TUNDRA (Tracking Under-representation by Area)

The Educational Deprivation Dashboard for London is a resource funded by UCL in collaboration with Linking London. It has been developed to provide a detailed overview of the makeup of educational deprivation in London schools and colleges.

The Dashboard enables a comparison of a range of metrics used to measure deprivation – and so, we thought that it may be a good idea to have a closer look at one of the metrics integrated within the Dashboard: TUNDRA.

The Office for Students (OfS) released a new experimental metric to examine HE participation geographically in 2019. While we are all familiar with the POLAR measure, TUNDRA is a similar measure, but with a number of differences which I will outline below.

Firstly, the OfS was right to release a new metric to examine area based participation, given the methodological flaws with POLAR4, in particular with the underlying population data. These figures were calculated using population estimates, which resulted in 8% of London MSOA’s (Middle Super Output Areas) having more than 100% participation rates. Of course, this is not possible (you cannot have higher participation than there are learners) and while these areas were pushed down to a 100% rate for the construction of the quintiles, this level of inaccuracy is extremely problematic given that POLAR4 was and is not only used as a metric for Universities APPs (Access and Participation Plans) but also as a metric for millions of pounds of funding.

In contrast, the greatest strength of TUNDRA in terms of its methodology is a much more rigorous accounting for the base populations. Here, data is collected from the Department for Education for all Key Stage 4 learners at mainstream state funded schools. The years of collection for these learners’ home addresses were 2010 to 2014, who were then picked up in the HESA (Higher Education Statistical Agency) data (using fuzzy matching) for the academic years 2012/13 to 2017/18. This of course brings TUNDRA much more up to date than POLAR4 which went up to the 2014/15 academic year.

So far so good. We have a much more credible base population, and an equally rigorous participation dataset. Of course, not all learners attend mainstream state education. In 2016 there were 518,432 attending Independent Schools, which represents approximately 7% of all learners. (see ISC Key Figures Report here).  While this is a minority, we do know that these learners are over-represented in Higher Education overall, and in particular at Oxbridge and Russell Group institutions. Due to this I would suggest that the OfS consider working with the independent school sector to include these learners in the dataset.

I do also have slight ideological objections to the decision to only include mainstream schools in the analysis – as this seems to pre-suppose that learners from special schools, or Pupil Referral Units are not going to enter Higher Education. In terms of Widening Participation (which is at the heart of why we develop all these metrics) this seems to me to be opposite of what we should be doing. Surely our task is to include these learners, and develop ways to encourage them into Higher Education if they choose to do so. I for one would welcome a participation measure that looks at those learners from PRUs, Special Schools and Secure Units.

While TUNDRA so far really does seem superior to POLAR4 due to the base populations, for me the England only focus is another weakness. POLAR4 was the first iteration of the measure that included all nations, so restricting TUNDRA to England only feels like a step backwards.

Finally, the TUNDRA method was sensitive to those MSOAs with a very low base population and suppressed areas with lower than 50 participants. In all there were only 27 of these. This is also an improvement on POLAR where it has been calculated that an individual in an MSOA with fewer than 50 base population can influence the overall calculation by 2 percentage points. The OfS has released a methodological note on this here. 

Since the development of the first iteration of TUNDRA in 2019, the OfS updated the dataset to include those Key Stage 4 learners from 2012-2016 cohorts (again using fuzzy matching with the HESA data for the 2014/15 to 2019/20 academic years when these learners would be 19). In addition to this they also produced a version based on smaller geographical areas – LSOAs (Lower Super Output Areas) and no longer consider this metric to be experimental.

For me, the test of any new geographic based metric is to look at London – a large city with a lot of population movement, and a mix of wealthy and poor areas, often in close proximity. By examining the TUNDRA map (which is very slow to navigate) alongside the POLAR4 map, some interesting differences emerge.

It seems that by not including the independent schools, parts of West London move downwards in terms of participation. This is an interesting development, and may well lead to more accurate analyses of WP cohorts and their participation rates.

Overall when compared with POLAR4, TUNDRA seems to be a much more rigorous and robust metric. I would recommend that all institutions update their approach to geographic based participation rates and move beyond POLAR4, instead using the TUNDRA metric.

Karina Berzins is a Widening Participation expert who recently built a dashboard for schools in London using a number of metrics including TUNDRA. For more information click here.

This post revisits my views about TUNDRA based on an older blog, written for Continuum: the Centre for Widening Participation Studies in 2019.

‘Silver bullet’ or ‘missed opportunity’? The mixed response to the Advanced British Standard

A year before a likely general election, the government announces an overhaul of Level 3 qualifications. The “ambitious proposals,” the policy paper released by the Department for Education tells us, will “introduce the Advanced British Standard for 16-19 year-olds, a new Baccalaureate-style qualification that takes the best of A levels and T levels and brings them together into a single qualification.”  

