Who cares what you get in your A Levels?
by Matt Grist
A storm has broken out over a Times Educational Supplement article in which Jonny Griffiths, a teacher at Paston College Norfolk, recounts telling a bright student called Michael who is ‘obsessed’ with getting an A grade that: “apart from you, Michael, who cares what you get in your A-levels?... What is better: to go to Cambridge with three As and hate it or go to Bangor with three Cs and love it?”
At first, a lot of people thought this was satire. But apparently Jonny Griffiths is real and uttered these words with a straight face, which is quite astonishing and rather depressing. We hear a lot of anecdotes about unambitious teachers settling for second best, but never from the horse’s mouth like this.
Beyond anecdote, how widespread is dreadful mediocrity in the state system? It is hard to quantify such things, but there is indicative evidence that it is pretty widespread.
In 2009 the Sutton Trust undertook some research looking at application rates to England’s top universities from different upper-secondary institutions. What it found was that such universities showed no bias towards equally qualified candidates from different kinds of institution (all had similar acceptance rates), but that students at some institutions made far more applications than others (giving them a better chance of being accepted onto a sought-after course).
Not surprisingly, well-qualified students from high-performing independent schools made the most applications, followed by grammar schools and high-performing comprehensives, with middling and poorly performing comprehensives, sixth-form colleges and FE colleges bringing up the rear.
Remember, students from all these institutions were equally qualified in terms of A levels, the Sutton Trust simply measured the number of applications they made. Now, the latter is not a perfect proxy for the ambition of teachers, since there are many influences on the applications process (including the influence of parents and peers). Yet it would seem that the level of disparity in numbers of applications indicates many teachers in the state system are not doing anywhere near enough to encourage bright kids to aim high. For example, high-performing independent schools made twice as many applications to top universities as similarly high-performing comprehensives.
So as well as Jonny Griffiths being real the evidence suggests the problem he exemplifies is equally real. Interestingly, this gives succour to Russell Group vice chancellors who say the causes of less-affluent candidates not getting in to top universities lie further down the supply chain. And it is not a problem Les Ebdon will be able to do anything about as head of OFFA. Nevertheless, it is a problem that urgently needs to be addressed.
Mark Macho
Send Grist back to the mill. What makes you so sure Oxbridge is top?
I suspect the same thing that makes you think Britain is beloved around the world or the queen or Yorkshire. pudding---a large dose of childhood indoctrination topped up with the BBC's tax supported
self compliment machine. Britain's rise and rise was presided over by Oxbridge excellencies but in many cases not created by them and in
many cases opposed. And what of today's decline and decline in the national league tables? Not a poster child for national Renaissance.
Oxbridge and the realm have prospered when they were clever and
involved with clever people with clever ideas, not when they fancied themselves. 600 million Chinese graduates and Britons worried
about the refinements of its educational class system who is out
and who's the bee's knees---not very inspiring. The people at the top are not adequate so what's so great? And neither is the idea of
increasing the national store of intelligence by limiting educational access. If Britain were flowering we would be expanding our institutions and we would have the money to pay for it!
Are we meddling to confirm our prejudices or to improve our actual
condition?
PS
PS We learn that Matt Grist's hero is Kant? Study Kant folks. Learn his hermetic thinking. See where it eventually led. It led ultimately to the destruction of Germany. Then ask yourself is this the kind of 'closed mind' thinking that is going to improve Britains educational, scientific and innovative potential. O Dear Matt. Like Kant you need to get out a bit and see and experience the world.
matt Grist
The first two comments talk about 'Oxbridge' quite a lot, when I don't mention the word once in my post...
Malcolm Rasala
So Matt who are you referring to when you use "England’s top universities" in your text. Maybe Essex University. Or the University of Bootle. Perhaps the University of Little Cotswold on the Wold?
Malcolm Rasala
Matt Grist asks " how widespread is dreadful mediocrity in the state system". What about 'dreadful mediocrity in the private school system'?
Take a look at our 'supposed' leaders? Public schoolboys treadmilled through the Oxbridge tutorial system. Do they strike you as inspiring? Do they strike you as wildly knowledgeable? Do they strike you as innovative, open minded ready to embrace the 'new', ready to beat China, America and our other global rivals with really NEW thinking?
Does George Osborne appear to you to use empirical evidence to create economic policy or theoretical bias? Does Lansley appear to be basing NHS 'reforms' on unbiased evidence or political ideology? Does a Prime Minister who calls for 'Judeo-Christian morality appear
to be cutting a new path or just following old backward looking bronze age mediocrities?
The trouble with 'closed' thinking like that of Matts here is that it always looks at the micro and never the macro picture. He goes on and on about state schools but never - it seems - questions the dreadful mediocrity of our public school leaders. Yes Matt dreadful mediocrity indeed. Open your eyes. Look about you