The Most Able Students (June 2013)

1. The Most Able Students (June 2013) Support and Guidance for University Entrance

2. Key Findings 1 • Too few of the schools worked with families to support them in overcoming the cultural and financial obstacles that stood in the way of the most able students attending university, particularly universities away from the immediate local area. Schools did not provide much information about the various benefits of attending different universities or help the most able students to understand more about the financial support available. • Most of the 11-16 schools visited were insufficiently focused on university entrance. These schools did not provide students with sufficiently detailed advice and guidance on all the post-16 options available.

3. Key Findings 2 • Schools’ expertise in and knowledge about how to apply to the most prestigious universities was not always current and relevant. Insufficient support and guidance were provided to those most able students whose family members had not attended university.’

4. Additional Points 1 • Support and guidance varied in quality, accuracy and depth. Around half of schools visited ‘accepted any university as an option’. Almost a quarter had much to do to convince students and their families of the benefits of higher education, and began doing so too late. • Data provided by 26 of the 29 11-18 schools showed just 16 students went to Oxbridge in 2011, one eligible for FSM, but almost half came from just two of the schools. Nineteen had no students accepted at Oxbridge. The 2012 figures showed some improvement with 26 admitted to Oxbridge from 28 schools, three of them FSM-eligible. • In 2011, 293 students went to Russell Group universities, but only six were FSM eligible. By 2012 this had increased to 352, including 30 eligible for FSM, but over a quarter of the 352 came from just two schools.

5. Additional Points 2 • Factors inhibiting application to prestigious universities included pressure to stay in the locality, cost (including fees), aversion to debt and low expectations. Almost half of the schools visited tackled this through partnership with local universities. • Schools did not always provide early or effective careers advice or information about the costs and benefits of attending university. • Some schools showed a lack of up-to-date intelligence about universities and their entrance requirements, but one third of those visited provided high quality support and guidance.

6. Additional Points 3 • Some schools regarded going to any university as the indicator of success, disagreeing that it was appropriate to push students towards prestigious universities, rather than the ‘right’ institution for the student. • Most of the 11-16 schools visited were insufficiently focused on university entrance. They did not provide sufficiently detailed advice on post-16 options and did not track students’ destinations effectively, either post-16 or post-18. • The best schools: provided early on a planned programme to raise students’ awareness of university education; began engaging with students and parents about this as soon as they entered the school; provided support and guidance about subject choices, entry requirements and course content; supported UCAS applications; enabled students to visit a range of universities; and used alumni as role models.

7. Recommendations Schools should: • Work more closely with families, especially first generation HE applicants and FSM-eligible to overcome cultural and financial obstacles to HE application • Develop more knowledge and expertise to support applications to the most prestigious universities • Publish more widely the university destinations of their students

8. ‘The Most Able Students’ – Ofsted (June 2013) Gifted Phoenix Blog analysis of ‘The Most Able Students’ – June 2013 ‘Higher Education: the Fair Access Challenge’ – SMCPC (June 2013) Destinations of key stage 4 and key stage 5 pupils: 2010 to 2011 – DfE (June 2013)