PROGRESSION OF COLLEGE LEARNERS TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN LONDON

Similar documents
Research Update. Educational Migration and Non-return in Northern Ireland May 2008

This Access Agreement covers all relevant University provision delivered on-campus or in our UK partner institutions.

Investigating the Relationship between Ethnicity and Degree Attainment

University of Essex Access Agreement

This Access Agreement is for only, to align with the WPSA and in light of the Browne Review.

Application for Postgraduate Studies (Research)

IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON ACCESS AGREEMENT

AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES ADULT AND COMMUNITY LEARNING LEARNING PROGRAMMES

International Application Form

Australia s tertiary education sector

Applications from foundation doctors to specialty training. Reporting tool user guide. Contents. last updated July 2016

This Access Agreement is for only, to align with the WPSA and in light of the Browne Review.

Initial teacher training in vocational subjects

. Town of birth. Nationality. address)

Chiltern Training Ltd.

Engineers and Engineering Brand Monitor 2015

COLLEGE OF INTEGRATED CHINESE MEDICINE ADMISSIONS POLICY

State of the Nation Careers and enterprise provision in England s schools

GCSE English Language 2012 An investigation into the outcomes for candidates in Wales

Effective Pre-school and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11)

NEW STARTS. The challenges of Higher Education without the support of a family network

RCPCH MMC Cohort Study (Part 4) March 2016

SASKATCHEWAN MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Celebrating 25 Years of Access to HE

5 Early years providers

Status of Women of Color in Science, Engineering, and Medicine

Pearson BTEC Level 3 Award in Education and Training

Principal vacancies and appointments

Teaching Excellence Framework

value equivalent 6. Attendance Full-time Part-time Distance learning Mode of attendance 5 days pw n/a n/a

Director, Intelligent Mobility Design Centre

Draft Budget : Higher Education

BASIC EDUCATION IN GHANA IN THE POST-REFORM PERIOD

I set out below my response to the Report s individual recommendations.

Institutional fee plan 2015/16. (Please copy all correspondence to

U VA THE CHANGING FACE OF UVA STUDENTS: SSESSMENT. About The Study

N LLP IT-Comenius -CMP

Tutor Trust Secondary

Out of the heart springs life

Application for Admission to Postgraduate Studies

Equity in student finance: Cross-UK comparisons. Lucy Hunter Blackburn

2015 Annual Report to the School Community

Post-16 transport to education and training. Statutory guidance for local authorities

How does an Apprenticeship work?

Introduction. Background. Social Work in Europe. Volume 5 Number 3

Shelters Elementary School

Qualification Guidance

Centres of Vocational Excellence Case Studies

PROPOSED MERGER - RESPONSE TO PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Isett Seta Career Guide 2010

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EXETER

Curriculum Policy. November Independent Boarding and Day School for Boys and Girls. Royal Hospital School. ISI reference.

2007 No. xxxx EDUCATION, ENGLAND. The Further Education Teachers Qualifications (England) Regulations 2007

Descriptive Summary of Beginning Postsecondary Students Two Years After Entry

Educational Attainment

The views of Step Up to Social Work trainees: cohort 1 and cohort 2

Western Australia s General Practice Workforce Analysis Update

A LIBRARY STRATEGY FOR SUTTON 2015 TO 2019

Language learning in primary and secondary schools in England Findings from the 2012 Language Trends survey

Speaking from experience: The views of the first cohort of trainees of Step Up to Social Work

Senior Research Fellow, Intelligent Mobility Design Centre

CONSULTATION ON THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE COMPETENCY STANDARD FOR LICENSED IMMIGRATION ADVISERS

Specification. BTEC Specialist qualifications. Edexcel BTEC Level 1 Award/Certificate/Extended Certificate in Construction Skills (QCF)

Summary and policy recommendations

Student guide to Financial support

CONFERENCE PAPER NCVER. What has been happening to vocational education and training diplomas and advanced diplomas? TOM KARMEL

INSTRUCTION MANUAL. Survey of Formal Education

QUEEN S UNIVERSITY BELFAST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, DENTISTRY AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES ADMISSION POLICY STATEMENT FOR MEDICINE FOR 2018 ENTRY

Student Finance in Scotland

Sixth Form Admissions Procedure

CAVTL Commission on Adult Vocational Teaching and Learning

Pharmaceutical Medicine

(ALMOST?) BREAKING THE GLASS CEILING: OPEN MERIT ADMISSIONS IN MEDICAL EDUCATION IN PAKISTAN

Institutional review. University of Wales, Newport. November 2010

DO SOMETHING! Become a Youth Leader, Join ASAP. HAVE A VOICE MAKE A DIFFERENCE BE PART OF A GROUP WORKING TO CREATE CHANGE IN EDUCATION

Programme Specification

University of Oxford: Equality Report 2013/14. Section B: Staff equality data

How and Why Has Teacher Quality Changed in Australia?