Considering that the DfE expects the implementation of the ABS to take a decade (which means that the first potential ABS cohort is now starting primary school), the current plans are bound to change – or be scrapped altogether. Nonetheless, the announcement has stirred the sector.

Interestingly, instead of responding in unison, either embracing or criticising government’s enthusiasm for the reform, the sector has spoken with multiple voices, attesting to internal differentiation (if not division), which expresses varying levels of trust in government’s policy proposals by multiple interest groups making up the education landscape. In this blog we will take a closer look at the competing narratives following the ABS announcement.

A World-Class Education System

The title of the government’s policy report says it all: the ABS is supposed to usher “A World-Class Education System.” The new qualification is announced with an enthusiastic call for progress, building on the firm foundations of years of successful policies.

The language of achievement is omnipresent in the DfE’s report. The ABS directly builds on the “prestigious T levels” and more-rigorous-than-ever A levels. The ABS will combine “the depth and knowledge-rich content of A levels; and the high-quality, employer-led occupational standards of T levels” – the supposedly long-awaited bridge between technical and academic qualifications. 

The reform will involve an increased number of taught hours for most 16-19 students, the requirement that every young person studies some form of English and maths to age 18, and more funding for the sector. Students will have an opportunity to “choose a combination of bigger and smaller subjects – called major and minors – from both technical and academic option, and will typically study a minimum of five subjects.”

The ABS, we are told by the DfE, is “the right thing to do for young people today, and the right thing to do for the country in the long term” – a “silver bullet” for any educational ailments, taking the sector to the next, even brighter era.   

Delighted and ready to engage

David Hughes, chief executive of Association of Colleges (nearly) matched DfE’s enthusiasm. In a short response, Hughes was “delighted to see technical education and colleges form a focal point of Rishi Sunak’s plans for a more prosperous future.” He approvingly noted the increase in teaching hours and the promised funding, optimistically concluding that “the Advanced British Standard could have a significant impact on colleges.”

Sir Peter Lampl, Founder and Chairman of the Sutton Trust, called the ABS “a major step which will significantly improve social mobility,” while Teach First CEO Russel Hobby celebrated the “substantial bonuses” whose aim is “to attract and retain teachers.”

Vivienne Stern MBE, writing on behalf of Universities UK, was more sceptical. She initially criticised the PM for “talking down universities.” Ultimately, however, Universities UK, despite the critical preamble, “look forward to engaging with the government on the proposal to introduce an Advanced British Standard.”

Pie in the sky

By contrast, union representatives have slammed the proposed reforms as “out of touch.” Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, criticised the government for not addressing “immediate crises” haunting schools (recruitment and retention, crumbling school buildings, lack of support for SEND students), and for not engaging with teachers before the announcement. Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union called Sunak’s policies “pie-in-the-sky” – according to Kebede, the ABS is “misconceived,” attesting to PM’s “detachment from reality.” “There is no magic want to create English and maths teachers in sufficient numbers.”

Interestingly, union leaders were not the only ones voicing criticisms. In an article for FE News, Neil Sambrook from Walsall College, expressed his worries regarding incessant reform of the sector, ABS’s impact on other qualifications, as well as the lack of planning and testing before the announcement. “I hope that this new qualification,” Sambrook concludes, “doesn’t end up being referred to as ‘A BS’ qualification.”

But is the ABS reform even a big deal? Dennis Sherwood doesn’t think so. After an in-depth analysis of the DfE policy report, he concludes that the seemingly ambitious proposals amount to “merely a change in the structure of the time-table, along with some much-needed enhancement to funding.” Sherwood points out that the policy document disregards the importance of soft skills, branding them as “difficult to teach.” This, for Sherwood, is “a missed opportunity” – soft skills are not only not difficult to teach, but, also, it is precisely soft skills which are valued by employers.

Demolishing your house so your shed will grow

Rishi Sunak decided to share the ideas for the ABS during T level’s Week. One does not have to be particularly cynical to wonder – if the ABS amounts to scrapping the new technical qualification, what was the point of investing time and resources into developing, implementing, and promoting T levels? Anticipating this criticism, minster Robert Halfon wrote a piece claiming that the ABS “is not the end of T Levels, which will be the backbone of the new qualification.” He assured the readers that the long-term plans for the introduction of the ABS “will not hold back T Level’s growth and development.”

However, as Johnny Rich observes, the ABS announcement will have an inevitable impact on the availability of T level provision at school and colleges, on recruitment (who would take intended-to-be discontinued qualifications?), and on employment opportunities for T level students. Not to mention that the introduction of T levels motivated the defunding of BTECs, leaving students considering A level alternatives with a choice between soon-to-be withdrawn T levels or unavailable BTECs. “It’s like demolishing your house, so your shed will grow. It won’t. And now you’re homeless.”

A ten-year plan?

The DfE report concludes with several commitments, including making “an initial downpayment ahead of introducing the Advanced British Standard,” launching a formal consultation in the coming months, increasing stakeholder engagement, and publishing a White Paper next year.

