PROGRESSION OF COLLEGE LEARNERS TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN LONDON

Transcription

1 PROGRESSION OF COLLEGE LEARNERS TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN LONDON

2 Prepared by the University of Greenwich for Linking London partners and co-sponsors who include the Association of Colleges, Barking and Dagenham College, Bromley College of Further and Higher Education, Edge Foundation, Ealing, Hammersmith & West London College, London Councils Young People s Education and Skills team, Royal Holloway, University of London, University of the Arts London, Uxbridge College and West Thames College. Authors: Hugh Joslin and Sharon Smith University of Greenwich h.d.joslin@greenwich.ac.uk ++44(0) The authors would like to thank Sue Betts, Director of Linking London and Debi Hayes, Director of Partnerships at the University of Greenwich for their support for this project and also thank Rachel Thompson for her work on the databases and tables. The views expressed in this report are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Linking London, its member organisations or its co-sponsors. Linking London Birkbeck, University of London Egmont House, Tavistock Place London WC1H 9SF October 2013 Linking London Partners Birkbeck, University of London, Goldsmiths, University of London, King s College London, London South Bank University, Ravensbourne, The School of Oriental and African Studies, University of Greenwich, University of Roehampton, University of Westminster, Barnet and Southgate College, City of Westminster College, The College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London, City and Islington College, Kensington and Chelsea College, Lambeth College, Lilian Baylis Technology School Sixth Form, Morley College, Newham Sixth Form College, Westminster Kingsway College, Working Men s College, London Region, City and Guilds, Hillcroft College, the Institute of Administrative Management, JISC Regional Support Centre London, Open College Network London Region, TUC Unionlearn, London Councils Young People s Education and Skills Board. 2

3 Foreword It gives me great pleasure to introduce this report to you after twelve months of commissioning Hugh Joslin and Sharon Smith of the University of Greenwich, fund raising and working with over forty organisations and institutions. The report which examines data on the progression of college learners over a five year period ( ) in London is the result of partners, and co-funders agreeing to collectively fund this work. I am grateful to Linking London members, and twelve co-sponsoring organisations who together saw the importance of establishing a benchmark on progression data which we can now examine, use and build on. I am particularly grateful to our two researchers Hugh and Sharon for their work, and to Debi Hayes from the University of Greenwich who oversaw the contracts and allowed the project to happen. I recommend the report to you, it requires careful reading. The conclusion has been deliberately factual and it is now for us collectively to work out what the data tells us and how we can use it effectively to plan for the future. The reports do not claim to tell the whole story of progression from level three to four in London (we need the available data on school leavers and the independent schools to do that) but they do start to help us look at how the progression of college leavers and apprentices into higher level learning might be improved. I look forward to working with all our partners, using this report, to help raise the level of student progression and success. Sue Betts, Director of Linking London 3

4 CONTENTS Foreword... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 6 Key Results... 7 Characteristics of the London FE college cohorts... 7 Higher education progression trends... 7 Detailed higher education progression for cohort tracked for five years... 7 Higher education achievement Introduction... 9 Higher level skills in the London labour market... 9 Historical context... 9 Research context Methodology Identifying successful level 3 learners for the tracked cohort First time entrants Dataset matching Characteristics of the tracked London college level 3 cohorts Gender Age group Home domicile Level 3 qualification type Borough Breakdown FE provider breakdown Ethnicity Ethnicity and age of tracked population Ethnicity and FE qualification Tracked FE population relative deprivation higher education progression trends Longitudinal progression by HE funding type Immediate higher education progression trends with an age breakdown for the five FE cohorts Immediate HE progression trends with funding breakdown comparing first ( ) and last ( ) FE cohort Immediate higher education progression rates of all five FE cohorts by higher education delivery Borough level higher education progression trends

5 4.6 Immediate higher education progression trends by gender for each of the five FE cohorts Immediate higher education progression rates for each FE cohort by FE qualification type Breakdown of HE qualification type of the higher education entrants for each FE tracked cohort Immediate higher education progression rate trends by ethnic group Immediate higher education progression rates by POLAR3 quintiles Higher education progression rate trends by disadvantage indicators Detailed progression patterns for the level 3 FE cohort Progression by age, higher education funding type and timing of higher education entry Level 3 mode and higher education progression FE mode and HE mode Mode and delivery Mode and higher education qualification breakdown Level 3 qualification type and higher education progression FE level 3 qualification type progression to higher education qualification level Relationship between FE subject studied and higher education subject progressed to Borough level higher education progression rates with delivery breakdown Borough level higher education progression rates by qualification type Non-prescribed higher education providers ( level 3 cohort who progressed) Prescribed HE providers HE achievement rates of cohort starting full-time first degrees in HE subject achievement rates ( cohort starting first degree in ) HE progression by POLAR3 quintile higher education progression by disadvantage Higher education progression and ethnicity Higher education progression by ethnic group and age group Higher education delivery by ethnic group Conclusions References

6 HE qualifications FE qualifications EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the findings of research undertaken for Linking London and co-sponsors on the progression into higher education of learners from London Further Education (FE) colleges since A companion report has also been produced entitled Progression of Apprentices to Higher Education in London (Joslin & Smith, 2013b). Unlike the apprentice report which can be compared to a recent national study (Joslin & Smith, 2013a), the London FE findings cannot be compared to detailed national findings as the national tracking of FE learners to higher education has yet to be done. In the absence of detailed national comparison, it is important that these results are understood to be specific to the London context which is very different to that in other regions of England. The research findings are based on the matching of ILR (Individualised Learner Record) datasets with HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) datasets between the years and They provide a detailed analysis of the nature of the progression of learners from the London FE colleges, trends in progression rates over time and highlight the progression to higher education in both FE colleges and universities. The matched records contain demographic information about the learners such as gender, age, ethnicity and domicile, and also data about where they progressed from and where they progressed to, hence there are a wide set of variables that can be compared and this report provides a selection. Certain terms have been used in this report that might require clarification: HE Funding type Funding agency Delivered in Programme types Prescribed Higher Higher Education Universities and Further e.g. HNC/HND, Foundation Education Funding Agency Education Colleges Degree, First Degree, HE Non-prescribed Higher Education Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and previously the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) (prescribed HE or HE in FE) Further Education Colleges Diploma e.g. NVQ, Diploma, Certificate Qualification type Access to HE GCE A2 Level/IB GCE AS Level BTEC (Full Time) Other Vocational Full-time NVQ Other Vocational Part-time First Degree Foundation Degree HNC/HND OUG NVQ PG Further description All Access to HE programmes Full-time A Levels and International Baccalaureate (IB) programmes Full and part-time AS level programmes All full-time BTEC qualifications Other full time vocational qualifications including CACHE and Art Foundation programmes. Also included Advanced VCE to Part-time NVQ level 3 qualifications Other part-time vocational and professional qualifications Degree programmes Foundation degree programmes Part-time Higher National Certificate and full-time Higher National Diploma programmes Other undergraduate programmes not included above including Certificates and Diplomas in Higher Education NVQ programmes at level 4 and above Postgraduate programmes 6