HARLOW COLLEGE FURTHER EDUCATION CORPORATION RESOURCES COMMITTEE. Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 12 May 2016

Foundation Apprenticeship in IT Software

African American Male Achievement Update

Programme Specification. BSc (Hons) RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT

Eastbury Primary School

A journey to medicine: Routes into medicine

ENGINEERING EXPLORED FILLED WITH TOP TIPS AND INSIGHTS

Review of English for Speakers of Other Languages in the City of Manchester

PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION KEY FACTS

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOLS (K 12)

Short inspection of Maria Fidelis Roman Catholic Convent School FCJ

An APEL Framework for the East of England

Accreditation of Prior Experiential and Certificated Learning (APECL) Guidance for Applicants/Students

MASTER S COURSES FASHION START-UP

Programme Specification

Children and Young People

Cooper Upper Elementary School

QUEEN S UNIVERSITY BELFAST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, DENTISTRY AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES ADMISSION POLICY STATEMENT FOR DENTISTRY FOR 2016 ENTRY

Suggested Citation: Institute for Research on Higher Education. (2016). College Affordability Diagnosis: Maine. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for

Archdiocese of Birmingham

CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE DISCUSSION PAPER NO July 1997

Referencing the Danish Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning to the European Qualifications Framework

Transcription:

PROGRESSION OF COLLEGE LEARNERS TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN LONDON 2005 2009

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)20 8331 9487 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, 25-31 Tavistock Place London WC1H 9SF http://www.linkinglondon.ac.uk 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

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 (2005-2009) 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

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 2005-06 cohort tracked for five years... 7 Higher education achievement... 8 1. Introduction... 9 Higher level skills in the London labour market... 9 Historical context... 9 Research context... 10 2. Methodology... 13 2.1 Identifying successful level 3 learners for the tracked cohort... 13 2.2 First time entrants... 14 2.3 Dataset matching... 14 3. Characteristics of the tracked London college level 3 cohorts... 16 3.1 Gender... 16 3.2 Age group... 16 3.3 Home domicile... 17 3.4 Level 3 qualification type... 17 3.5 Borough Breakdown... 18 3.6 FE provider breakdown... 19 3.7 Ethnicity... 21 3.8 Ethnicity and age of tracked population... 22 3.9 Ethnicity and FE qualification... 23 3.10 Tracked FE population relative deprivation... 24 4. higher education progression trends... 26 4.1 Longitudinal progression by HE funding type... 26 4.2 Immediate higher education progression trends with an age breakdown for the five FE cohorts... 26 4.3 Immediate HE progression trends with funding breakdown comparing first (2005-06) and last (2009-10) FE cohort... 27 4.4 Immediate higher education progression rates of all five FE cohorts by higher education delivery... 28 4.5 Borough level higher education progression trends... 29 4

4.6 Immediate higher education progression trends by gender for each of the five FE cohorts.. 31 4.7 Immediate higher education progression rates for each FE cohort by FE qualification type.. 31 4.8 Breakdown of HE qualification type of the higher education entrants for each FE tracked cohort... 32 4.9 Immediate higher education progression rate trends by ethnic group... 33 4.10 Immediate higher education progression rates by POLAR3 quintiles... 34 4.11 Higher education progression rate trends by disadvantage indicators... 35 5. Detailed progression patterns for the 2005-06 level 3 FE cohort... 36 5.1 Progression by age, higher education funding type and timing of higher education entry... 36 5.2 Level 3 mode and higher education progression... 37 5.3 FE mode and HE mode... 37 5.4 Mode and delivery... 38 5.5 Mode and higher education qualification breakdown... 38 5.6 Level 3 qualification type and higher education progression... 39 5.7 FE level 3 qualification type progression to higher education qualification level... 40 5.8 Relationship between FE subject studied and higher education subject progressed to... 40 5.9 Borough level higher education progression rates with delivery breakdown... 42 5.10 Borough level higher education progression rates by qualification type... 43 5.11 Non-prescribed higher education providers (2005-06 level 3 cohort who progressed).. 45 5.12 Prescribed HE providers... 46 5.13 HE achievement rates of 2005-06 cohort starting full-time first degrees in 2006-07... 47 5.14 HE subject achievement rates (2005-06 cohort starting first degree in 2006-07)... 49 5.15 HE progression by POLAR3 quintile... 50 5.16 2005-06 higher education progression by disadvantage... 50 5.17 Higher education progression and ethnicity... 52 5.18 Higher education progression by ethnic group and age group... 52 5.19 Higher education delivery by ethnic group... 53 6. Conclusions... 55 7. References... 57 5