But it is worth reminding oneself that the government expects the reform to take a decade. This means that for the ABS to be rolled out, for ten years this and the successive governments must stick to the current policy line, explicitly embracing Rishi Sunak’s vision for education. A rather hard thing to believe in, regardless of whether one shares the government’s enthusiasm for the reform or not. Even the Soviet Union planned its economy in five-year chunks.

Although the future of the ABS is uncertain, the announcement has offered an important insight into the current state of the sector – which, far from being a monolith, shows itself to be a swarm of competing narratives and interests.

Jakub Kowalewski: Partnership Officer, Linking London

The Availability and Clarity of HE Entry Requirement Information for T Level Applicants: The Results of Linking London’s Mapping

T Levels have had their fair share of teething problems, as well as some criticism since their launch in 2020. These include concerns around student retention for some T Level subjects, low levels of awareness amongst employers, as well as some confusion around HE progression opportunities. The last point was picked up in the recent Ofsted T Level Thematic Review which highlighted that T Level students “who wanted to go to university are surprised and disappointed that T-level qualifications are not always accepted as a valid entry qualification.” Our recent Linking London report, mapping UCAS entry requirement information for 2024-25 for 50 English universities covering 16 subjects (totalling nearly 450 courses), reveals that the disappointing surprise of some students, far from attesting to few bad apples among providers, is a sector-wide issue.

The availability of T Levels acceptance information in numbers

We have found that T Level students are confronted with 55.6% courses with no direct information regarding T Level acceptance or non-acceptance on the UCAS Course Search facility.

Admittedly, there are some positive caveats to this rather staggering number. Firstly, 55.6% of courses with no T Level entry requirement information constitutes a progress in comparison to last year, when, as our mapping revealed, 61% of courses had no information. Secondly. 31.6% of courses with no information do include the use of UCAS Tariff points. This, at least in principal, implies that T Level may be accepted, and suggests that T Level requirements can be worked out with the help of the Tariff Calculator. The less positive news is that, as our mapping shows, over 43% of providers don’t use UCAS Tariff points.

Law is the course with the highest percentage of no information regarding T Levels and the UCAS Tariff with 40.6% (although it’s worth noting that the T Level in Legal Services is not due to be rolled out until September 2023), followed by biomedical science (31.9%) and business studies (31.7%). These courses can be contrasted with nursing, occupational therapy, and IT/computing which have the highest percentage of T Level acceptance information: 50%, 44.4%, 43.2% respectively.

Worryingly, in several cases there is an additional A level requirement for T Level candidates. Sometimes, but not always, an A level is expected if the T Level isn’t viewed as covering the subject specific knowledge needed for the course. At its most extreme, as our mapping of engineering demonstrates, 42% of courses mention A levels in addition to T Level entry requirements.

The clarity of information

There is a real variety in terms of the clarity of information provided for T Level applicants. Some courses mention that “other qualifications” and “work experience” will be considered on individual basis; several institutions are committed to considering “a range of relevant vocational level 3 qualifications” and “other new UK qualifications,” presumably implying that T Levels could be accepted. These types of indications are normally coupled with a suggestion to contact the university.

A few course pages state generically that T Levels, alongside other qualifications, are recognised. Then, there are the exemplary courses which specify the grade (including, if required, the expected outcomes for the core component and occupational specialism), the UCAS tariff points (if accepted), and the T Level subjects required. It is possible to come across very detailed entry requirements, which include the awarding body for particular T Levels accepted.

Russell Group and non-Russel Group providers

We also compared the information provided by a sample of four Russell Group (RG) universities with a same-size sample of non-Russell Group institutions (non-RG) across four courses: psychology, engineering, business studies, and biomedical science.

The information provided by those RG institutions which accept T Levels was in the main vague: it was specified that “T Level qualifications are considered for many of our courses”, or that “a range of T Level qualifications” will be considered. However, students were advised to contact the university or consult the entry requirements (presumably listed on the providers website, since they weren’t included on the UCAS page). Furthermore, most RG institutions in the sample make it clear that an A level may be expected in addition to T Levels.

The information in the sample of non-RG providers for T Level applicants was much clearer. The overall grade, as well as the expected outcomes for the core component and the occupational specialism were specified. A list of acceptable T Level subjects was also included.

Where next?

As our mapping demonstrates, the information for T Level students on UCAS webpages leaves a large scope for improvement. On the one hand, this is to be expected considering that T Levels are a relatively new qualification. On the other, and precisely because they are a new qualification, providers should play a role in supporting T Level students by offering clearer and more in-depth information regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of T Levels. Linking London’s report puts forward several recommendations for providers, awarding bodies, as well as the Department for Education and the Office for Students, which, we hope, will assist with this process.

