THE MINISTER responsible for higher education was under pressure last night after allegedly misrepresenting research on university admissions.

Bill Rammell was asked to explain the apparent misuse of research to show that students from wealthier backgrounds were gaining an unfair advantage in the race for places at leading universities.

Mr Rammell justified proposals for universities to hold back a proportion of their places until after the publication of A- level results by saying that “the existing system is least fair to the poorest students”.

But The Times has found that the study commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills shows the opposite. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Michael Howard and a range of other senior politicians have recently called for the restoration of trust in politics.

Mr Rammell and DfES officials would be straining the ministerial and civil service codes if they deliberately misled the public. It was suggested by one opposition politician last night that Mr Rammell’s job could be on the line. The Civil Service Code states that civil servants have “the duty to give Parliament or the Assembly and the public as full information as possible about their policies, decisions and actions, and not to deceive or knowingly mislead them”.

The ministerial code says: “It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.”

The information was contained in a press release and not given to Parliament, but the code underlines how important it is not to mislead.

The DfES-commissioned study shows that poorer teenagers were the most likely to have their predicted results exaggerated by their teachers. Grade predictions on university application forms were most accurate for students from wealthier backgrounds. Teachers at state schools overestimated the true performance of their students far more than those in the independent sector.

The study, carried out by academics at Oxford University, concluded: “There is no evidence to support the view that those with overpredicted grades received more offers than those who have their performance underpredicted.”

Geoff Hayward, who produced the report for the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas), said that he was mystified and annoyed at the way the DfES had presented the research. He said: “The evidence we produced does not support the strong contention that those from less well-off backgrounds are being disadvantaged by the current system.

“It’s just not true. They are trying to portray a particular image that poorer students are being disadvantaged by the system, but the report I wrote finds very, very weak, if any, support for that conclusion.”

Opposition parties expressed astonishment. David Cameron, the Shadow Education Secretary, said: “The Government claims to have a very strong evidence base for its proposal. This no longer seems to be the case. There is a real worry in this about the Government misusing information to come up with the wrong answer.”

Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat education spokesman, said: “Misrepresentation of this study’s results is not only unforgiveable but counterproductive to the interests of children from poorer families.”

Mr Rammell launched a consultation last month on proposals to reform higher education admissions. This involved some places being kept open until students knew their results.

The DfES based “the case for change” on the fact that only 45 per cent of predicted A-level grades turn out to be accurate. They were most inaccurate for students “from the lower socio-economic groups and those from certain school or college backgrounds”.

It said that “crucially” students with underestimated grades did “not receive the conditional offers that they merit”. The document went on to argue that “the reliability of predicted grades diminishes as you move down the socio-economic groups”. Grades were accurate for 51 per cent of the wealthiest pupils, but only 39 per cent of the poorest.

Dr Hayward’s document shows clearly that this is because grades are overestimated most often for students from the poorest backgrounds. Nearly 51 per cent of predicted grades for poor students are too optimistic, compared with 41 per cent for the wealthiest.

Dr Hayward’s report said: “Teachers in independent and grammar schools make the most reliable predictions, largely because of the high proportion of A grades being achieved in these institutions.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• 6 reasons not to give gifts this Christmas
• Remembrance Day: All the lonely heroes