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 2005-06. 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 2005-06 and 2009-10. 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 2006-07 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

Key Results Characteristics of the London FE college cohorts The population increased across the five tracked cohorts from around 38,000 in 2005-06 to around 45,000 in 2009-10. The composition of the FE tracked cohort changed in terms of what they were studying in FE. In 2005-06, part-time learners studying vocational programmes made up the highest proportion of the cohort but by 2009-10, 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 2009-10 cohort were in the 17-19 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 (2009-10 cohort). Individual FE College representation shows a range of 0.1% to 4.6% of total learners (2009-10 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 2005-06, 35% of the cohort progressed and this decreased to 30% for the 2009-10 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 2005-06 cohort tracked for five years 46% of the total 2005-06 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 17-19 years progressed at a rate of 65% compared to the 25+ years age group who progressed at a rate of 21%. 7

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 2005-06 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 2005-06 and who were tracked though higher education datasets to 2010-11. 71% 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

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

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 2001-02, 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. 2007 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 16-19 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 2013 24+ 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

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 2012. 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 2012. 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 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 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 2005-06 cohort has been tracked through to higher education datasets for five years (to 2010-11) whilst the last FE cohort tracked, 2009-10, has been tracked for one year to 2010-11. FE LEVEL 3 LEARNER COHORTS 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Higher Education 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Results for the early cohort provide an in-depth picture of progression over time. Meanwhile, the results for the 2009-10 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

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

2. METHODOLOGY This tracking study follows Level 3 learners who were studying in London Further Education or Sixth Form colleges in the years 2005-06 to 2009-10 and entering higher education between the years 2005-06 and 2010-11. 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 2005-06 and 2010-11. 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 2005-06, were linked to five years of higher education datasets in 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 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 2005-06 through to 2009-10 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

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 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2005-06 Immediate 2006-07 Immediate 2007-08 Immediate 2008-09 Immediate 2009-10 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 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) dataset for entrants to publicly funded higher education institutions in the United Kingdom during 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 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

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

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 2005-06 and 2009-10. 3.1 Gender Table 2 shows the tracked population by FE year and gender. In 2005-06, 38,220 learners were tracked and by 2009-10 the tracked population had increased to over 45,000 learners. In 2005-06 60% 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 2009-10, there were 54% females to 46% males. Table 2: Level 3 tracked cohort by FE study year and gender ILR Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 % of % of % of % of % of Gender Female 22810 59.7% 22055 59.4% 22860 58.0% 23295 56.7% 24560 54.4% Male 15410 40.3% 15095 40.6% 16545 42.0% 17780 43.3% 20610 45.6% 38220 100% 37150 100% 39400 100% 41075 100% 45165 100% 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 20-24 year age bracket and 37% aged 25 years plus. Table 3: Level 3 tracked cohort by FE study year and age group ILR Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 % of % of % of % of % 2 of Age Under 19 19385 50.7% 19295 51.9% 21150 53.7% 20930 51.0% 23370 51.7% 20-24 4580 12.0% 4555 12.3% 4415 11.2% 4865 11.8% 5290 11.7% 25+ 14260 37.3% 13300 35.8% 13835 35.1% 15285 37.2% 16510 36.5% 38220 100% 37150 100% 39400 100% 41075 100% 45165 100% 2 Percentages have been rounded to one decimal point and may not add to 100% 16