7 Key Results Characteristics of the London FE college cohorts The population increased across the five tracked cohorts from around 38,000 in to around 45,000 in The composition of the FE tracked cohort changed in terms of what they were studying in FE. In , part-time learners studying vocational programmes made up the highest proportion of the cohort but by , full-time BTEC learners represented the highest proportion. There were more females than males in each of the five cohorts although the gender gap has reduced over time. Around half of the cohort were in the year age group (when studying in FE). As well as studying at a London based FE College, around 90% of learners in the tracked cohort were domiciled in London. Representation at borough level ranges from 0.1% (City of London) to 5.9% for Newham ( cohort). Individual FE College representation shows a range of 0.1% to 4.6% of total learners ( cohort) Learners from a White ethnic background made up around 42% of the total which means that BME learners were the majority with over 50%. Higher education progression trends There has been a decline in the higher education immediate progression rate across the cohorts. In , 35% of the cohort progressed and this decreased to 30% for the cohort. The decline is due to the decrease in the proportion of students going onto prescribed HE study rather than non-prescribed HE study. Against this overall decline, 11% of students progressing to higher education progress to college and 89% progress to university and this proportion has not changed over five years. The decline in progression rates over the five years held for all qualifications except full-time BTEC programmes where there was a 3.1% increase. Progression rates for Access programmes declined by minus 7.3%, for A level programmes by minus 5.4%, NVQs by minus 10.5% and other part-time vocational programmes by minus 0.1%. At ethnic group level, there has been a decrease in the progression rates for all ethnic groups although Asian Indian learners have seen the highest percentage point decrease. Detailed higher education progression for cohort tracked for five years 46% of the total cohort, tracked for five years, progressed to higher education. Only 3% of this progression rate was to non-prescribed HE programmes and the remainder, 43% to prescribed HE programmes. There are differences in the progression rates of learners by age group where the younger age group of years progressed at a rate of 65% compared to the 25+ years age group who progressed at a rate of 21%. 7

8 The highest progression rates were for A Level learners who had a progression rate of 86% when tracked for five years. This compares to Access to HE (66%), BTEC (53%), NVQ (24%) and Other Vocational full-time programmes 1 (57%). At ethnic group level, progression rates vary considerably. Asian groups have the highest higher education progression rates at around 60% while White British has the lowest higher education progression rate at 32%. Learners studying A Levels, Access to HE and BTEC (FT) programmes were more likely to progress onto a First Degree programme while learners on other full-time vocational FE programmes were more likely to study an Other Undergraduate higher education programme. For the cohort, 15% of part-time learners went on to study higher education (47% to non-prescribed HE and 53% to prescribed HE) compared to a rate of 64% for full-time students (of whom only 1% progressed to non-prescribed HE). Of those 15% of part-time learners progressing to HE, 54% did so in FE Colleges. 87% of full-time learners who progressed, progressed to full-time higher education while 71% of part-time FE learners who progressed, progressed to part-time higher education. A borough breakdown shows differences in higher education progression rates at borough level (based on the domicile of the learner). There is also a difference in the type of higher education study; HE in FE, Non-prescribed in FE and University at borough level. The top 20 providers of non-prescribed HE delivered nearly 75% of the total. London based providers dominate delivery of the prescribed HE indicating that most FE Level 3 learners remain in London to study higher education. Again, the top 20 providers of prescribed HE delivered around 75% of the total. Higher education achievement There was an achievement rate of 77% for the tracked cohort who started a full time First Degree programme in and who were tracked though higher education datasets to % achieved their First Degree and a further 6% achieved a lower award. Achievement rates varied according to programme type and, Access to HE and BTEC students had a lower achievement rate than GCE A Level students. 1 For this cohort, this includes Advanced VCW, CACHE Diploma and Art Foundation Diploma 8

9 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of research into the progression into higher education of London FE students. A companion report has also been produced entitled Progression of Apprentices to Higher Education in London (Joslin & Smith, 2013b). Unlike the apprentice report which can be compared to a recent national study (Joslin & Smith, 2013a), the London FE findings cannot be compared to detailed national findings as the national tracking of FE learners to higher education has yet to be done. In the absence of detailed national comparison, it is important that these results are understood to be specific to the London context which is very different to that in other regions of England. Higher level skills in the London labour market A recent paper by the GLA Intelligence Unit (Kozdras, 2012), outlines some particular characteristics of skills in London including the fact that on the demand side, 55% of jobs in the capital are in highly skilled occupations compared to 45% nationally and on the supply side, in 2010, 42% of the working population had level 4+ qualifications compared to 32% nationally (ibid p.3). It is highly skilled managerial, professional and technical occupations that are responsible for most of London s employment growth over the last ten years, particularly, but not exclusively in the Financial and Business Services and Public Administration sectors. Higher level skills are therefore in greater demand in London and the working age population have higher than average qualifications to meet them but it is important to note when looking at London residents, as we are in this research on FE College learners, the supply of Level 4+ qualified people is helped both by the pull effect of the capital for recent graduates from other parts of the country and the large commuter catchment the London labour market draws from in the Home Counties. A further important factor to be considered in looking at the supply of higher level skills provision in London is the existence of a large private training sector focused specifically on the very areas like Financial Services and Business Services where there is highest demand. In some sectors like Accountancy, employers have strong loyalty to private providers who offer a wide range of delivery modes and enjoy good success rates. When looking at the progression of FE College learners to higher education, the numbers progressing in-house with private providers is not recorded as they do not appear in ILR or HESA records, unless they are enrolled on franchised provision. This will have an effect on non-prescribed HE, particularly in areas like Association of Accounting Technician's (AAT) qualifications. Historical context Finally, it is useful when looking at historic data to remember some of the policy changes that were happening over the period to provide a context for understanding some of the trends. In one sense much of this period was characterised by the widening participation agenda with major investment in both Aimhigher and Lifelong Learning Networks, expansion of student numbers and the introduction and growth of Foundation degrees. In this period, especially latterly, London has also seen a major expansion in apprenticeship numbers from a very low starting point. During this period, colleges in London did not significantly expand their share of market. In a recent BIS research report (Parry, Callender, Scott, & Temple, 2012), the authors point to one effect of policy change that has had a significant effect on colleges: 9

10 it is possible to indicate some recent trends in the pattern of qualifications studied. Most conspicuous is the rise of the Foundation Degree in college undergraduate education and the corresponding eclipse but by no means elimination of the HND and the HNC. Prior to the introduction of the Foundation Degree in , the two higher national qualifications constituted the dominant provision in colleges at the undergraduate levels.. Today, they represent less than one-quarter of the undergraduate population. (op cit p.45) To provide a reference for the findings in this report, the following timeline has been compiled: 2003 Foundation Degree Forward set up 2004 University fees rise to 3,000 pa, Aimhigher set up to increase widening participation, OFFA set up to monitor fair access to higher education 2005 First Lifelong Learning Networks (LLNs) set up to improve progression for vocational learners 2006 Linking London LLN set up, HEFCE Consultation on HE in FE Colleges published, Train to Gain starts. Advanced Vocational Certificate of Education (AVCE) qualifications end Department for Innovation Universities and Skills set up, World Class Skills Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills published 2008 Equivalent Level Qualifications (ELQ) policy introduced. Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) established. Connexions services transferred to Local Authorities 2009 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills set up, National Apprenticeship Service set up, many LLNs end, HEFCE request for HE Strategies from FE Colleges, Unleashing Aspiration: The Final Report of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions published, Higher Ambitions published, Skills for Growth published, Skills Investment Strategy published 2010 Learning & Skills Council ends, Young Person Learning Agency and Skills Funding Agency set up 2011 Aimhigher ends, Foundation Degree Forward ends, New Challenges, New Chances published, Students at the Heart of the System - the Higher Education White Paper published, Specification of Apprenticeship Standards published including higher apprenticeship standards. Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) abolished and introduction of bursaries 2012 Higher Education fees rise to a maximum of 9,000 pa, part-time higher education loans start and student number controls include AAB exclusion and core and margin numbers and no controls on part-time numbers. National Careers Service formed - statutory responsibility for impartial careers advice passes to schools. University Challenge published. Higher Apprenticeship Fund projects and Employer Ownership Pilots Advanced Learning Loans start for Access courses and non-prescribed HE, New SASE document sets out new standards for higher apprenticeships at levels 4, 5, 6 and 7 Research context A recent report from the Higher Education Funding Council in England (HEFCE, 2012) found that the average higher education participation rate for young people was 34.7%. This means that around one in three 18 year olds progressed to higher education by the age of 19. However, the young participation rate for London domiciles was considerably higher at 43.1%. Participation rates are not equal across different groups of students. For example, the participation rate of London domiciles living in areas with low participation (POLAR3 Quintile1) is 18.6% compared to a much 10

