Speaking yesterday at the Access on Action conference in London, Alan Milburn said it was time for universities to ¡°grasp the nettle of contextual data¡± when selecting pupils for admission.

The former health secretary and Labour MP is due to publish a report on social mobility, focusing on higher education, in the spring in his role as the government¡¯s independent reviewer on social mobility and child poverty.

Using information on a candidate¡¯s school and family income was vital to ensure ¡°access to university is genuinely open to the widest possible range of students¡±, he said

Research also suggested that students from state schools generally performed better than those from private schools if they achieved the same results at A-level, he added.

ߣߣÊÓƵ

¡°Clearly academic attainment should remain key to a university place,¡± Mr Milburn said.

¡°If you can¡¯t do maths at school it¡¯s unlikely you will be able to do it at university. No other single indicator provides better evidence of how a young person will get on at university than their A-level results.

ߣߣÊÓƵ

¡°But they are not fool-proof in predicting future performance.

¡°We know from Hefce [the Higher Education Funding Council for England] evidence that a typical state school pupil - once they get in to university - performs at the same or at a higher level than privately educated pupils who have better A-level grades.

¡°Studies at the University of Bristol and at the University of Oxford have bolstered that evidence base.

¡°They suggest that a pupil getting good but lower A-level grades from a poorly performing school may do better at university than somebody with better A levels from a high performing school.¡±

ߣߣÊÓƵ

Mr Milburn said he thought that most people would accept that ¡°a youngster with no family history of going to university from a disadvantaged area, attending a low achieving school, has had to work harder to get decent A-levels than a similar youngster who has attended a top school, having been brought up by well-off parents, who know the university system like the back of their hand¡±.

Universities were fearful of advancing arguments regarding contextual data after the ¡°media onslaught¡± against those, such as Bristol, that advocated the approach, he said.

¡°Universities have to summon up the courage to get out and make a positive argument for change,¡± he added. ¡°It cannot be done surreptitiously.

¡°It has to be done openly. It means confronting the argument that greater fairness means lower quality.¡±

ߣߣÊÓƵ

Institutions that refuse to view social mobility as part of their responsibilities should face financial penalties, he added.

¡°To those universities I say if you are not prepared to serve the public good, you shouldn¡¯t accept public finance,¡± he said.

ߣߣÊÓƵ

jack.grove@tsleducation.com