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 2005-06 were London domiciles and this decreased year on year to 89% for the 2009-10 cohort. There was an increase in the proportion of learners domiciled in the South East, 3% in 2005-06 to 6% in 2009-10. Table 4: Home domicile of tracked cohort by FE year FE Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Domicile region London 35795 93.7% 34635 93.2% 36180 91.8% 37450 91.2% 40190 89.0% South East 1255 3.3% 1225 3.3% 1685 4.3% 1920 4.7% 2625 5.8% East of England 1010 2.6% 1130 3.0% 1205 3.1% 1260 3.1% 1315 2.9% East Midlands 35 0.1% 45 0.1% 55 0.1% 70 0.2% 270 0.6% North West 15 0.0% 30 0.1% 70 0.2% 55 0.1% 230 0.5% South West 30 0.1% 20 0.1% 60 0.2% 100 0.2% 145 0.3% West Midlands 25 0.1% 10 0.0% 50 0.1% 85 0.2% 145 0.3% Yorkshire & 15 0.0% 30 0.1% 30 0.1% 50 0.1% 115 0.3% The Humber North East 20 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 0.0% 15 0.0% 35 0.1% Unknown 25 0.1% 20 0.0% 55 0.1% 75 0.2% 100 0.2% 38220 100% 37150 100% 39400 100% 41075 100% 45165 100% 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 2005-06 and 2009-10. In 2005-06 this group made up 15% of the total but in 2009-10 full-time BTEC students made up 24% of the tracked population. Meanwhile, the population of the Other Vocational FT group decreased from 10% in 2005-06 to 3% in 2009-10. The NVQ learner tracked population also grew: in 2005-06 this group made up 9% of the total cohort and this increased to 20% in 2009-10. Table 5: Level 3 Qualification of tracked cohort by FE year FE Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 FE Level 3 Qualification Type Access to HE 3710 9.7% 3795 10.2% 3585 9.1% 3705 9.0% 4355 9.6% GCE A2 7250 19.0% 7415 20.0% 7790 19.8% 7410 18.0% 7350 16.3% 17

% of % of % of % of % of FE Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 FE Level 3 Qualification Type Level/IB GCE AS Level 3700 9.7% 3320 8.9% 3345 8.5% 3000 7.3% 3840 8.5% BTEC (Full 5565 14.6% 7330 19.7% 8680 22.0% 9455 23.0% 10645 23.6% Time) NVQ 3360 8.8% 3395 9.1% 4835 12.3% 8005 19.5% 8865 19.6% Other 3755 9.8% 1455 3.9% 1055 2.7% 1090 2.7% 1330 2.9% Vocational Full-time Other 10880 28.5% 10440 28.1% 10120 25.7% 8410 20.5% 8785 19.5% Vocational Part-time All Level 3 38220 100% 37150 100% 39400 100% 41075 100% 45165 100% 3.5 Borough Breakdown A home borough breakdown of the London domicile tracked population in Table 6 shows that in 2009-10, 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 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 London Borough Domicile Barking and Dagenham 775 2.1% 885 2.5% 890 2.4% 1020 2.7% 1150 2.8% Barnet 1590 4.2% 1450 4.1% 1420 3.9% 1520 4.0% 1425 3.5% Bexley 535 1.4% 475 1.3% 610 1.7% 625 1.6% 690 1.7% Brent 1665 4.4% 1520 4.3% 1660 4.5% 1665 4.4% 1760 4.3% Bromley 470 1.2% 515 1.5% 515 1.4% 595 1.6% 770 1.9% Camden 740 2.0% 665 1.9% 695 1.9% 680 1.8% 620 1.5% City of London 20 0.0% 10 0.0% 25 0.1% 15 0.0% 25 0.1% City of Westminster 690 1.8% 550 1.6% 615 1.7% 580 1.5% 620 1.5% Croydon 1625 4.3% 1515 4.3% 1755 4.8% 1840 4.8% 2045 5.0% Ealing 1650 4.4% 1410 4.0% 1580 4.3% 1680 4.4% 1675 4.1% Enfield 1140 3.0% 1075 3.1% 1115 3.0% 1350 3.5% 1650 4.1% Greenwich 1090 2.9% 1085 3.1% 1000 2.7% 1125 3.0% 1215 3.0% Hackney 1745 4.7% 1555 4.4% 1660 4.5% 1650 4.3% 1585 3.9% Hammersmith and Fulham 720 1.9% 690 2.0% 655 1.8% 705 1.9% 715 1.8% Haringey 1415 3.8% 1415 4.0% 1370 3.7% 1510 4.0% 1480 3.6% 18

