‘Under-radar’ Francis review set to shake up university access

English universities have been accused of failing to pay sufficient attention to a wide-ranging review of the school curriculum that could prove to be “critically important” for students’ pipeline into higher education.

The Labour government-commissioned inquiry is expected to report later this year and make recommendations that may affect subject choices, qualification types and assessment options; all influencing students’ preparedness for university and what they choose to study.

Led by Becky Francis, a former director of UCL Institute of Education (IOE), the review panel also includes Nic Beech, vice-chancellor of the University of Salford, and Jo-Anne Baird, the director of the Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment.

But, while the review has dominated policy conversations in the schools world, universities have generally been ambivalent to its progress.

The sector was “not talking anything like enough about the review”, said Nick Hillman, the director of the Higher Education Policy Institute. “If she [Francis] makes recommendations and government implements them, it’s going to be critically important for the pipeline of universities.”

The Russell Group of research-intensive universities confirmed to Times Higher Education that it did not submit a response to a call for evidence for the review held late last year.

Universities UK did submit evidence but chose not to publicise its response. A summary document, shared with THE, shows the representative body emphasised the need for students to study a broad range of subjects “to support future skills needs” but said it was “imperative” that the social sciences, arts and the humanities are not neglected.

Speculation around the review has focused on the question of whether Francis will recommend ending the “English baccalaureate” – a Conservative government-era initiative that heavily shapes the provision schools offer at GCSE level towards more traditional subjects, which has generally been felt to have been detrimental to the arts.

At A level, the review could also consider the number of subjects pupils typically study, potentially recommending it is expanded from the current three.

Both measures would shape degree choices, said Hillman, hypothetically helping subjects that have been suffering with enrolments and boosting efforts to diversify intakes.

At the same time “if you had a broader curriculum, you would know less about your subject when it comes to university, so there are knock-on consequences”, he said.

UUK’s response also highlighted the “limited” choice at A level which, it said, “means that subject clustering often occurs around particular specialisms”.

“Whilst this offers impressive depth of study for further study or skilled employment, it is also important that learners are taught core skills (such as functional maths) that can facilitate flexibility to alternative pathways later in life,” the response added.

Sandra Leaton Gray, professor of education futures at the IOE, said while a wider focus on arts and creativity might make sense from a “holistic education point of view”, it needed to be better linked to employment opportunities or it risked leaving students disappointed. 

Graduate schemes and apprenticeships now heavily favour science and maths subjects, Leaton Gray added, and given universities have become increasingly focused on providing education focused on future employment, changes in the school curriculum could end up “exacerbating the disconnect” between school-leaving qualifications and university entry needs.

UUK also urged Francis to consider attainment gaps between different school types, geographic areas and levels of disadvantage that “continue to be a real barrier to post-18 progression” and were exacerbated during the pandemic.

Mary Curnock Cook, a former chief executive of admission service Ucas, said the higher education sector should use the review to emphasise how qualifications other than A levels including BTECs – which may still be scrapped by the current government – remain an important “pathway” for 16-19-year-olds, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

She highlighted how the main barrier to progression in higher education was arguably at GCSE level, after which those who have fared badly or missed their English and maths grades are prevented from accessing more advanced programmes.

Curnock Cook said that therefore the sector should support measures that increase success at this level and emphasise reforms to English and maths to help the “forgotten third” who get stuck without these key qualifications.

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com