.

Improvements in the works

Universities UK noted some examples of encouragement offered to state school pupils:

"Around 1,000 state school pupils attended residential summer schools and overnight taster visits in Cambridge over the summer. Run by Cambridge Admissions Office (CAO) and a number of the Colleges, the aim of the summer schools is to raise pupils' aspirations, give them a taste of student life at Cambridge and encourage them to consider making an application."

"The University of Oxford has this year launched a podcast series to guide applicants through the admissions process at Oxford. Admissions tutors and students give hands-on advice on how to fill in the application form etc, and later on in the year they will be adding podcasts on advice regarding interviews"

"One of the range of widening participation activities at the London School of Economics and Political Science includes LSE CHOICE, which brings around 150 16-19 year olds onto campus over a period of 18 months for classes, lectures and guidance sessions."

The Russell Group of universities noted the extremely disparate performance of schools in the UK and concluded:

"However, we are disappointed that the report fails fully to consider a number of other subtler but crucial factors which impact admissions disparities. For example, the fact that independent pupils are far more likely to take STEM subjects and classical and modern languages - key entry routes to Russell Group universities and the significant variation within the top A-grade bracket of A-level scores.[viii]"

The University of Cambridge’s response to the Sutton Trust admissions report can be found online[ix]. The university explains that the main causes of the different success rates of schools in gaining admittance lie in the subjects studied at A-level and the courses applied for. Presumably this refers to the generally superior science facilities and teaching at independent and selective grammar schools. Comprehensive school pupils are more likely to compete for the greatly over-subscribed arts courses.

The Cambridge Student carried a piece by representatives of ‘Education not for sale’[x], an organisation whose interests would seem very familiar to any campaigner from the 1960’s. This added nothing substantive to the report but affirmed that Cambridge student life still largely conforms to the socially exclusive stereotypes of the popular imagination. How important such an atmosphere might be in deterring applications from less socially confident people is debatable.

The Office of Fair Access reported that Cambridge under-spent its bursary fund by £855,000, 15 per cent of its budget. The LSE under-spent its budget by 44 per cent or £750,000, largely because students failed to apply for funding related to work experience. LSE will reorganise its disbursement process. Six other 94 Group universities reported similar problems[xi]. Explanations suggested were that students were unaware of what was on offer and that students failed to give permission to the Student Loan Company to share data with the universities which led to data protection problems.

LSE, Leeds, Manchester, Southampton and Warwick are partners with the College of Law and the Sutton Trust in an effort to help students from non-professional and poor backgrounds enter the legal profession[xii]. This initiative is intended to support as many as one in eight law students in years to come.

The graduates employed under the Teach First programme are also to become mentors to bright pupils from schools with no tradition of university entrance[xiii].

Sir Martin Harris of Offa recently suggested that talented pupils of comprehensive schools should be given the same chances as grammar school children had in the 1950s. Bright children from non traditional backgrounds should be identified at age 11, have their expectations raised, and receive extra support within their existing schools. Universities should divert funds from bursaries to outreach work. Sir Martin asked how to persuade a pupil to be a physicist and understand that only a few universities offered the hope of a career in that discipline. Further, how was it possible to ensure that the school had a good teacher of physics? The Sutton Trust report quotes research which shows that, between the ages of three and five, the cognitive test scores of bright poorer children decline while their less bright peers from better off backgrounds improve their scores. Beginning to improve the educational performance of children from age 11 might seem a little late to those who believe that life chances are strongly influenced by both nature and nurture from birth. Schemes to provide free breakfasts in inner city primary schools and free fruit in others are testament to the growing acceptance of the non-educational causes of much underperformance.

Peter Elson in the Liverpool Daily Post commented that poverty of aspiration and a deep undervaluation of education, especially among boys, were partially the results of a lack of traditionally male jobs following de-industrialisation and the growth of a matriarchal society as the female dominated services sector replaces them[xiv].

Sally Williams in the Telegraph discusses the difference between private and state schools and includes blogs from teachers who have made the switc [xv]. State schools tend to be rougher but provide children with experience of different social classes and may have a wider range of facilities because of their generally larger size. Independent schools have better discipline and smaller class sizes where pupils are more likely to associate with the children of the “right people”.

The LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance produced evidence that state schools are net losers of good teachers to the independent sector[xvi].

"We find that independent schools are employing a disproportionate share of teachers in Britain, relative to the number of pupils they educate, and that the gap between the independent and state sector has been increasing. Independent school teachers are more likely than state school teachers to possess post-graduate qualifications, and to be specialists in shortage subjects." "Recruitment from the state sector is an especially important source of new teaching staff for independent schools which has been growing over the medium term."

Recruitment from the state sector is an especially important source of new teaching staff for independent schools which has been growing over the medium term.