% of % of % of % of % of FE Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 London Borough Domicile Harrow 1680 4.5% 1580 4.5% 2110 5.7% 1400 3.7% 1490 3.7% Havering 1555 4.1% 1720 4.9% 1605 4.4% 1630 4.3% 1805 4.4% Hillingdon 845 2.2% 790 2.2% 920 2.5% 1020 2.7% 1160 2.9% Hounslow 1075 2.9% 930 2.6% 950 2.6% 1025 2.7% 1150 2.8% Islington 1055 2.8% 940 2.7% 995 2.7% 970 2.5% 975 2.4% Kensington and Chelsea 565 1.5% 495 1.4% 465 1.3% 460 1.2% 490 1.2% Kingston upon Thames 560 1.5% 500 1.4% 465 1.3% 525 1.4% 470 1.2% Lambeth 1810 4.8% 1670 4.7% 1750 4.8% 1780 4.7% 2145 5.3% Lewisham 1465 3.9% 1410 4.0% 1375 3.7% 1555 4.1% 1640 4.0% Merton 650 1.7% 680 1.9% 685 1.9% 785 2.1% 1045 2.6% Newham 2400 6.4% 2260 6.4% 2255 6.1% 2305 6.1% 2400 5.9% Redbridge 870 2.3% 930 2.6% 900 2.4% 1010 2.6% 1095 2.7% Richmond upon Thames 1265 3.4% 1020 2.9% 955 2.6% 935 2.5% 905 2.2% Southwark 1570 4.2% 1550 4.4% 1535 4.2% 1685 4.4% 1770 4.3% Sutton 500 1.3% 485 1.4% 590 1.6% 520 1.4% 725 1.8% Tower Hamlets 1280 3.4% 1115 3.2% 1195 3.3% 1275 3.4% 1225 3.0% Waltham Forest 1455 3.9% 1365 3.9% 1480 4.0% 1600 4.2% 1615 4.0% Wandsworth 1065 2.8% 1030 2.9% 985 2.7% 1005 2.6% 1160 2.9% 37535 100.0% 35290 100.0% 36770 100.0% 38040 100.0% 40685 100.0% 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 2009-10 total. Table 7: Individual FE college breakdown of the tracked cohorts by FE year ILR Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 FE Provider of Level 3 Barking and Dagenham College Barnet and Southgate College 1015 2.7% 1070 2.9% 985 2.5% 1100 2.7% 1255 2.8% 1795 4.7% 1610 4.3% 1405 3.6% 1445 3.5% 1785 4.0% Bexley College 580 1.5% 505 1.4% 535 1.4% 570 1.4% 650 1.4% Bromley College of Further and Higher Education 475 1.2% 515 1.4% 535 1.4% 510 1.2% 835 1.9% 19

ILR Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 FE Provider of Level 3 Capel Manor College 290 0.8% 295 0.8% 355 0.9% 205 0.5% 255 0.6% Carshalton College 695 1.8% 640 1.7% 775 2.0% 725 1.8% 700 1.5% Christ the King 630 1.7% 595 1.6% 655 1.7% 635 1.6% 910 2.0% Sixth Form College City And Islington 1890 4.9% 1740 4.7% 1950 4.9% 1725 4.2% 2040 4.5% College City of 1140 3.0% 965 2.6% 950 2.4% 1350 3.3% 1415 3.1% Westminster College College of North 1055 2.8% 950 2.6% 1210 3.1% 1190 2.9% 1200 2.7% West London Croydon College 1455 3.8% 1455 3.9% 1545 3.9% 1670 4.1% 1775 3.9% Ealing, 1340 3.5% 1305 3.5% 1460 3.7% 1435 3.5% 1705 3.8% Hammersmith & West London College Greenwich 905 2.4% 885 2.4% 650 1.7% 705 1.7% 785 1.7% Community College Hackney 720 1.9% 745 2.0% 670 1.7% 615 1.5% 680 1.5% Community College Harrow College 935 2.4% 885 2.4% 1460 3.7% 800 1.9% 920 2.0% Havering College of 1075 2.8% 1285 3.5% 1140 2.9% 1310 3.2% 1420 3.1% Further and Higher Education Havering Sixth 880 2.3% 760 2.0% 825 2.1% 880 2.1% 1010 2.2% Form College Hillcroft College 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% John Ruskin 380 1.0% 365 1.0% 475 1.2% 455 1.1% 315 0.7% College Kensington and 630 1.6% 575 1.5% 415 1.1% 505 1.2% 625 1.4% Chelsea College Kingston College 1600 4.2% 1635 4.4% 1775 4.5% 2115 5.1% 1610 3.6% Lambeth College 1185 3.1% 1120 3.0% 1110 2.8% 1215 3.0% 1590 3.5% Lewisham College 925 2.4% 905 2.4% 1290 3.3% 1525 3.7% 1915 4.2% Leyton Sixth Form 635 1.7% 625 1.7% 645 1.6% 755 1.8% 810 1.8% College Mary Ward Centre 150 0.4% 160 0.4% 170 0.4% 75 0.2% 105 0.2% Morley College 200 0.5% 230 0.6% 210 0.5% 120 0.3% 165 0.4% Newham College of 840 2.2% 990 2.7% 1015 2.6% 1155 2.8% 1215 2.7% Further Education Newham Sixth 765 2.0% 740 2.0% 815 2.1% 785 1.9% 880 2.0% Form College Redbridge College 325 0.8% 425 1.1% 505 1.3% 425 1.0% 420 0.9% Richmond Adult 760 2.0% 710 1.9% 560 1.4% 430 1.1% 300 0.7% Community College Richmond Upon Thames College 1630 4.3% 1620 4.4% 1770 4.5% 1865 4.5% 2075 4.6% 20