11 higher rate of 59.7% for learners living in areas of high participation (POLAR 3 Quintile 5). London learners represent only a 2.0% share of all Quintile 1 learners in the UK and have the highest share of Quintile 5 learners at 18.9%. Inevitably, average young participation rates at London Borough level vary and only two boroughs are classified as POLAR 3 Quintile 2 with no London borough classified overall as Quintile 1. UCAS data (UCAS, 2013a) reveals the educational background of accepted applicants and shows that in 2007, 27% of accepted applicants were from an FE college but this had dropped to 15% in In volume terms this means that there has been a drop of over 32,000 FE students from 93,588 in 2007 to 61,320 in We know that against a backdrop of falling numbers of FE students coming through the UCAS system, there will be students studying higher education in FE who are likely to have moved within the FE sector and may not have come through UCAS. We also know that there are more students entering higher education with a non A Level qualification, such as a BTEC. However, the decreasing representation of FE students (of total accepted applicants) is cause for concern. Existing recent data on progression by Level 3 qualification type is not available in detail. Data from 2009 highlighted the disparity in higher education progression between learners studying traditional A level qualifications to those studying vocational programmes (Carter, 2009). Figures provided by BIS derived from the Youth Cohort Survey (BIS, 2009) show that 82% of learners who attained A Levels had entered higher education by the time they reached 19 years. This compares with a figure of 36% of those with vocational Level 3 qualifications. In 2007 HEFCE examined the progression of BTEC learners (HEFCE, 2007) and found that 41% of BTEC qualifiers progressed to higher education level study and the majority of these progressed to full-time higher education. The report also found that over 80% went onto a University delivered higher education course. Along with the North East, London had the highest progression rates for BTEC leaners where nearly half (48%) progressed to higher level study. A study exploring progression patterns of Level 3 learners in FE colleges in Kent & Medway (Joslin & Smith, 2010) also found differences by type of vocational qualification. This study of Level 3 learners studying in London FE colleges provides a picture of Level 3 progression rates for five cohorts of learners who achieved their Level 3 qualification during , , and and who subsequently progressed to higher education. This is a longitudinal study so each FE Level cohort has been tracked for a varying number of years as illustrated below. The cohort has been tracked through to higher education datasets for five years (to ) whilst the last FE cohort tracked, , has been tracked for one year to FE LEVEL 3 LEARNER COHORTS Higher Education Results for the early cohort provide an in-depth picture of progression over time. Meanwhile, the results for the cohort present progression rates for a more recent cohort thus giving an upto-date picture. By mining the data by qualification types, we can explore in detail progression for 11

12 different types of learners, comparing for example vocational and non-vocational learners, and at qualification level, BTEC and Access to HE learners. Furthermore, higher education progression trends are presented for London FE college learners to show changes in progression patterns for each of the five cohorts. The research also explores higher education progression rates alongside learner characteristics such as domicile, age, gender, disadvantage profile and ethnicity. Finally, the longitudinal nature of the study allows for an exploration of higher education achievement. 12

13 2. METHODOLOGY This tracking study follows Level 3 learners who were studying in London Further Education or Sixth Form colleges in the years to and entering higher education between the years and Longitudinal tracking helps to show the trajectory of learners over time and allows an exploration of the progression patterns of FE learners entering higher education. By exploring timing of higher education entry, the study examines the extent to which students enter higher education immediately or some-time after they complete and achieve their Level 3 qualification. The longitudinal matched dataset which forms the basis for this study provides the opportunity for a much more in-depth and specific analysis that enables an examination of the progression behaviour of learners from a FE qualification, demographic and institutional perspective. This report provides an overview that will often pose new questions as it attempts to answer others. The research findings are based on the matching of ILR (Individualised Learner Record) datasets with ILR and HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) datasets between the years and They provide a detailed analysis of the nature of the progression of London Level 3 learners who were studying in London colleges, trends in progression rates over time and highlight the different contributions made by colleges and universities. Because the matched records contain demographic information about the learners such as gender, age and domicile and also data about where they progressed from and where they progressed to, a wide set of variables can be examined together and this report provides a selection. The findings published in this report provide an overall picture of London colleges Level 3 learner progression at this point in time. Linking the cohort to higher education datasets longitudinally over a number of years, allows an investigation into the timing of entry to higher education. For example, all those Level 3 learners who completed (and were identified as achievers) in , were linked to five years of higher education datasets in , , , and Immediate progression rates are calculated for those learners who progressed to higher education in the year following their Level 3 qualification and in this way comparison across cohorts can be made to examine progression rate trends. 2.1 Identifying successful level 3 learners for the tracked cohort The ILR for years through to was mined to identify learners who were studying a Level 3 qualification at a London Further Education (and sixth form) college. Where a learner was studying more than one Level 3 qualification, rules were applied to categorise learners according to their main aim of study. These rules are provided in the appendix. Only learners who completed and achieved this programme aim were included in the tracking study. Learners age was determined as at 1 st August in the year of FE study. 13

14 2.2 First time entrants Immediate progression is classified as those learners who enter higher education in the year following the completion and achievement of their Level 3 qualification but for all cohorts, longitudinal linking gives a fuller picture of the patterns of progression for these learners. The following Table illustrates the longitudinal matching: Table 1: Cohort matching to establish progression Higher education datasets (HESA and ILR) FE level 3 cohort Immediate Immediate Immediate Immediate Immediate 2.3 Dataset matching Two datasets were used to undertake the tracking exercise: the Individualised Learner Record (ILR) for students recorded as studying a Level 3 qualification in , , , and and the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) dataset for entrants to publicly funded higher education institutions in the United Kingdom during , , , and The Data Service provided records on learners on level 3 college programmes including name, date of birth, postcode, gender, and framework. Two matching exercises were undertaken to obtain the total number of learners who entered higher education study: ILR Level 3 student data to HESA student data to identify FE Level 3 Students progressing to prescribed higher education study ILR Level 3 student data to ILR Level 4 student data to identify FE Level 3 students progressing to non-prescribed higher education study in FE The absence of a unique learner number, which follows students from one provider to another, means that individual students were tracked within, and through, each of the datasets using a number of personal characteristics. A fuzzy matching exercise was undertaken by HESA where for each final year Level 3 student in the ILR dataset, the name, date of birth, postcode and gender was used by HESA to match against each year of their dataset. The HESA datasets were also checked back to 1999 to identify students who entered higher education for the first time thus producing a more accurate picture of progression. HESA data for matched students on their first year of programme were returned including: higher education study year, higher education level, higher 14

