05 June 2006

“We are clear that PQA (post qualification applications) is not going to happen overnight.” Yeah but ‘will it ever happen at all’ that’s what many are asking?

This latest Paper on the matter responds to the ‘Wilson’ DfES consultation last autumn, which in turn responded to the Schwartz recommendations in 2004 which in turn responded to the HE White Paper proposals in 2003 which in turn responded to proposals from Lord Dearing and others in some cases 10 years previously. It proposes the setting up of yet another group, a Delivery Partnership of stakeholders and recommends a further review, this time in 2010/11. The end product is “commit to working for the introduction of PQA from 2012.” Cautious words at best.

The problem is that the university sector appears split over PQA. As the Minister’s Foreword puts it, “there remains a gulf between those who wish to see limited change and those who would wish to see a full PQA system.” This gulf has been evident throughout much of the debate; some clinging to the belief that all that is needed is a few nudges to the system, others calling for wider overhaul. Everybody wants an application system that operates as fairly as possible but the question is how best to achieve this.

What we seem to have now is a bit of both worlds; some nudges to improve the system by 2008/9, and then, in the light of a further review, potentially a move towards full PQA for 2012. Sitting in the middle and now holding the hospital ball is the Delivery Partnership who have to come up with most of the answers.

On the positive side, nearly a dozen of the proposals in the DfES consultation have been accepted for 2008/9. Most are sensible and straightforward. Thus UCAS will continue to extend the information it provides for applicants, better financial information will be provided and the suitability of e portfolios will be considered. In addition, applicants will make five rather than six initial choices, a compromise on the proposed four although this remains for courses such as Medicine, an unlimited number of additional applications, one at a time up to the end of June, will be permitted, and HEIs will publish monthly vacancy lists. Applicants will continue to hold up to two offers and will be able to put in another application if they only get one offer after their initial application. Finally, the two route application procedure for Art and Design will be replaced by a single route running from September to the end of March or possibly beyond.

The most significant amongst the initial recommendations, however, is that of publishing A level results a week early. Scottish Highers are already published a week ahead so this would align the system across the UK, create a bit more headroom during the intensive Clearing season and avoid altering the HE academic calendar. This proposal was supported by 80% of respondents although it was recognised that professional associations need to be consulted to ensure that teachers can be on hand a week early to help their students where necessary.

Two consequences stand out from such a move. One is to ensure that no additional risk is added to the safe delivery of the A level results and the other is not to forget the large number of applicants who take vocational qualifications and perhaps in time specialised Diplomas, to gain entry into HE. On the former, Awarding Bodies have made enormous strides over the last few years in gearing up the system to be able to deliver results earlier, on the latter the Paper is weak. “We acknowledge the scale of the challenge…recommend the Delivery Partnership consult with Awarding Bodies” and so on. This suggests that a lot of work needs doing to avoid the vocational route getting short shrift again.

On four of the DfES proposals, respondents were split and so the issue has been parked with the Delivery Partnership (DP) to sort out. One is about offering more detailed feedback to rejected applicants. Opinions were divided here, some even fearing possible litigation if they were not careful so the DP is asked to ‘develop a view.’ Another is about the use of predicted exam results, a source of some concern given that 55% are reckoned to be inaccurate. Amongst respondents, HE seemed more keen on keeping the system of predicted results, schools and colleges less so. The recommendation therefore is that “predicted grades remain as an aid in the short term while other reforms are brought in.” In addition, AS results and completed units of vocational qualifications should be looked at closely for inclusion on the UCAS form.

A third issue on which views were split was on extending the deadline for applications to the end of March. Some thought this too long, ‘leaving students uncertain for a longer period of time,’ others that it would help those who tended to apply late. So for the moment the 15 October and 15 January deadlines remain but kept under review by the Diploma Partnership. Finally there was the issue about those students who gain higher grades than anticipated and whether they should be able to make a new application and protect their original first firm offer while they do so. Apparently some 9,000 students are in this category and while the principle was accepted, it was feared that it would make planning very difficult as a result. So the compromise is that a ‘facility’ is created for some students to make a fresh application if they wish to do so before Clearing starts, in effect a post qualification adjustment period.

So what of the future beyond 2008/9, a phase now cautiously described as ‘towards a system of PQA.’ Both of the original options in the DfES consultation were rejected. The first was a two stage approach comprising a pre results registration phase and a post results application phase. This received a 68% thumbs down. The other option would have seen some places offered before results were known and some kept for after, this received a 55% no no. So in the best traditions, the whole issue of a full PQA model is shoved to the Diploma Partnership to wrestle with and for good measure a further set of questions arising out of the consultation is added.

Three criteria it seems need to be satisfied for PQA to be more widely accepted; progress towards earlier publication of results, progress towards widening participation and avoiding anything that will adversely affect applications from abroad. This may run for a while yet.

© Edexcel Policy Watch 2005. Steve Besley is General Manger of Education Policy at Edexcel. Policy watch is a service intended to help busy people understand developments in the world of education. Visit Edexcel at www.edexcel.org.uk