Jakub Kowalewski: Partnership Officer, Linking London

Linking London partners can access a copy of the full report via our secure Partner Area. If you are not a member of Linking London, a copy of the key headlines from the report can be requested via info@linkinglondon.ac.uk

Apprenticeship Supply and Demand

For a number of years an oft repeated argument has been that negative perceptions of apprenticeships and technical education in general are largely to blame for the low numbers of starts. The finger was often pointed at careers advisers and poor information and advice in general. The argument went that if only young people and their parents released that apprenticeships weren’t just undertaken in “oily rag” occupations, then the low take up would be largely solved. I’ve heard this message repeated time and again in events and conferences, in reports, for example the UUK Future of Degree Apprenticeships report citing that a ‘lack of student awareness’ were holding back degree apprenticeship growth, and listened with growing frustration as the Education Select Committee on Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance earlier this year tied itself up in knots about how we can get more young people to consider this option.

Here at Linking London we have regularly highlighted that the real issue is not that that there aren’t enough young people interested in apprenticeships, particularly at higher level, but rather the lack of opportunities. The results of our mapping of apprenticeship opportunities in London clearly illustrate the point. Since 2017, we have, drawing from several sources, including the gov.uk find an apprenticeship search facility, undertaken regular updates for partners on the number of higher and degree apprenticeship vacancies in Greater London. While, leaving aside the significant dip during the pandemic, we have seen a gradual increase in opportunities, which is of course very welcome, they are still not easy to come by. From the period December 22 – July 23 individual employer postings have ranged from 77 to a peak of 213 (equating to between 146 – 618 individual vacancies). And it’s worth noting that many vacancies are rolled over month by month, so these are not all “new” vacancies. Taking the highest figure, 618 vacancies, this would still only equate to 19 vacancies per London borough.

Two reports published recently, by the Sutton Trust & UCAS and the Careers Enterprise Company (CEC), come to the same conclusion; that the issue of the lack of apprenticeship starts, particularly at higher levels, is a supply rather than demand side issue. On the former report, Sir Peter Lampl, Founder and Chairman of the Sutton Trust, sums up the key issue well: “The big problem with apprenticeships is not the lack of demand by young people but the derisory level of supply which is available”. The report noted that three in five (61%) students previously interested in starting an apprenticeship cited ‘there aren’t any apprenticeships near me’, making it the most common reason for this group. The CEC report cited employers’ willingness to offer (apprenticeship) opportunities as the largest barrier to young people’s transition onto apprenticeship pathways.

Demand for higher level apprenticeships is only likely to grow, as the cost-of-living crisis continues to influence student choice. Recent UCAS surveys of applicants to HE highlights that 430,000 students stated that they are interested in apprenticeships. This compares with starts at Levels 4 and above at around 5,000 for those under 19 nationally, some of which will be existing employees. If we look at data for London for 2021-22, 50% of higher-level apprenticeship starts are, by age group, 25+, and 34% 19–24-year-olds, leaving 5% in the under 19 age bracket (equating to 680 starts). It’s fairly safe to assume that the majority of starts then are by people already in the workplace. While I’m an advocate of employees improving their lot by taking an apprenticeship to progress up the career ladder, especially in shortage areas like nursing, we do have a serious issue around take up by younger learners.

I’m not for one moment suggesting that we dial back on promoting apprenticeships to young people, or adults for that matter, but I do think that the argument that a key sticking point to apprenticeship growth lies with a lack of awareness of them can distract from the far bigger issue of growing the number of opportunities. We need more employers, especially small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), willing to take on young people, including those that have previously completed an advanced apprenticeship. 99% of UK businesses are SMEs, but of these businesses, 90% have not engaged with apprenticeships at all. The reasons for this are complex and would justify a separate blog, but government needs to take a serious look at the barriers to take up and how we can incentivise these businesses to do so. Cracking this would go a long way to redressing the imbalance between supply and demand.

HE Entry Requirement Information for non-A Level Learners: Progress made on improving the clarity of information for these learners but more still to do.

While putting together a presentation for the DfE HE T Levels Group recently on our mapping of higher education (HE) entry requirements I re-read our first report, from way back in 2010, which looked in detail at admissions requirements listed on the UCAS website for a range of level 3 qualifications for full time undergraduate study, (T Levels obviously not included!). Back then as a former Lifelong Learning Network, one of our main aims were to improve the clarity and certainty of HE pathways for “non-traditional “level 3 learners, as they were commonly referred to back then. To try to level the playing field in effect, from the well-established route from A levels to HE. Our work was also informed by the Schwartz report on Fair Admissions to Higher Education which noted that one of the key barriers for these learners was “a lack of confidence in the credibility of their qualification due, in part, to difficulty relating it to university entrance requirements‟.

What struck me when leafing through the report, which I co-wrote with several Linking London colleagues, was just how far we have travelled since then in terms of improving the clarity of entry requirement information for Access to HE Diploma and BTEC applicants to HE. Our 2010 report looked at 550 courses at 30 HE institutions across England and the entry requirement information they provided for Level 3 Access to HE Diploma, BTEC National, 14-19 Advanced Diploma and Advanced Apprenticeships – using A levels as a comparator. The report highlighted the variable quality of entry criteria information for non-A level applicants. For example nearly half of courses mapped had no information or partial or out of date information for BTEC National Diploma applicants. The picture for Access to HE Diplomas was worse still. A staggering 8 out of 10 courses mapped had no, or partial/out of date information. (It’s worth noting that this didn’t mean universities wouldn’t accept these qualifications, rather that it wasn’t possible for an applicant to know, based on the information available, if they would). The report was circulated widely and led to a series of meetings, including with colleagues at Supporting Professionalism in Admissions (SPA), as well as a senior civil servant, focusing on what could be done at the time to improve the clarity of information for 14-19 Advanced Diplomas. An invite to present the findings at an Academic Registrars Council (ARC) meeting led to one of the most uncomfortable 20 minutes of my working life. Holding a mirror up to the shortfalls of admissions practices for non-A-level, level 3 qualifications, went down like a lead balloon. However, I like to think we played a small part in the dramatic improvement of HE admissions practices over time. Our work with partners to improve the situation included collaborating with OCN London and Pearson to produce guide practice guides for HE Admissions and a series of match funded projects, working with several universities to review and improve the information on entry requirements at their institutions.

Fast forward to our most recent mapping (minus 14-19 Advanced Diplomas for obvious reasons) for 2024 entry and the picture for Access and BTEC applicants is dramatically different. While the methodology we have used to categorise entry requirement information has evolved over time, preventing us from making exact comparisons, (we don’t for example break down information by partial versus no information, and the universities mapped has expanded from 30 to 50), it’s still overwhelmingly clear that there has been a significant improvement. Just over 8 out of 10 courses mapped included reference to BTEC National and Access to HE Diploma qualifications in their entry requirements.

Returning to my presentation at the DfE T Levels meeting recently, we have now included T Levels in our mapping, and I shared our initial findings with the members of the group last month. I will leave my colleague Jakub, who has led on this year’s mapping, to go into more detail in another blog post, along with details of when our mapping report will be published. Suffice it to say that it doesn’t make for great reading. The quote from the Schwartz report, written back in 2004 still echoes today.

The Crucial Role of the Access to HE Diploma in Improving Social Mobility for Adults

With the increasing focus on arresting the decline of mature learners in higher education (HE), not least from the Office for Students, it’s vitally important the sector recognises the key role Access to HE Diploma courses play in improving social mobility and transforming the lives of thousands of adult learners each year who progress on to HE. “Decline” doesn’t really adequately reflect what has happened since there has been a 53% fall in mature entrants to HE between 2009/10-2017/18, due in large part to tuition fee changes in 2012, which has affected part-time HE in particular. In contrast, numbers of Access to HE Diploma numbers have largely held up, albeit with a 3% decline in registrations since 2016.

Going back to basics, the Access to HE Diploma is designed for adults who have been identified as having the potential to achieve at HE-entry standard. They are aimed primarily at adults who may have few, or no, formal qualifications and are designed to provide both the skills and academic subject knowledge to progress to HE. They are offered in the main by further education (FE) and adult colleges and are typically studied over one academic year on a full-time basis. In the context of HE progression, in the 2018 UCAS cycle there were 29,080 UCAS applicants with an Access to HE Diploma, accounting for 5.7% of all applications. Focusing on the capital, London HEIs attract the largest number of Access students, with over 7,000 accepted applicants (7,195). Access students are more likely to stay in their local area to study. In 2017 77% of HE entrants progressed on to universities, or to HE in FE, in their local area.

When we look at the profile of students studying Access to HE Diplomas it’s clear that these qualifications play a vital role in improving social mobility for older learners.  While the number of younger learners starting Access courses has increased, the vast majority are over the age of 21 and most will have significant experience outside formal education before they join the Access to HE course. Drawing on statistics produced by the QAA, Access students entering HE in 2017 were more likely to be female (73%), be from an ethnic minority background (29%) and have a disability (19%). They are also far more likely, when compared with applicants on other level 3 qualifications, to live in a disadvantaged area. 23% of Access entrants to HE were from a disadvantaged neighbourhood, compared with 11% of entrants on other level 3 qualifications. When looking at London Access learners, using the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) as a metric for disadvantage, over three quarters of London Access students were classified as living in the top 40% most deprived neighbourhoods: IDACI Q1 and Q2 in the period 2013-14.

Focusing on HE achievement, Access learners obtain similar numbers of 1^st class honours degrees compared with learners who entered HE with other level 3 qualifications (25.6% v 26.4%). However, while Access learners are more likely to complete their HE qualification than other mature learners, 9.6% of entrants with an Access qualification were no longer in HE the following year. This is higher than the overall average of 6% of HE learners who drop out of HE. While there is a lack of research available to explain this disparity it is likely that for many, “life” gets in the way, in terms of financial and family pressures, for example. A more flexible HE model, allowing learners to step on and off, as well as gaining recognition for learning achieved to date would be of particular benefit to mature students. Interestingly, one of the recommendations of the Augur Review, which was recently published, was that HE institutions should develop more flexible learning to include interim qualifications for all students who are on an undergraduate degree.

While completing background research for this article I was struck by the proportion of Access learners who do not progress on to HE following their Access course. The recent OfS report Preparing for Degree Study, which focuses on and compares Access to HE Diplomas and Foundation Years, states that the proportion of students who progressed to a degree programme in the four years following an Access course was 62%. What happens to the other third who do not progress needs to be looked at in more detail, including why they have chosen (or were not able) to progress on to HE. It also suggests that providing outreach support which includes information and advice on making the transition to HE and the support available once there is important. The use of role models and alumni might also be useful in this context.

Here at Linking London we recognise the important role that Access to HE Diplomas play in improving the life chances of adults and are committed to working closely with our partners, including OCN London, to ensure that these learners are supported into and through HE and onto successful graduate outcomes. If you would like to find out more about our work in this area, including our well established Access to HE Diploma Practitioner Group, please contact us at info@linkinglondon.ac.uk.

BTECs: Our Role in Supporting BTEC Progression and Their Value in Improving Social Mobility

In preparation for our third Linking London BTEC Practitioner Group meeting later this month I have been putting the finishing touches to a guide for HE Admissions staff to support them to make informed and fair offers to BTEC applicants, which will shortly be available for partners.

With the launch of the review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below and the consultation underway, there has been much concern raised in the sector as to what the future holds, if any, for applied general qualifications, of which BTECs form the most significant number. This led me to reflect on our work here at Linking London to support both college and university partners to improve the clarity and certainty of progression of these learners into and through higher education. We originally started out as a HEFCE funded lifelong learning network charged with the responsibility of helping to level the playing field between A levels and vocational qualifications, in particular BTECs, to improve the opportunities for progression from these qualifications. In addition to raising awareness of BTEC qualifications, we worked closely with partners to develop progression agreements between FECs and HEIs to identify suitable HE pathways from a number of BTEC subject areas. During our time as a lifelong learning network over 70 agreements were brokered. As important were the relationships that were formed between college and university staff to address misconceptions and open up channels for ongoing communication.

While working in FE in a previous role it was clear to me that one of the challenges for college learners, as well as advisers, was that HE admissions requirements for BTEC applicants were often unclear and in some cases lacked fairness in comparison with A levels. Linking London supported several HE partners with funding to review their entry requirements for BTEC applicants across their institution and provided guidance on where improvements needed to be made drawing on the recommendations of the Schwartz Report on Fair Admissions to Higher Education. We have continued to support partners in this work and undertake regular mapping of admissions requirements which has highlighted the improvements made by HEIs in London in terms of making fair and meaningful offers.  We have also, as well as setting up a BTEC Practitioner Group (which brings together our college and university partners including Pearson), produced a number of resources aimed at both learners and their advisers and HE outreach staff.

Previously, Linking London have commissioned London college leaver data reports undertaken by the University of Greenwich which over a period of 9 years has tracked over a quarter of a million London college leavers into and through HE. What the data shows is that the number of college learners studying BTECs as well as progressing onto HE has increased substantially in the past 10 years. During the period our reports covered, 2005-14 BTEC level 3 college learners increased from approximately 5000 to nearly 150,000. On average, students holding BTEC qualifications come from more disadvantaged backgrounds than their A level counterparts (HEPI, 2017). Focusing on London College learners, BTEC students applying to HE are even more likely to come from disadvantaged and BME backgrounds – 76% of the BTEC level 3 college cohort (2013-14) in London were classified as living in an area of educational disadvantage using the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI Q1 and Q2) and 64% of London college level 3 students in total were from BME backgrounds.

The increased number of BTEC learners entering HE has therefore played a significant role in widening access to and participation in HE over recent years.  While Applied General qualifications have come in for some criticism regarding their suitability in terms of preparation for and success in HE our research shows that the majority of BTEC learners that do progress achieve a HE qualification, albeit in lower numbers than their A level counterparts. This is in spite of the fact that BTEC learners are more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds and that HE curricula is in the main still geared toward A level learners.

Further, BTEC qualifications have recently been revised to better prepare learners for HE study, in part to address concerns raised by more selective institutions. While it’s early days it appears that some university courses that may not have previously accepted BTECs are prepared to offer places to students on the new BTEC level 3 qualifications, while others that previously may have asked for an additional A level in some instances have dropped this requirement. Interestingly, the fastest growing route into HE is those applicants with a BTEC/A level mix. HEIs seem particularly receptive to learners holding a mix of both vocational and academic qualifications – the best of both worlds you could argue, in the sense that these learners will be equipped with both academic as well as vocational skills and knowledge.

Here at Linking London, while we are committed to playing our part in helping to ensure that T levels in London are a success, we feel that their introduction shouldn’t be at the expense of BTECs.

Preparing for T levels

Last Thursday we held our second Linking London T levels event to explore progress to date in T levels development as well as exploring how we as a partnership can work together to help ensure T level learners are supported to progress onto a wide range of higher level learning opportunities.

The event provided an opportunity to briefly reflect on the chequered history of vocational reform in this country over the past thirty years. Those with long memories will remember that back in 1991 the conservative government of the time published the Education in the 21^st Century White paper which heralded the introduction of both National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) as well as General National Vocational Qualifications (GNVQs). Further down the line Advanced Certificates of Vocational Education (AVCEs) were also introduced. The drivers for their introduction could have been written in the context of the introduction of T levels: “We will…establish a framework of vocational qualifications that are widely recognised and used, and that are relevant to the needs of the economy; promote equal esteem for academic and vocational qualifications.” Both GNVQs and AVCEs were discontinued in 2007. In 2008, 14-19 Diplomas were introduced to much fanfare. Linking London worked closely with our partners to raise awareness of the new qualification, focusing on the level 3 Advanced Diploma. We collaborated with our university partners to help identify suitable HE pathways, develop fair admissions processes and helped broker a number of progression agreements between colleges and universities. IAG resources were developed to support Advanced Diploma learners make informed choices post course and several activities were delivered directly to the learners themselves. As well as establishing an Advanced Diploma forum we worked with a number of key stakeholders including local authorities, UCAS and government ministers. While the 14-19 diplomas came to an end in 2013, we feel we learnt a number of valuable lessons which we feel will help us to assist our college and university partners in the context of progression of T level learners onto higher level learning.

Although it may feel a long way off for our HE partners, from September 2021 T level learners will be deciding their next steps post course and for those planning to apply to go on to higher education UCAS applications will be completed. There is much, however, that needs to be finalised before HEIs can make informed decisions on how they will respond to this new qualification. Final content for the first wave of T levels (construction, digital and education and childcare) starting in 2020, won’t be signed off by the DfE until early next year. Until this is made available it will be challenging for HEIs to make any informed decisions on how they will respond to the qualification in terms of appropriate HE pathways and admissions requirements. At present, we also have no further details from the DfE on what the proposed bridging provision, to enable learners to progress from T levels to more academic undergraduate degrees, will look like. Discussions between the DfE and UCAS are still ongoing regarding exactly how UCAS tariff points will be awarded, although we now know that they will be in line with 3 A Levels.

With the clock ticking, Linking London, building on the lessons learnt from the ill-fated 14-19 Diplomas, will be working closely with partners to help ensure that they are kept up to date with the latest T level developments and provide opportunities to work together to effectively prepare for their introduction.

Level 2 College Learners: Overlooked and Ignored

Every year, approximately 900,000 students aged 16 to 18 take level 3 courses, primarily A levels and vocational qualifications, including BTECs. A smaller group, around 170,000, take level 2 qualifications, predominately in vocational subjects. Most take their level 2 courses in general further education colleges, with a smaller number undertaken in sixth form colleges. Level 2 courses support students to progress onto employment and training, including apprenticeships or onto further study at level 3. Official data on both the characteristics of level 2 learners and their destinations post-level 2 is limited. As a result, they have been largely overshadowed by the better understood majority who progress directly onto level 3 study after completing GCSEs. While admittedly smaller in number, level 2 students then are often overlooked and less visible in terms of government policy priorities and widening participation initiatives.

Does this matter? I think it does for both social mobility and economic reasons and I feel that that more should be done in the context of widening participation initiatives and careers guidance to support these learners. For many, their choice in studying a level 2 qualification is made in less than ideal circumstances as most will have likely aspired to have progressed on to a level 3 course. Level 2 learners who did not achieve good passes in their GCSE results then may feel a sense of failure and have their self-belief and confidence dented. While detailed data is limited, a high proportion of these students, as outlined in recent Ofsted research into level 2 study programmes, are likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds and disproportionate numbers will have special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND), looked after or have left care. Levels of motivation and commitment as well as the academic ability of level 2 learners will tend to vary considerably in any particular class. When looking at progression from level 2 qualifications, less than two thirds typically (although this will likely vary considerably by course and provider),  progress on to level 3 and only a small minority of those that do not progress currently go on to an apprenticeship.

This would suggest that these learners would benefit from additional support. What we don’t have is any clear picture of what support, if any level 2 learners receive by way of interventions from either career professionals or from HE outreach activities. Anecdotally from my experience this is likely to be limited. While working with younger aged school children is, for example, encouraged by the Office for Students, I have seen no mention of working with this group of learners in their guidance and little in the way of HE outreach schemes which focus on this group. Hard pushed college careers advisers have their hands full working with level 3 learners and while I do know of a number of instances where level 2 learners receive support, this is challenging for careers staff already working, in many instances, with thousands of college level 3 students.

