Do Russell Group universities really require 3 'facilitating' A levels?
The inclusion of new measure, the % of students in sixth forms that achieve AAB in 'facilitating' subjects' at A level, has caused much hand wringing in the press. The BBC reported
that "almost a quarter of England's sixth forms and colleges have failed to produce any pupils with the top A-level grades sought by leading universities" and most of the press followed suit.
But I found this odd. The school I chair was listed as having only 5% achieving the facilitating subjects, yet our sixth form is in the top 10% nationally for value added, three of our students have offers for Oxbridge and many more have offers for Russell Group universities. if three facilitating subjects are required, then how did these students get their offers?
In fact none of the three Oxbridge students have the supposedly required three facilitating subjects. One has Drama as their 3rd A level, another has Photography. is this new measure based on what universities actually want?
Russell Group Advice: Two Facilitating Subjects
When I asked our Head of Sixth Form, he explained that the school was very careful to advise students in which subjects to take, based on Russell Group guidance. There is a very useful page on the Russell Group site, called "Informed Choices"
, which includes a booklet
and video of useful advice.
These do set out the facilitating subjects: Maths, Further Maths, English Literature, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Geography, History and Languages. But it does not suggest three facilitating subjects but only two. Indeed it specifically advises: "Generally speaking students who take one 'soft' subject as part of a wider portfolio of subjects do not experience any problems applying to a Russell Group university." (p29 of Informed Choices)
If this is accurate, then the new measure is nonsense. The DfE should indeed be asking whether schools are helping students choose the right subjects to get into the best universities, if they have the potential, but - because this appears to be the wrong measure - we have no idea whether students are taking appropriate subjects. The correct measure is surely which % of students gets AAB including two facilitating subjects.
So the Department for Education and, based on DfE advice, the press has once again attacked our schools and our students based on a measure that has no meaning. In fact our schools may be doing very well at getting students to combine playing to their strengths with taking the appropriate subjects.
Setting Schools Against Students
Worse this new measure could have a very dangerous effect. Measures of school success should align what benefits the school with what benefits students. As a governor I am happy with the school devoting spare resources to helping borderline GCSE students get C grades, as it not only helps the school's league table measure but makes a difference to the life chances of those students.
The reverse is the case here. The best course for students appears to be to take two facilitating subjects combined with a 3rd subject of their choice which will best p-lay to their talents. But the best course for the school to succeed on this measure is to persuade students, possibly against their best interests, to take a 3rd facilitating subject rather than the one they are best at.
Is this another case of Michael Gove seeking to make students take the subjects he personally thinks they should rather than those actually required by universities?