15 education subject group, higher education mode, higher education institution and higher education campus. Similarly, for each Level 3 learner a matching exercise was undertaken with the subsequent years FE Level 4 student data using either the ILR student unique reference, or name, date of birth, postcode and gender. 15

16 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TRACKED LONDON COLLEGE LEVEL 3 COHORTS This section describes some of the key characteristics of the cohorts of learners who have achieved level 3 qualifications in the London Colleges between and Gender Table 2 shows the tracked population by FE year and gender. In , 38,220 learners were tracked and by the tracked population had increased to over 45,000 learners. In % of the population were females compared to 40% males but the gender difference decreased with each subsequent year and for the last tracked cohort in , there were 54% females to 46% males. Table 2: Level 3 tracked cohort by FE study year and gender ILR Year % of % of % of % of % of Gender Female % % % % % Male % % % % % % % % % % 3.2 Age group The tracked cohort by FE study year and age group is presented in Table 3. Around half of the tracked population were under 19 years when studying for their FE qualification. 12% were in the year age bracket and 37% aged 25 years plus. Table 3: Level 3 tracked cohort by FE study year and age group ILR Year % of % of % of % of % 2 of Age Under % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 2 Percentages have been rounded to one decimal point and may not add to 100% 16

17 3.3 Home domicile In table 4, the home domicile of London FE college learners shows the geographical dispersal of learners for each FE year. 94% of learners in were London domiciles and this decreased year on year to 89% for the cohort. There was an increase in the proportion of learners domiciled in the South East, 3% in to 6% in Table 4: Home domicile of tracked cohort by FE year FE Year Domicile region London % % % % % South East % % % % % East of England % % % % % East Midlands % % % % % North West % % % % % South West % % % % % West Midlands % % % % % Yorkshire & % % % % % The Humber North East % 0 0.0% % % % Unknown % % % % % % % % % % 3.4 Level 3 qualification type Table 5 presents the tracked population by Level 3 qualification type. The tables show the increased number of BTEC full-time learners tracked between and In this group made up 15% of the total but in full-time BTEC students made up 24% of the tracked population. Meanwhile, the population of the Other Vocational FT group decreased from 10% in to 3% in The NVQ learner tracked population also grew: in this group made up 9% of the total cohort and this increased to 20% in Table 5: Level 3 Qualification of tracked cohort by FE year FE Year FE Level 3 Qualification Type Access to HE % % % % % GCE A % % % % % 17

18 % of % of % of % of % of FE Year FE Level 3 Qualification Type Level/IB GCE AS Level % % % % % BTEC (Full % % % % % Time) NVQ % % % % % Other % % % % % Vocational Full-time Other % % % % % Vocational Part-time All Level % % % % % 3.5 Borough Breakdown A home borough breakdown of the London domicile tracked population in Table 6 shows that in , the proportional range at borough level was anywhere between 0.1% (City of London) to 5.9% (Newham). Table 6: Borough breakdown of the tracked cohorts by FE Year FE Year London Borough Domicile Barking and Dagenham % % % % % Barnet % % % % % Bexley % % % % % Brent % % % % % Bromley % % % % % Camden % % % % % City of London % % % % % City of Westminster % % % % % Croydon % % % % % Ealing % % % % % Enfield % % % % % Greenwich % % % % % Hackney % % % % % Hammersmith and Fulham % % % % % Haringey % % % % % 18

19 % of % of % of % of % of FE Year London Borough Domicile Harrow % % % % % Havering % % % % % Hillingdon % % % % % Hounslow % % % % % Islington % % % % % Kensington and Chelsea % % % % % Kingston upon Thames % % % % % Lambeth % % % % % Lewisham % % % % % Merton % % % % % Newham % % % % % Redbridge % % % % % Richmond upon Thames % % % % % Southwark % % % % % Sutton % % % % % Tower Hamlets % % % % % Waltham Forest % % % % % Wandsworth % % % % % % % % % % 3.6 FE provider breakdown The tracked population is dispersed across all 50 FE Institutions where each institution represents a range of anywhere between 0.1% and 4.6% of the total. Richmond Upon Thames College had the highest proportion of 4.6% of the total. Table 7: Individual FE college breakdown of the tracked cohorts by FE year ILR Year FE Provider of Level 3 Barking and Dagenham College Barnet and Southgate College % % % % % % % % % % Bexley College % % % % % Bromley College of Further and Higher Education % % % % % 19

20 ILR Year FE Provider of Level 3 Capel Manor College % % % % % Carshalton College % % % % % Christ the King % % % % % Sixth Form College City And Islington % % % % % College City of % % % % % Westminster College College of North % % % % % West London Croydon College % % % % % Ealing, % % % % % Hammersmith & West London College Greenwich % % % % % Community College Hackney % % % % % Community College Harrow College % % % % % Havering College of % % % % % Further and Higher Education Havering Sixth % % % % % Form College Hillcroft College 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% John Ruskin % % % % % College Kensington and % % % % % Chelsea College Kingston College % % % % % Lambeth College % % % % % Lewisham College % % % % % Leyton Sixth Form % % % % % College Mary Ward Centre % % % % % Morley College % % % % % Newham College of % % % % % Further Education Newham Sixth % % % % % Form College Redbridge College % % % % % Richmond Adult % % % % % Community College Richmond Upon Thames College % % % % % 20

21 ILR Year FE Provider of Level 3 Sir George Monoux % % % % % College South Thames % % % % % College Southgate College % % % % % Southwark College % % % % % St Charles Catholic % % % % % Sixth Form College St Dominic's Sixth % % % % % Form College St Francis Xavier % % % % % Sixth Form College Stanmore College % % % % % The Brooke House % % % % % Sixth Form College The City Literary % % % % % Institute The College of % % % % % Haringey, Enfield and North East London Tower Hamlets % % % % % College Uxbridge College % % % % % Waltham Forest % % % % % College West Thames % % % % % College Westminster % % % % % Kingsway College Woodhouse % % % % % College Working Men's % % % % % College % % % % % 3.7 Ethnicity A breakdown of the ethnicity of each cohort is provided in Table 8 and shows the diverse ethnic mix of the Level 3 population tracked in this study. Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups aggregate to just over 50% of the total and this is considerably more than the national figure where around 20% of Level 3 students are from a BME background. 21

22 % of % of % of % of % of Table 8: Ethnicity breakdown of the tracked cohort by FE Year ILR Year Ethnicity Asian or Asian British - any other Asian background % % % % % Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi % % % % % Asian or Asian British Indian % % % % % Asian or Asian British Pakistani % % % % % Black or Black British - any other Black background % % % % % Black or Black British African % % % % % Black or Black British Caribbean % % % % % Chinese % % % % % Mixed - any other Mixed background % % % % % Mixed - White and Asian % % % % % Mixed - White and Black African % % % % % Mixed - White and Black Caribbean % % % % % White - any other White background % % % % % White British % % % % % White Irish % % % % % Any other % % % % % Not known /not provided % % % % % % % % % % 3.8 Ethnicity and age of tracked population The age composition of ethnic groups differs for BME and White British groups. Where the White British Group has 42% of total learners in the age group year, the proportion of BME learners in this younger age group tends to be higher (on average 60%). 22

