Sunday, October 17, 2004

BRITAIN BACKS OFF DESTROYING ITS GREATEST EDUCATIONAL TREASURE

They were trying to fill Oxford and Cambridge with dummies in the name of "fairness"

"Targets for admission of students from state schools and poorer families to university are likely to be scrapped by the Government, The Times has learnt. Ministers are to review the "benchmarks" in the wake of hostility from elite universities to the sharp increase in their targets for recruitment of state students. Cambridge and Oxford have said that their benchmarks are no longer attainable after being told to increase their state intakes to 77 per cent from 68 and 69 per cent respectively. The Russell Group of 19 leading universities is meeting this month to determine its response.

The move comes as Charles Clarke, the Education Secretary, names the 100,000 pounds-a-year director of the new Office for Fair Access (Offa) today. The director, dubbed "OffToff" by critics, will approve tuition fee increases for universities that sign agreements to boost applications by students from state schools and working-class backgrounds. This move is likely to cause uproar among backbench Labour MPs who oppose the increase in fees to 3,000 pounds a year from 2006. They see the benchmarks as a means of putting pressure on top universities to accept more state students at the expense of candidates from fee-paying schools.

Ministers have been stung by the ferocity of the response from universities to the performance indicators published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (Hesa) last month. The backlash has caused the Department for Education and Skills to question the value of the benchmarks, particularly now that universities will have to set their own access "milestones" in individual negotiations with Offa. The statistics agency has adopted the points system used by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas). This dramatically expanded the pool of students that Hesa considered eligible to apply to the best universities, even though most did not meet the necessary academic standards. An analysis at Cambridge showed that 55,104 students had amassed 360 Ucas points, the equivalent of three A-level A grades. But only 16,984 had achieved the standard expected at Cambridge.

The review was welcomed by Professor Michael Sterling, chairman of the Russell Group and Vice-Chancellor of Birmingham University. He said: "That is encouraging. The use of Ucas points moved the goalposts enormously. That was a mistake." Baroness Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK, representing the higher education sector, said: "I think it's sensible to look at it again."

Kim Howells told vice-chancellors yesterday, in his first speech as Higher Education Minister: "I am looking at the moment at the way in which these results are gathered and published . . . I'm prepared to look at this question." In what he called a "myth-busting" response to the row over the targets, Dr Howells said: "Universities must be the masters of their own admissions policies." He noted that universities had been keen to use the benchmarks before they became so controversial. He insisted that there was "no admissions conspiracy" by the Government. "This Government does not have a back door admissions agenda," he said.

Dr Howells said ministers regarded the gap in university entry by higher and lower social classes as unacceptably wide. The solution was a "triple A approach" to raise attainment in schools, tackle low aspirations in students, and boost applications from families without a history of higher education. But interference in admissions was "strictly off the menu".

However, Professor Sterling said he was concerned by Dr Howells's remark that universities would have to satisfy Offa that their targets were "stretching and ambitious" before being allowed to raise fees. He would be seeking assurances about the yardsticks that Offa would use in discussions with universities to determine whether they were being sufficiently ambitious in seeking more state school and working-class applicants.

From The Times




BUREAUCRACY IS TOO MUCH FOR AMERICA'S UNDER-EDUCATED STUDENTS

Filling out a 4-page form is too much for them even if it costs them thousands

"A new study says hundreds of thousands of college students who may be eligible for federal financial aid don't get it for a simple reason - they don't apply. The study released Monday by the American Council on Education, which represents colleges and universities, says that half of the 8 million undergraduates enrolled in 1999-2000 at institutions participating in federal student aid programs did not complete the main federal aid application form. Many were well off, and correctly assumed they wouldn't get aid. But the study found 1.7 million low- and moderate-income students also failed to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Two-thirds of community college students did not apply for aid, compared to 42 percent at public four-year colleges and 13 percent at private colleges.

The study concludes 850,000 of those students would have been eligible for a Pell Grant, the principal federal grant for low-income students. The findings underscore a point often made by educators: Even as college costs rise, students often miss financial aid opportunities because they aren't aware of how the system works. "It's frustrating when you know someone could be eligible and they just don't do it for various reasons," said Tammy Capps, financial aid director at Shawnee Community College in Ullin, Ill., where about 900 of the 2,500 students receive Pell Grants. She said complexity of the form is often a reason students don't apply. "We'll even help them fill it out," she said. "But we have to talk to them face to face to give that information and that doesn't always happen. They don't think to call and ask."

The government has worked to simplify the FAFSA form, but it still runs four pages and several worksheets, and King said complexity is likely an issue in some cases.

More here:


***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************

No comments: