---

Higher Education

I mentioned lack of competence in some subjects, and I should like to give an example of that. Have the changes to post-qualification access—PQA—been shelved? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us later. It is a system whereby students apply to university after they receive their A-level results. In September 2005, the Department published consultation proposals from a group chaired by Sir Alan Wilson about the implementation of PQA. The Department based the case for change on the fact that 45 per cent. of predicted A-level grades are accurate. The group highlighted the fact that predicted grades were most inaccurate for students"““from the lower socio-economic groups and those from certain school or college backgrounds”” ." The Department said that, ““crucially””, students with underestimated grades did"““not receive the conditional offers that they merit””." In other words, students from lower socio-economic groups were disadvantaged by the current system. However, Geoff Hayward, who produced a report for UCAS, said:"““It’s just not true. They are trying to portray a particular image that poorer students are being disadvantaged by the system, but the report I wrote finds very, very weak, if any, support for that conclusion.””" Dr. Hayward’s report shows that predicted grades are indeed less accurate for students from lower socio-economic groups, who are more likely to have their grades exaggerated. However, the discrepancy is largely explained by the accuracy of the different grade predictions. A grades are much more reliably predicted than others, and a strong correlation remains between socio-economic background and achievement at A-level. The report states:"““Teachers in independent and grammar schools make the most reliable predictions, largely because of the high proportion of A grades being achieved in these institutions.””" The fact that fewer than half of all grade predictions are accurate matters only if it affects admissions. The report finds little evidence that it does. It found ““only weak and negative evidence”” of over-prediction increasing applicants’ chances of success. Some commentators observed that the idea that the whole system might change to benefit specific sorts of applicant, however deserving, was asking for trouble. Why change the whole system when the evidence suggests that offers are not affected by slight inaccuracies in predicted grades? After a major push for a move to PQA in 2005, the Government seem to have gone very quiet. Have they realised their mistake and buried the issue? Perhaps the Minister will explain in his summing up what is happening, but there is a bigger issue. If PQA is not a magic-bullet answer to improving fair access to higher education, what are the Government going to do to improve the chances of bright and able pupils from poor backgrounds to access top universities? Preferably, they will not offer socially engineered schemes—but I look forward to the Minister’s response.