23 Access BTEC FT GCE A Level A/A2 GCE A Level AS only NVQ Vocational FT Vocational PT Grand Table 9: Ethnic background of tracked population by age group cohort Ethnic Group Up to 19 years plus Grand Any other 51% 13% 35% 100% Asian or Asian British - any other Asian background 58% 13% 29% 100% Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 79% 10% 11% 100% Asian or Asian British Indian 70% 8% 22% 100% Asian or Asian British Pakistani 75% 11% 15% 100% Black or Black British - any other Black background 53% 14% 33% 100% Black or Black British African 56% 13% 31% 100% Black or Black British Caribbean 55% 11% 34% 100% Chinese 62% 11% 28% 100% Mixed - any other Mixed background 63% 11% 25% 100% Mixed - White and Asian 62% 12% 26% 100% Mixed - White and Black African 52% 17% 30% 100% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 64% 14% 22% 100% not known/not provided 37% 12% 51% 100% White - any other White background 28% 15% 56% 100% White British 42% 11% 46% 100% White Irish 32% 8% 60% 100% Grand 51% 12% 37% 100% 3.9 Ethnicity and FE qualification Table 10 illustrates the differences in type of FE qualification studied by Ethnic group. It shows, for example that where 45% of Asian Bangladeshi students study GCE A level at college, a lower proportion of White British students (33%) study this qualification. In contrast, a higher proportion of White British students study BTEC programmes than Asian Bangladeshi students. Table 10: Breakdown of FE qualification in age year cohort by ethnic group % 3 of total population within ethnic group Ethnicity Any other 3% 22% 35% 20% 1% 16% 4% 100% Asian or Asian British - any 1% 21% 41% 18% 1% 14% 4% other Asian background 100% Asian or Asian British 1% 17% 45% 18% 1% 14% 4% Bangladeshi 100% 3 Percentages have been rounded and may not add to 100% 23

24 Access BTEC FT GCE A Level A/A2 GCE A Level AS only NVQ Vocational FT Vocational PT Grand % 3 of total population within ethnic group Ethnicity Asian or Asian British Indian 1% 20% 46% 12% 2% 15% 5% 100% Asian or Asian British 1% 18% 42% 17% 1% 18% 4% Pakistani 100% Black or Black British - any 5% 29% 28% 15% 1% 18% 5% other Black background 100% Black or Black British African 4% 23% 35% 17% 1% 17% 3% 100% Black or Black British 2% 29% 32% 15% 1% 16% 5% Caribbean 100% Chinese 1% 16% 51% 16% 1% 11% 4% 100% Mixed - any other Mixed 2% 25% 36% 17% 1% 14% 5% background 100% Mixed - White and Asian 1% 16% 44% 18% 1% 15% 6% 100% Mixed - White and Black 4% 25% 32% 19% 2% 12% 6% African 100% Mixed - White and Black 3% 33% 31% 12% 3% 12% 7% Caribbean 100% not known/not provided 1% 20% 38% 15% 2% 16% 8% 100% White - any other White 2% 19% 35% 21% 2% 13% 7% background 100% White British 1% 26% 33% 12% 5% 13% 11% 100% White Irish 1% 18% 47% 12% 1% 13% 8% 100% Grand 2% 23% 36% 15% 2% 15% 6% 100% 3.10 Tracked FE population relative deprivation The home postcodes of FE learners were used to classify them using indicators of disadvantage. HEFCE s POLAR3 (HEFCE, 2012) was used as it classifies neighbourhoods using higher education participation. POLAR3 classifies neighbourhoods by quintiles ordered from Q1, those areas with very low higher education participation rates and living in an area of disadvantage, to Q5, those with very high rates and an area of advantage. POLAR is a useful proxy for disadvantage. For each of the five FE tracked cohort years, the population by POLAR3 quintile is presented in Table 11. This shows the significant increase in the Quintile 1-2 population (areas with low young HE participation rates). In % more FE Level students from Quintile 1 were tracked than in Meanwhile, there was only a 5% increase in the number of students in Quintile 5 (high HE participation) between

25 Q1-Q2 low participation rates % of all Q1-Q2 tracked pop Q5 high participation rates % of all Q5 tracked pop Q1-Q2 % of all Q1-Q2 tracked pop Q5 % of all Q5 tracked pop Table 11: POLAR3 breakdown of the tracked cohorts POLAR3 Quintile Diff % growth Low HE participation rates % % % % 5 High HE participation rates % Unknown % Grand % Table 12 shows the and tracked population by FE qualification Type and corresponding POLART3 profile (Q1-2 and Q5 only). This shows clearly the significant growth in the population of BTEC FT learners and NVQ learners. It also shows that two groups have significant representation of the POLAR Q1-2 groups where BTEC FT students made up 12% of all Q1-Q2 learners and NVQ made up 27% of the Q1-Q2 total. Table 12: Comparison in tracked populations between POLAR quintiles (Q1-Q2 low HE participation and Q5 high HE participation) by FE qualification type Q1 & Q2 Growth to FE Qualification Type Access % 930 8% 575 9% % 40% BTEC FT % % % % 103% GCE A Level A/A % % % % 18% GCE A Level AS only 325 8% % 410 6% % 26% NVQ % % % % 231% Vocational FT % % 155 2% 320 3% -61% Vocational PT % % % % 26% Grand % % % % 54% 25

26 4. HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRESSION TRENDS 4.1 Longitudinal progression by HE funding type The chart in Figure 1 highlights the immediate higher education progression trends for the five FE Level 3 cohorts in the study (tracked for one year into higher education). There has been a decline in the overall higher education progression rate across the cohorts; 35% of the cohort progressed and this decreased to 30% for the cohort. The decline is due to the decrease in the proportion progressing to prescribed HE rather than nonprescribed HE; although progression rates to non-prescribed HE are low at 2% they have remained stable across the period. Figure 1 Chart showing immediate progression trends 4.2 Immediate higher education progression trends with an age breakdown for the five FE cohorts An age breakdown in Table 13 show that the decrease in higher education progression rates across the five tracked cohorts has been at all age levels. Both non-prescribed and prescribed HE progression rates have declined for all age groups with the exception of the year olds into non-prescribed HE where a slight increase was found. 26

27 Table 13: Immediate Progression rates by higher education funding for each of the five FE Level 3 cohorts with age breakdown Age Group FE Level 3 Tracked Cohort Non-prescribed HE years 0.8% 0.8% 1.1% 1.7% 1.3% years 3.2% 2.6% 3.8% 3.0% 3.4% 25 years+ 4.6% 4.1% 3.8% 3.0% 2.8% Grand 2.5% 2.2% 2.4% 2.3% 2.1% Prescribed HE years 49.2% 46.1% 46.3% 47.0% 43.2% years 30.3% 28.9% 28.8% 26.8% 26.5% 25 years+ 10.3% 11.1% 9.0% 7.8% 8.0% Grand 32.4% 31.5% 31.2% 30.1% 28.4% All HE progression years 50.0% 46.9% 47.4% 48.7% 44.6% years 33.5% 31.6% 32.6% 29.8% 29.8% 25 years+ 14.9% 15.2% 12.8% 10.8% 10.8% Grand 34.9% 33.7% 33.6% 32.4% 30.5% 4.3 Immediate HE progression trends with funding breakdown comparing first ( ) and last ( ) FE cohort Table 13 above shows that the overall immediate higher education progression rate has slowly declined between and However, this is despite a rising number of entrants to higher education overall. The figures presented below in Table 14 illustrate that despite an increase in the actual number of students tracked into higher education (both non-prescribed and prescribed HE), entrants have not increased in line with the increase in the cohort population. For the age group, the number of higher education entrants has increased by +8% but this is against a population increase of +21%. Furthermore, the 25+ age group population increased by +16% but the number of higher education entrants actually decreased by -16%. 27

28 Table 14: Absolute number change between and cohort higher education progression rates by age group Change, % Change All Tracked Population Difference Nonprescribed HE change HEFCE HE change All Tracked Population Difference Nonprescribed HE change HEFCE HE change HE change Age Group HE years % 110% 6% 8% years % 24% 1% 3% 25 years % -31% -10% -16% Grand % -1% 4% 3% 4.4 Immediate higher education progression rates of all five FE cohorts by higher education delivery Progression rates for each FE cohort tracked for one year and higher education delivery are provided in Table 15. This shows that the higher education progression rate for the cohort into higher education delivered by FE colleges was 3.7% for the cohort and this declined slightly to 3.4% for the cohort. The higher education progression rate for the cohort into University delivered higher education was 31.2% and this dropped by -2.9% points to a rate of 27.1% for the cohort. Higher education delivery share has not changed across the five tracked cohorts where Universities have delivered to 89% of total higher education entrants and FE colleges have delivered to 11% of the total. Table 15: Immediate higher education progression rates for five FE cohorts with higher education delivery breakdown Level 3 Cohort Tracked Delivery Grand of tracked population to higher education 1 year progression only % HE Progression HE FE college % 11% University % 89% Grand % 100% FE college % 11% University % 89% Grand % 100% FE college % 11% University % 89% 28

29 Level 3 Cohort Tracked Population Grand % 100% FE college % 11% University % 89% Grand % 100% FE college % 11% University % 89% Grand % 100% The overall higher education progression rate for each of the cohorts, tracked for a different number of years is presented in Table 16. These overall higher education progression figures cannot be compared for this reason but they do illustrate the importance of longitudinal tracking where FE learners are entering higher education some years following achievement of their Level 3 qualification. Table 16: Higher education progression for each FE Level 3 cohort with HE Funding breakdown HE progression (over number of years) Non-Prescribed HE % Prescribed HE % HE Progression of years tracked % 43% 46% 5 yrs % 40% 43% 4 yrs % 39% 42% 3 yrs % 36% 38% 2 yrs % 28% 30% 1 yrs 4.5 Borough level higher education progression trends Immediate higher education progression rates for each FE tracked cohort at borough level show in Table 17 differences across boroughs, as well as borough trends. For example: Sutton had the lowest overall higher education progression rate in at 21% and this increased to 23% in This is lower than the London domicile average of 33% in Waltham Forest had a progression rate of more than double that of Sutton, at 44% in and this decreased to 40% in This is considerably higher than the London domicile average of 33% in At the bottom of Table 17, the progression rates for non-london domiciles studying at a London FE college are also provided and it is notable that these progression rates are lower than the London domicile average (an average of 11% in ) Differences in borough level higher education progression are explained in part by the FE qualifications being undertaken by domiciles in the borough. For example, in Sutton only 7% of students were studying GCE A Levels, whereas in Waltham Forest this proportion was 28% 29

30 Table 17: Trends in immediate higher education rates and trends at Borough level Borough Non-Prescribed HE Progression Rates FE cohort Year Prescribed HE Progression Rates FE cohort year HE Progression Rates- FE cohort year Barking and Dagenham 5% 4% 5% 6% 4% 24% 22% 27% 28% 23% 29% 26% 32% 33% 27% Barnet 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 32% 31% 30% 31% 31% 37% 34% 32% 33% 33% Bexley 4% 3% 4% 2% 1% 25% 25% 21% 18% 22% 30% 28% 25% 20% 23% Brent 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 37% 37% 33% 31% 32% 41% 40% 36% 33% 34% Bromley 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 21% 18% 25% 20% 16% 24% 20% 28% 21% 17% Camden 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 31% 30% 30% 29% 27% 34% 33% 32% 30% 27% City of London * * * * 4% 33% 45% 23% 19% 30% * * * * * City of Westminster 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 29% 33% 34% 32% 30% 30% 35% 35% 33% 31% Croydon 2% 2% 3% 4% 3% 32% 29% 32% 28% 29% 35% 32% 35% 32% 32% Ealing 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 38% 40% 39% 35% 35% 41% 41% 41% 36% 36% Enfield 3% 3% 1% 2% 1% 35% 34% 31% 35% 30% 38% 37% 32% 37% 31% Greenwich 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 29% 28% 31% 25% 27% 32% 31% 35% 28% 30% Hackney 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 37% 35% 38% 34% 32% 40% 38% 40% 36% 34% Hammersmith and Fulham 3% 1% 2% 2% 1% 30% 34% 33% 29% 28% 33% 35% 35% 31% 29% Haringey 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 34% 35% 34% 33% 34% 37% 38% 36% 34% 36% Harrow 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 46% 45% 36% 42% 38% 49% 47% 37% 43% 39% Havering 3% 3% 5% 7% 6% 24% 20% 24% 23% 23% 27% 23% 28% 30% 29% Hillingdon 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% 30% 28% 30% 26% 27% 33% 30% 35% 30% 31% Hounslow 5% 2% 2% 2% 3% 33% 31% 35% 30% 32% 38% 34% 37% 32% 35% Islington 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 34% 34% 32% 38% 31% 37% 36% 34% 39% 33% Kensington and Chelsea 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 29% 33% 35% 25% 32% 31% 34% 35% 26% 33% Kingston upon Thames 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 23% 22% 24% 24% 28% 25% 24% 27% 26% 29% Lambeth 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 32% 34% 34% 33% 31% 35% 35% 36% 35% 33% Lewisham 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 34% 32% 35% 31% 30% 36% 33% 35% 32% 31% Merton 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 32% 31% 29% 28% 29% 35% 33% 32% 30% 32% Newham 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 43% 40% 41% 42% 39% 44% 42% 43% 44% 42% Redbridge 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 30% 28% 31% 33% 30% 33% 31% 34% 37% 34% Richmond upon Thames 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 27% 27% 25% 28% 30% 29% 27% 27% 30% 32% Southwark 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 37% 37% 35% 37% 32% 39% 38% 37% 39% 34% Sutton 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 17% 16% 15% 16% 16% 21% 20% 21% 22% 23% 30

