Since August 2013, students on any 16-19 study programme, who had not achieved a grade A*-C in GCSE English and/or maths by the end of KS4, must work towards achieving these qualifications.  Providers of post-16 education are duty-bound to support students as they retake their exams, or work towards an approved equivalent. More recently, this has become a condition of student places funded by the Education Funding Agency (EFA). 

A year after this change was introduced, the Department for Education (DfE) has released experimental statistics which give insight into the level of progress made by these students.  The national data provides information on the numbers of students who had not achieved a grade A*-C in English and/or maths at the end of KS4 in 2010/11 and their subsequent progress in these two subject areas in 2012/13.[1]

At Learning Plus UK Data, we have used this data to examine the relationship between these students’ post-16 progress and the type of educational institution[2] they attend. It should be noted that percentages for each institution-type will not total 100%, as for some students there were no available records of activity, and other students will have deferred for an additional year.

Please also note that references to ‘level of learning’ are dependent on each student’s previous achievements, with qualification ‘levels’ referring to:

Level 2: A* to C in GCSE English/maths; other English/maths qualifications at level 2

Level 1: D to G in GCSE English/maths; other English/maths qualifications at level 1

Entry level: English/maths at entry level

Thus, a student with an ‘AQA Functional Skills qualification in Mathematics at Level 1’, who goes on to achieve a D in GCSE maths is recorded as having a higher level of learning.

English

The infographic shows that the students who demonstrated the greatest levels of improvement were those attending ‘sixth form colleges’, ‘other academies and free schools’ and ‘special schools’, where the majority of students entered into GCSE re-sits or similar qualifications achieved a higher level of learning than they had previously. For example, whilst 12.2% of students studying at ‘sixth form colleges’ achieved a lower level at post-16 than in KS4, 43.5% achieved a higher level.

‘Local authority mainstream schools’ and ‘sponsored academies’ did not appear to have quite the same level of improvement, with a greater proportion of their students’ learning levels remaining the same (32.6% and 34.3%, respectively) than increasing or decreasing. However, there were still more students making progress than not.

On the contrary, students from the three remaining categories, ‘other FE sector’, ‘work-based learning’ and ‘part-time students in reported schools and colleges’ were more likely to achieve a lower level of learning than they were to achieve a higher or the same level as in their KS4 study.

Maths

The maths infographic shows a similar picture, with the only key difference being the slight drop in levels of improvement at ‘Other academies and free schools’.

Eighteen per cent of students at ‘Sixth Form colleges’ working towards a level 1 or 2 maths qualification did not achieve a higher level of learning than in KS4 or even maintain their previous level, however, 39.6% were able to improve on their earlier results.

Institutions which showed the majority of students remaining at the same level of learning at the end of KS5 included ‘other academies and free schools’ (36.1%), ‘local authority mainstream schools’ (36.7%) and ‘sponsored academies’ (37%). However, in each case there was still a greater number of students increasing their level of learning, than decreasing.

Maths outcomes for ‘other FE sector’, ‘work-based learning’ and ‘part-time students in reported schools and colleges’ showed a similar trend to the English results, with the majority of students achieving a lower level of learning at post-16 than at KS4. Of these, the greatest regression seems to be in ‘work-based learning’, with 42.3% of students failing to at least reach the same level of learning as they had previously. Slightly fewer ‘part-time students in reported schools and colleges’ demonstrated this  reversal in learning outcomes, but still only 8.9% of these students improved on their previous learning level.

Although it should be noted that the percentage of students who went on to attain a GCSE A*-C is still low (with just 7.3% of all recorded students achieving such a grade in English, and 7.8% in maths), our data analysis suggests that the opportunity to work towards a higher level of learning on a 16-19 study programme was beneficial for many of the students who had not achieved a grade A*-C in GCSE English and/or maths previously.

However, is there a relationship between institution type and the progress made at post-16? Students studying at ‘Sixth Form colleges’ seem to demonstrate the greatest levels of improvement, whereas ‘Work-based learning’ and ‘Other FE Sector’ institutions do not appear to garner the same progression. Do you have any experience of teaching Level 1 and 2 English/maths at a post-16 institution? Is this approach beneficial to students? We would welcome your insight into this topic. Check out our infographic and join us on Twitter @learningplusuk, on our Post-16 Learning Forum or LinkedIn group to share your views!

[1] DfE eSFR32: Level 1 and 2 English and maths: 16 to 18 students - 2012 to 2013 

[2] As reported in eSFR32