ILR Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 FE Provider of Level 3 Sir George Monoux 685 1.8% 680 1.8% 760 1.9% 705 1.7% 705 1.6% College South Thames 640 1.7% 695 1.9% 855 2.2% 775 1.9% 1635 3.6% College Southgate College 505 1.3% 545 1.5% 485 1.2% 535 1.3% 565 1.3% Southwark College 615 1.6% 635 1.7% 775 2.0% 1285 3.1% 975 2.2% St Charles Catholic 340 0.9% 345 0.9% 375 1.0% 370 0.9% 415 0.9% Sixth Form College St Dominic's Sixth 420 1.1% 395 1.1% 445 1.1% 435 1.1% 435 1.0% Form College St Francis Xavier 515 1.3% 490 1.3% 520 1.3% 575 1.4% 660 1.5% Sixth Form College Stanmore College 705 1.8% 720 1.9% 805 2.0% 825 2.0% 715 1.6% The Brooke House 290 0.8% 285 0.8% 305 0.8% 230 0.6% 335 0.7% Sixth Form College The City Literary 475 1.2% 440 1.2% 425 1.1% 390 0.9% 330 0.7% Institute The College of 710 1.9% 880 2.4% 945 2.4% 1005 2.4% 1465 3.2% Haringey, Enfield and North East London Tower Hamlets 900 2.4% 725 2.0% 785 2.0% 900 2.2% 855 1.9% College Uxbridge College 1055 2.8% 1085 2.9% 1210 3.1% 1700 4.1% 1665 3.7% Waltham Forest 800 2.1% 680 1.8% 715 1.8% 675 1.6% 750 1.7% College West Thames 610 1.6% 520 1.4% 545 1.4% 555 1.4% 760 1.7% College Westminster 1450 3.8% 1120 3.0% 1035 2.6% 1205 2.9% 920 2.0% Kingsway College Woodhouse 480 1.3% 515 1.4% 465 1.2% 570 1.4% 540 1.2% College Working Men's 120 0.3% 80 0.2% 85 0.2% 55 0.1% 65 0.1% College 38220 100% 37150 100% 39400 100% 41075 100% 45165 100% 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