31 Borough Non-Prescribed HE Progression Rates FE cohort Year Prescribed HE Progression Rates FE cohort year HE Progression Rates- FE cohort year Tower Hamlets 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 41% 42% 41% 42% 35% 41% 44% 42% 43% 37% Waltham Forest 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 43% 41% 39% 38% 39% 44% 43% 42% 40% 40% Wandsworth 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 27% 26% 28% 28% 30% 28% 29% 30% 30% 32% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 34% 33% 33% 32% 31% 36% 35% 35% 34% 33% Non-London Domiciles 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 13% 15% 12% 11% 10% 15% 17% 15% 14% 11% 4.6 Immediate higher education progression trends by gender for each of the five FE cohorts In the prescribed HE progression rate of males was higher than that of females (34.2% vs 31.2%) but the gender gap declined by where the prescribed HE progression rates were more or less the same for both males and females at around 28%. Table 18 shows this was due to a larger drop in prescribed HE progression rate of males (-6% points between 2009 and 2005, compared to a smaller drop of -2.6% points with the female rate). Non-prescribed HE progression rates dropped very slightly for females but remained stable for males. Table 18: Gender breakdown with immediate higher education progression rates FE Cohort tracked for one year Gender Change Non-Prescribed HE Progression Female 2.8% 2.4% 2.6% 2.2% 2.1% -0.7% Male 2.1% 1.9% 2.0% 2.5% 2.1% 0.0% 2.5% 2.2% 2.4% 2.3% 2.1% -0.4% Prescribed HE Progression Female 31.2% 30.8% 30.1% 30.0% 28.6% -2.6% Male 34.2% 32.4% 32.7% 30.1% 28.2% -6.0% 32.4% 31.5% 31.2% 30.1% 28.4% -4.0% HE Progression Female 34.0% 33.2% 32.7% 32.2% 30.7% -3.3% Male 36.3% 34.3% 34.7% 32.6% 30.3% -6.0% 34.9% 33.7% 33.6% 32.4% 30.5% -4.4% 4.7 Immediate higher education progression rates for each FE cohort by FE qualification type Table 19 shows higher education progression rates for different FE qualification types: 31

32 BTEC full-time students were the only group to see increasing higher education progression rates across the 5 FE cohort years. 44.2% of the BTEC FT learner group progressed to higher education compared to 47.3% of the BTEC FT group. The NVQ higher education progression rate dropped by -10.5% points and this may not be surprising given the large decrease in the population of NVQ learners studying at Level 4 nationally. 4 The Vocational FT group saw a significant decrease in higher education progression rates and further investigation revealed that this was due to the absence of Advanced VCE learners in the population from onwards. Advanced VCE learners in had a higher education progression rate of 60% (mainly to prescribed HE) and this group more or less disappeared in the cohort thus impacting upon the overall higher education progression rate for the Vocational FT group. Table 19: Immediate higher education progression rates by FE Qualification Type FE Qualification Type FE Level 3 Cohort year - % HE Progression Rate, (tracked to HE for one year) % point change Access to HE 56.8% 54.9% 53.2% 50.6% 49.5% -7.3% GCE A2 Level/IB 70.4% 66.8% 68.6% 67.8% 65.0% -5.4% GCE AS Level 13.8% 11.5% 9.9% 9.2% 6.6% -7.2% BTEC (Full Time) 44.2% 45.6% 48.1% 49.5% 47.3% 3.1% NVQ 17.8% 15.8% 11.3% 7.7% 7.3% -10.5% Other Vocational Full-time 48.0% 28.5% 25.2% 23.9% 22.5% -25.4%* Other Vocational Part-time 7.1% 7.7% 6.5% 6.8% 7.0% -0.1% All Level % 33.7% 33.6% 32.4% 30.5% -4.4% *see note above regarding this decrease 4.8 Breakdown of HE qualification type of the higher education entrants for each FE tracked cohort The HE qualification types progressed to for each of the five tracked cohorts are presented in Table 20 and show that 83% of total entrants go onto to study a First Degree level programme. This proportion has remained stable across the five cohorts. First Degree, Foundation Degree and HNC/HND entrant numbers have all increased NVQ Level 4+ entrants have declined quite significantly and this is worth further investigation. Other Undergraduate programme entrant numbers have also declined. 4 The Data service reported a -65% drop in the number of NVQ level 4 participants between 2006 and 2010 which would explain the drop in participation rates, especially with a rising NVQ Level 3 population over the same time period, see Table 4. 32

33 HE entrants HE entrants HE entrants HE entrants HE entrants % difference Table 20: of higher education entrants for each of the five FE cohorts (tracked for one year) by higher education qualification Type FE cohort FE cohort FE cohort FE cohort FE cohort Course Type First Degree % % % % % 620 Foundation Degree 380 3% 430 3% 480 4% 615 5% 745 5% 365 HNC/HND 340 3% 245 2% 360 3% 370 3% 385 3% 45 NVQ 455 3% 425 3% 425 3% 345 3% 40 0% -415 OUG % % 925 7% 820 6% % -175 PG 50 0% 40 0% 45 0% 30 0% 35 0% % % % % % Immediate higher education progression rate trends by ethnic group Nearly all groups have seen a decrease in higher education progression rates but to varying degrees. For example, Asian Indian learners have seen the highest percentage point decrease between with a drop of -10% points. Meanwhile, White British learners have seen a lower percentage point drop of -2% points and they progress at the lowest rate at 19% in Table 21: Trends in higher education progression rate by ethnicity HE Progression rate for each FE cohort when tracked for one year Ethnic group % point Diff Any other 39% 40% 35% 34% 32% -7% Asian or Asian British - any other Asian background 46% 41% 41% 40% 41% -5% Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 54% 52% 54% 52% 46% -8% Asian or Asian British Indian 51% 48% 44% 44% 42% -10% Asian or Asian British Pakistani 51% 47% 49% 49% 46% -4% Black or Black British - any other Black background 43% 41% 38% 35% 36% -7% Black or Black British African 48% 47% 45% 44% 40% -8% Black or Black British Caribbean 37% 35% 38% 34% 31% -6% Chinese 48% 47% 45% 44% 47% -2% Mixed - any other Mixed background 37% 35% 39% 35% 35% -2% Mixed - White and Asian 36% 33% 35% 38% 37% 0% Mixed - White and Black African 39% 38% 33% 38% 33% -6% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 35% 33% 36% 33% 29% -6% 33

34 19% 28% 24% 25% 24% 29% 29% 29% 27% 25% 36% 35% 35% 34% 31% 37% 35% 36% 34% 33% 34% 33% 32% 32% 31% HE Progression rate for each FE cohort when tracked for one year Ethnic group % point Diff not known/not provided 26% 29% 26% 19% 25% -1% White - any other White background 28% 26% 29% 9% 28% 0% White British 21% 20% 20% 20% 19% -2% White Irish 27% 22% 22% 21% 20% -7% Grand 35% 34% 34% 32% 30% -5% 4.10 Immediate higher education progression rates by POLAR3 quintiles The chart in Figure 4 shows a decreasing higher education progression rate for Quintile 1 and Quintile 2 domiciles, both quintiles indicating low higher education participation and relative disadvantage. The higher education progression rates of learners in Quintiles 4 and 5 also decreased but to a lesser degree. The decrease in rates appears to be due to the large increase in the tracked population of FE learners in Quintiles 1 and 2 in (see Table 11), who have not progressed to higher education at the same rate as they did in Table 12 also showed the decreasing progression rates of NVQ learners and so this combination of increased population along with decreased higher education entrants for this group of learners has adversely impacted higher education progression rates for POLAR Q1-2 learners. Figure 4: Chart showing immediate higher education progression rate trends by POLAR quintile HE Progression rates by POLAR3 Quintile Q1 - Very low HE % Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 - High HE % 34

