The deadline for university applications is rapidly approaching, with warnings sounded that this year’s A-Level cohort will face more competition for places following two years in which grades were awarded without public examinations.

However, it still remains the case that these young people will be a minority. Over half of young people do not achieve at least two A-Levels by age 19.

The remainder pursue a wide range of other options. Some may have tried A-Levels before switching to other courses. Some will have taken qualifications equivalent to A-Level (so-called ‘Level 3’ qualifications), while others will have taken lower-level qualifications equivalent to GCSE and below.

But what are the most effective pathways to Level 3 attainment post-16 for individuals who perhaps don’t have the GCSE grades to start Level 3 after completing Year 11?

In a new study funded by the Nuffield Foundation, we plan to find out. In this blogpost, we set the scene for our work, illustrating our thinking using the latest DfE statistics on qualifications achieved by 19-year-olds.

Post-16 routes for those not pursuing A-Levels

Great progress was made between 2004 and 2014 in opening up routes to Level 3 through other types of qualification, particularly BTECs. 42% of 19-year-olds in 2004 had achieved Level 3 qualifications. This increased to 61% by 2015. Yet over this period, the percentage of young people achieving Level 3 via A-Levels only changed from 37% to 39%.

However since 2015, the percentage of 19-year-olds with Level 3 qualifications has barely changed. In fact, since 2017 it has fallen slightly. This is largely due to A-Level reforms, including the decoupling of AS-Levels, and changes to the way qualifications are counted.

Further reform is planned. The introduction of T-Levels could lead to funding for other vocational and technical Level 3 qualifications being scrapped and because of a lack of evidence, it is not clear how this will impact learners.

At Level 2 (equivalent to GCSE grades 9-4) the effects of reforms, such as those from the Wolf Review, have been even greater. The percentage of 19-year-olds with Level 2 qualifications increased from 66% in 2004 to 88% in 2015 and has since fallen to 83%. Here we set out some of the reasons behind this.

As the DfE statistical commentary shows, disadvantaged pupils and those with SEN have been disproportionately affected. For instance, the proportion of young people eligible for free school meals (FSM) in Year 11 who achieve Level 2 by age 19 fell from 72% to 63% between 2015 and 2019, increasing the attainment gap from 16.5 to 22.1 percentage points (making it higher in 2019 than it was a decade ago).

It is not clear that we currently have the evidence needed to develop policy that will improve the situation of these disadvantaged young people.

Evidence on post-16 study and qualifications at Level 2 and below

A recent call for evidence focused on post-16 qualifications, aims to ‘improve study at Level 2 and below’ and builds on the review of post-16 qualifications at Level 3 and below. Unfortunately, we agree with the Social Mobility Commission (SMC) that there has been “relatively limited activity focused on bringing together the evidence on what works to improve outcomes in the [Further Education] sector.”

Our own submission to the Level 2 review was rather limited – the majority of questions were aimed at employers and providers. Responses from these stakeholders will provide insights that are central to the success of any post-16 reforms, but their experiences provide options for learning at Level 2 and below in the post-16 environment. Much more work is then needed to create, across these options, evidence on those that are most effective.

This search for evidence needs to answer the question of ‘what works… and for whom’. This is always the question one should ask, but when considering learning at Level 2 and below in the post-16 environment, the question of ‘for whom’ is particularly important for good policy design.

The SMC note that much of the post-16 evidence on what works is focused on groups of disadvantaged young people, but it tends to cover short time periods, be small in scale, mainly qualitative and there remains a lack of UK-specific evidence. SMC could find only one study providing evidence on what works in the post-16 environment for young people with an identified SEN, notwithstanding the overlap between the SEN and disadvantage.

According to DfE statistics, 79,000 19-year-olds in 2019 had been identified as having SEN when in Year 11, just under half of whom had not achieved Level 2. In addition, there are other pupils identified as SEN earlier in their school career.

These learners face a range of unique barriers to achievement, their situation has worsened, and we have no reliable evidence on what works for them in the post-16 environment.

Filling the evidence gap

Our study of educational and labour market outcomes uses the DfE Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) dataset to identify effective post-16 education pathways to Level 2 and Level 3 achievement, for learners with a 3 or below in maths and/or English at KS4. We hope this will provide valuable evidence on ‘what works’ for young people with an identified SEN in the post-16 environment and we will attempt to unravel the impacts that reforms, such as those stemming from the Wolf Review, have had on this specific group of learners.

Our analysis of LEO data using advanced econometric techniques will allow us to identify post-16 education pathways that support these young people to achieve at Level 2 and above, and secure positive labour market outcomes. Recent reviews have been particularly focused on what a preparation for Level 3 year might look like and this will be a focus of our study. New research from Nuffield suggests progression from GCSEs is not working for many young people and whilst just under one-third of those with some A*-C grades at GCSE (including English or maths) progressed to Level 3, just under 15 per cent transitioned to Level 1.

Our work will inform discussion on the nature of any ‘transition year’, with a particular focus on ‘what works’ for the 55% of disadvantaged young people for whom grade 3 or below in maths and/or English is still the expectation at GCSE[1]; and for this group, we will differentiate those whose performance at KS4 suggests more or less fundamental challenges in achieving Level 2. Currently there is no clear evidence on which combination (of approaches to recruitment, pedagogy and career advice) produce the best outcomes for these young people in the post-16 environment.

However, our study needs to be accompanied by social experiments that subject a variety of pedagogical and advisory approaches to rigorous evaluation – analysis of LEO data is essential to identify areas of post-16 delivery that are working, but this then needs to be accompanied by more targeted experimental evaluation studies. This will begin to fill the evidence gap identified by the SMC, but what are policy makers to do whilst this evidence is being collated?

Given the close link between recent reforms and increased attainment gaps for young people with SEN and FSM eligibility, we would advise a period of reflection, as change disrupts all learners, but particularly the most vulnerable.

This project is being funded by the Nuffield Foundation, but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation. Visit www.nuffieldfoundation.org.

Want to stay up-to-date with the latest research from FFT Education Datalab? Sign up to Datalab’s mailing list to get notifications about new blogposts, or to receive the team’s half-termly newsletter.