Stephanie Baker-Said, on Bloomberg,[xvii] describes the interview coaching provided for Oxbridge applicants. Providers Oxbridge Applications charge £850 per weekend. Premier clients pay £3,800 for extended assistance plus a £2,000 success fee. This is seen by some as necessary following the rise in applicants with top A-level grades and a rise in applications to Oxford alone of 33 per cent in the last ten years. Geoff Parks, the admissions director at Cambridge thinks it all a waste of money because the information needed is freely available. Further, Parks is sure that schools such as Westminster, which sends almost half its pupils to Oxbridge, succeed because of their educational excellence rather than Oxbridge prepping. Mike Nicholson, head of Oxford’s central admissions office, believes that the students who pay for extra coaching in the admissions process are already from a background where the thought processes typical of Oxford are a part of daily life. Baker-Said takes her article title from Alan Bennett’s play ‘The History Boys’ which supports Parks’ view. She feels that both Parks and Nicholson are irked by some state schools, which use funding for disadvantaged youth to send pupils to Oxbridge Applications. Examples of interview questions and how students cope with them are used to illustrate how the dons attempt to distinguish the ability to think from polish and competence.

The Times Higher carried a story on the disconnection between A-level examinations and the first year at university[xviii]. The A-level syllabus is no longer largely controlled by the universities but by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

"…schools' educational priorities remain defined by a national curriculum and an assessment process that, according to critics, does little in any practical sense to ease students' transition to tertiary education." "Teachers complain that the assessment process and the resulting school league tables generate a "pass at all costs" culture in which pupils are spoon-fed the information they need to pass a given exam and make their school look good in the league tables."

So admissions tutors normally give considerable weight to qualities not shown by A-level scores. Very bright students with equally bright classmates, educated parents and excellent schools are expected to acquire such abilities. Equally bright students from a less favourable background with identical or better A-level grades may be less able to cope with the social setting of university. Social behaviour also differs markedly by class:

"Children's behaviour: The research also shows that a stark divide exists in the behavioural traits of children from low income compared with those from high income parents. We use indicators of externalizing behaviour (fighting, disobedience, temper tantrums etc) to form an index of bad behaviour[xix]."

The Sutton Report does not cross tabulate this finding with intelligence or success at A-level. One might expect an inverse correlation. Mass higher education will necessarily include more of those from less traditional backgrounds. Universities which base entrance on non-examined criteria receive accusations of social discrimination. Their alternatives may be to accept a very high first year failure rate; or, to increase first degrees from three years to four and give extra tuition in study skills, essay writing, maths and other things once routinely inculcated at A-level.

The new diploma system and the latest variation on the A-level both include extended projects designed to develop the advanced study skills required. Another alternative along similar lines has been created by the Cambridge Pre-U. Others tout the merits of the baccalaureate. Critics suggest that any attempt to create a one size fits all entrance system are doomed. There are such differences in the education provided by Oxbridge, the former polytechnics and more recent creations from colleges of higher education that the preparation required is equally different.

Conclusion

Greater equality of opportunity requires more effective assistance from a very early age. This includes help with nutrition, parenting and childcare. State schools need the facilities, finances and freedoms of the independent sector and the worst need raising up to the level of the best – or just razing. The A-level needs to be brought back into line with the needs of the universities. State school teachers need direct experience of Oxbridge and Russell Group universities.

References

1. Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America, Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Stephen Machin, Sutton Trust, April 2005.
2. Intergenerational transmission of disadvantage: mobility or immobility across generations? A review of the evidence for OECD countries, Anna Cristina d’Addio, OECD, 2007.
3. University admissions by individual schools
4. Grandparents put trust in private schools. 3 January 2008.
5. Teachers' fail to send pupils to Oxbridge'. David Turner, 11 January 2008.
6. Elite schools dominate admissions to top universities. Sutton Trust
7. The educational backgrounds of 500 leading figures.
8. Statement on the Sutton Trust report
9. University of Cambridge: response to Sutton Trust admissions report
10. Cambridge Student
11. Top universities fail to spend £3m set aside to attract poorer students
12. London School of Economics announced as one of five universities chosen for £1.5m College of Law/Sutton Trust diversity programme
13. High-flyers to help bright pupils
14. Where have all the yuppies gone? Liverpool Daily {Post, 17 December 2007.
15. Class Mobility, Telegraph, 12 December 2008
16. Competition for Private and State School Teachers by Francis Green, Stephen Machin, Richard Murphy and Yu Zhu, Centre for the Economics of Education Discussion Paper No. 94, January 2008.
17. Stephanie Baker-Said, Alan Bennett was right about getting into Oxford, coaches show. 7 January 2008
18. Why we can’t turn our backs on the league-table generation Times Higher Education, 10 January 2008.
19. Recent Changes in Intergenerational Mobility in the UK: A Summary of Findings. Jo Blanden, Stephen Machin, Sutton Trust April 2005.