35 4.11 Higher education progression rate trends by disadvantage indicators Four indicators were used as proxy indicators for disadvantage and higher education progression rates were calculated for each disadvantage group in Table 22. The Index of Multiple Deprivation, the Education, Skills and Training (EST) Rank, the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Indicator (IDACI) and POLAR3 have all been used. If a student was classified as living in an area of disadvantage 5 using one of these indicators then they would be counted in the 1 out of 4 group. If they lived in an area that hit all four disadvantage indicators they would be counted in the 4 out of 4 group. Immediate higher education progression rates have decreased for all disadvantaged groups although there has been a higher decrease for learners living in areas who meet 3 out of 4 indicators and 4 out of 4 indicators (-6.1% points and -7.1% points). Table 22: Immediate higher education progression rates by disadvantage group Immediate higher education progression rates Disadvantage indicators Tracked population diff. Change All HE Tracked population diff. All HE Progression Rate % point diff. 0 out of 4 28% 26% 26% 26% % 1 out of 4 34% 34% 33% 31% % 2 out of 4 38% 37% 36% 35% % 3 out of 4 40% 38% 38% 36% % 4 out of 4 31% 28% 30% 29% % Grand 35% 34% 34% 32% % 5 For each indicator (IMD, EST, IDAC, the student lives in the 40% most deprived area, and for POLAR3 Q1-Q2, HEFCE 2012), 35

36 5. DETAILED PROGRESSION PATTERNS FOR THE LEVEL 3 FE COHORT 5.1 Progression by age, higher education funding type and timing of higher education entry The Level 3 cohort, tracked for 5 years has an overall higher education progression rate of 46% and this is made up of 43% to prescribed HE and 3% to non-prescribed HE. There are differences by age group: Just under two-thirds of year old Level 3 students progressed to higher education compared to 21% of the 25+ age group. The older age group, 25+ were more likely to progress onto non-prescribed HE than the younger age group of years. (6% compared to 1%). The younger age group, year olds, were four times more likely to progress onto prescribed programmes. (64% compared to 15%). Timing of higher education entry analysis shows that overall around three in four Level 3 learners who progress, do so immediately - that is, in the year following the achievement of their Level 3 qualification. This means that a quarter of those who progress do so between two to five years following achievement of their Level 3 qualification. A higher proportion of learners who go onto non-prescribed HE progress immediately than learners who go onto prescribed HE. 82% of those who progress onto non-prescribed HE did so in the year following their Level 3 qualification compared to 76% of those who went onto prescribed HE. There is a difference in timing of higher education entry at age group level where a higher proportion of younger learners progress immediately than learners in the 25+ year age group. For example, 77% of year olds progress immediately compared to 68% of age 25+ learners. Table 23: Level 3 cohort tracked for 5 years with higher education funding breakdown and timing of higher education entry tracked Level 3 HE progression HE % HE Timing of HE entry Age group Non-Prescribed HE Non-Prescribed HE years % 77% 13% 5% 4% 2% years % 85% 10% 2% 1% 2% 25 years % 82% 9% 4% 3% 2% Grand % 82% 10% 4% 2% 2% Prescribed HE Prescribed HE years % 77% 15% 5% 2% 1% years % 80% 10% 4% 3% 3% 25 years % 68% 14% 9% 5% 4% Grand % 76% 15% 5% 2% 2%

37 FE Level and Mode Population tracked Non- Prescribed HE Prescribed HE HE HE progression Timing of HE entry - Age group tracked Level 3 HE % HE HE HE years % 77% 15% 5% 2% 1% years % 80% 10% 4% 3% 3% 25 years % 71% 13% 8% 4% 4% Grand % 77% 14% 5% 2% 2% 5.2 Level 3 mode and higher education progression The higher education progression rate for part-time Level 3 learners was considerably lower than the rate of full-time learners; 15% of part-time Level 3 learners went onto study higher education compared to 64% of full-time learners. The proportion of part-time learners who progressed to non-prescribed HE was very similar to the proportion who went onto prescribed HE (7% compared to 8%). In contrast, only 1% of full-time learners went onto non-prescribed HE, the majority (63%) progressed onto prescribed HE. Table 24: FE mode and higher education progression Tracked for five years Progression Rate % Non- Prescribed HE % Prescribed HE % HE All Level 3 Full Time % 63% 64% All Level 3 Part Time % 8% 15% All level % 43% 46% 5.3 FE mode and HE mode Figure 5 shows that 87% of learners who were studying full-time in FE went onto study full-time in higher education, 10% of full-time FE learners progressed onto a sandwich higher education course and the remainder (3%) went onto part-time study. The majority of learners who were studying part-time in FE progressed onto a part-time higher education programme (71%) but 26% who were studying in FE part-time changed their study pattern and went onto a full-time higher education programme and the remainder (3%), studied higher education on a sandwich course. 37

38 Figure 5: Chart showing HE study mode by FE mode of study 5.4 Mode and delivery Of the cohort who went onto part-time higher education, 54% stayed in FE to study their higher education programme and 46% transferred to a University. The majority of those who progressed on to full-time higher education went onto a University to study their higher education programme. Figure 6: Chart showing higher education Mode and Delivery 5.5 Mode and higher education qualification breakdown Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between FE mode of study and higher education qualification type for those who progressed to higher education. 38

39 Non- Prescribed HE Prescribed HE HE % Non- Prescribed HE % Prescribed HE % HE Part-time Level 3 learners who go onto higher education are more likely to study Other Undergraduate programmes than any other higher education qualification (36%). Just under a quarter (24%) of part-time Level 3 learners went onto study a First Degree. Figure 7. 87% of full-time Level 3 learners progressed to higher education to study a First Degree. Figure 7: Chart showing mode and higher education qualification breakdown of FE cohort who progressed to higher education 5.6 Level 3 qualification type and higher education progression Progression rates vary by FE qualification type as shown in Table % of A level learners progressed into higher education when tracked for five years following achievement of their A level qualification(s). This compares to 66% of Access to HE learners whilst BTEC learners (FT) had a progression rate of 53%. Almost all A Level, Access to HE and BTEC learners progress onto prescribed HE rather than non prescribed HE whereas NVQ learners were more likely to progress to non-prescribed HE than to prescribed HE. Table 25: FE Level 3 cohort HE progression rates by FE Level 3 Qualification Type Qualification Type Level 3 Population tracked Tracked for five years into HE Access to HE % 65% 66% GCE A2 Level/IB % 86% 86% GCE AS Level % 39% 40% BTEC (Full Time) % 52% 53% NVQ % 8% 24% Other Vocational FT % 56% 57% Other Vocational PT % 8% 13% All Level % 43% 46% 39

40 5.7 FE level 3 qualification type progression to higher education qualification level The chart in Figure 8 shows the differences in higher education study level of learners by FE Level 3 qualification type. For example, FE Level 3 learners studying an Other Vocational FE programme on a part-time basis are more likely to study an Other Undergraduate programme (OUG). The majority of A Level, Access to HE and BTEC FE learners progressed onto a First Degree programme. Figure 8: Chart illustrating HE Qualification Level by FE Level 3 Qualification Type ( Level 3 cohort tracked for five years) 5.8 Relationship between FE subject studied and higher education subject progressed to In table 26, the relationship between FE subject of study and the subsequent higher education subject studied is presented. Only sectors with a higher level of higher education entrants are shown. The numbers in brackets are the higher education entrant numbers. The subject areas align fairly well showing that in most areas, students progress onto a similar subject pathway in higher education, to the area they were studying in FE. 40