While many level 2 learners may prefer to go on to employment, we have a duty to ensure that these learners are making informed choices based on the full range of potential opportunities and if appropriate encouraged to aim high when making future plans, including the possibility of going on to higher level learning. What we do know is that current and future projections of skills needs of the UK economy highlight continued growth in professional and associate professional occupations which typically require higher level qualifications to enter. Current skills shortages in associate professional and technician, especially STEM, occupations are acute, due in part to the relatively low numbers of learners completing level 4 and 5 vocational and technical qualifications compared with other OECD countries. Professor Dave Phoenix in the HEPI  report Filling in the Biggest Skills Gap: Increasing learning at Levels 4 and 5, makes the case that the biggest cause of our levels 4 and 5 skills shortages in England is the shortfall of young learners progressing from lower levels – from 2-3 and from level 3 onwards. Fixing this pipeline of progression then it is argued is key in terms of meeting the demands of the economy.

Here at Linking London we have, through our BTEC and Access practitioner groups, discussed working with level 2 learners and as a result are planning small scale pilots with several of our college and university partners. What the conversations did raise is that there are examples of where colleges are working extremely hard to provide these learners with a positive experience and already delivering a number of innovative activities to support them to prepare for the next stage of their future. In the context of areas identified, where level 2 students could benefit from additional support, these included motivation to study, study skills and maths and English support and working with learners to improve their confidence and aspiration raising, in the context of specific subject areas. We are now in the process of planning several interventions at the colleges we are working with. We hope going forward that we can build on these pilots in future years to help make a real difference to learners at a critical juncture in their lives.

Degree Apprenticeships and Their Impact on Improving Social Mobility

January saw the release of the latest apprenticeship starts figures and the publication of the Degree Apprenticeships Up to Standard? report by the Higher Education Commission. Both publications have led to growing concerns that apprenticeships aren’t having the desired impact in terms of providing opportunities for young aspiring apprentices, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds.

While the latest apprenticeship start figures show a 15% increase on the same period last year (August-October), when compared over a longer time frame this figure represents a decrease of 15.2% and 13.8% compared to this time in 2016/17 and 2015/16, before the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. It also shows that the number of those aged 25+ starting apprenticeships has increased by 43% this quarter while under-19 starts have declined by 2%. This is part of an ongoing trend which has seen starts among the youngest apprentices fall by 23% over the last four years – a higher proportion than any other age group.

When focusing on degree apprenticeships (DAs) the HE Commission report expresses concern in terms of social mobility about a about a lack of opportunities, particularly for young disadvantaged people, outside of large conurbations.  It also raises concerns about a “middle class grab” of degree apprenticeships.

What can be done then to improve the number of young people, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, embarking on DAs? At the risk of stating the obvious we need more employers prepared to take on more young apprentices. Numbers of DAs, while growing, are still limited in number. Some larger employers have simply re-packaged their graduate schemes as DAs while others offer them to existing staff.  Our own mapping of externally advertised vacancies in Greater London indicates that numbers have yet to recover from pre-Levy introduction levels. The HE Commission report makes a number of recommendations to help increase the number of DAs, including removing barriers and encouraging employers, particularly SMEs to offer them. As highlighted in the report, one key aspect is that employers should be able to use the apprenticeship Levy more flexibly, to enable employers the opportunity to offer incremental learning opportunities at level 4 and above, leading onto a degree but with “stop off points” where desired. We also need to find ways to incentivise employers to take on young apprentices, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds. At present, there are no requirements for employers to use a proportion of the Levy to recruit apprentices, as opposed to putting existing employees on apprenticeships, including DAs, as many have done so.

We also need a UCAS-style applications portal for apprenticeships, as has been talked about for several years. Our experience of mapping higher and degree apprenticeship vacancies in Greater London over the past 18 months and discussions with careers advisers in partner colleges has highlighted the challenges in finding vacancies, in the absence of a centralised source of information. (Interestingly, the Chief Executive of UCAS recently stated that the service needs more government funding to deliver an apprenticeship application portal). Would be apprentices, especially those form disadvantaged backgrounds, also need support, not only to track down vacancies, but also in preparing effectively for the selection process, which may include, in addition to the application form and/or CV, online tests, assessment centres, group and 1-1 interviews.

If we are to measure degree apprenticeships in terms of improving social mobility we need accurate, up to date and detailed data. As the HE Commission report highlights, there is a lack of demographic data on those who embark on degree apprenticeships. The latest OfS data, published last Autumn, only covers the period 2016/17, which makes drawing any firm conclusions at this stage on the impact degree apprenticeships have had on addressing skills shortages or in contributing to improving social mobility difficult.