% of % of % of % of % of Table 8: Ethnicity breakdown of the tracked cohort by FE Year ILR Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Ethnicity Asian or Asian British - any other Asian background 1375 3.6% 1380 3.7% 1480 3.8% 1655 4.0% 1925 4.3% Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 1415 3.7% 1305 3.5% 1490 3.8% 1550 3.8% 1580 3.5% Asian or Asian British Indian 2440 6.4% 2290 6.2% 2525 6.4% 2075 5.1% 2255 5.0% Asian or Asian British Pakistani 1220 3.2% 1180 3.2% 1290 3.3% 1245 3.0% 1530 3.4% Black or Black British - any other Black background 835 2.2% 945 2.5% 920 2.3% 1025 2.5% 1080 2.4% Black or Black British African 6000 15.7% 5935 16.0% 6170 15.7% 6700 16.3% 7285 16.1% Black or Black British Caribbean 3425 9.0% 3320 8.9% 3595 9.1% 3750 9.1% 4110 9.1% Chinese 455 1.2% 370 1.0% 420 1.1% 380 0.9% 385 0.9% Mixed - any other Mixed background 660 1.7% 705 1.9% 680 1.7% 775 1.9% 895 2.0% Mixed - White and Asian 320 0.8% 320 0.9% 350 0.9% 370 0.9% 370 0.8% Mixed - White and Black African 395 1.0% 485 1.3% 455 1.1% 490 1.2% 505 1.1% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 625 1.6% 745 2.0% 800 2.0% 840 2.0% 960 2.1% White - any other White background 3320 8.7% 3345 9.0% 3280 8.3% 3500 8.5% 3895 8.6% White British 12440 32.5% 11720 31.5% 12520 31.8% 12910 31.4% 14850 32.9% White Irish 490 1.3% 435 1.2% 485 1.2% 550 1.3% 560 1.2% Any other 1870 4.9% 1815 4.9% 1965 5.0% 2065 5.0% 2105 4.7% Not known /not provided 940 2.5% 850 2.3% 990 2.5% 1200 2.9% 870 1.9% 38220 100% 37150 100% 39400 100% 41075 100% 45165 100% 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 17-19 year, the proportion of BME learners in this younger age group tends to be higher (on average 60%). 22

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 2005-06 cohort Ethnic Group Up to 19 years 20-24 25 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 2005-06 age 17-19 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

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 2009-10 66% more FE Level students from Quintile 1 were tracked than in 2005-06. Meanwhile, there was only a 5% increase in the number of students in Quintile 5 (high HE participation) between 2005-2009. 24

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 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Diff % growth 2009-2005 1 Low HE participation rates 1235 1235 1500 1680 2055 66% 2 2885 3080 3345 3680 4305 49% 3 11120 10965 11505 12420 13605 22% 4 11060 10545 11170 11635 12735 15% 5 High HE participation rates 11875 11290 11835 11615 12430 5% Unknown 45 35 45 50 35-22% Grand 38220 37150 39400 41075 45165 18% Table 12 shows the 2005-06 and 2009-10 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 2005-06 2009-10 Q1 & Q2 Growth 2005-06 to 2009-10 FE Qualification Type Access 410 10% 930 8% 575 9% 1095 9% 40% BTEC FT 600 15% 1465 12% 1220 19% 2915 23% 103% GCE A Level A/A2 640 16% 2400 20% 755 12% 2200 18% 18% GCE A Level AS only 325 8% 1165 10% 410 6% 1090 9% 26% NVQ 510 12% 1000 8% 1690 27% 2325 19% 231% Vocational FT 395 10% 1030 9% 155 2% 320 3% -61% Vocational PT 1240 30% 3885 33% 1560 25% 2485 20% 26% Grand 4120 100% 11875 100% 6360 100% 12430 100% 54% 25

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 2005-06 cohort progressed and this decreased to 30% for the 2009-10 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 17-19 year olds into non-prescribed HE where a slight increase was found. 26

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 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Non-prescribed HE 17-19 years 0.8% 0.8% 1.1% 1.7% 1.3% 20-24 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 17-19 years 49.2% 46.1% 46.3% 47.0% 43.2% 20-24 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 17-19 years 50.0% 46.9% 47.4% 48.7% 44.6% 20-24 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 (2005-06) and last (2009-10) FE cohort Table 13 above shows that the overall immediate higher education progression rate has slowly declined between 2005-06 and 2009-10. 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 17-19 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

Table 14: Absolute number change between 2005-06 and 2009-10 cohort higher education progression rates by age group Change, 2005-06 - 2009-10 % Change 2005-06 - 2009-10 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 17-19 years 3985 165 570 735 21% 110% 6% 8% 20-24 years 710 35 10 45 16% 24% 1% 3% 25 years+ 2250-205 -145-350 16% -31% -10% -16% Grand 6945-5 435 430 18% -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 2005-06 cohort into higher education delivered by FE colleges was 3.7% for the 2005-06 cohort and this declined slightly to 3.4% for the 2009-10 cohort. The higher education progression rate for the 2005-06 cohort into University delivered higher education was 31.2% and this dropped by -2.9% points to a rate of 27.1% for the 2009-10 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 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 FE college 1430 3.7% 11% University 38220 11915 31.2% 89% Grand 13345 34.9% 100% FE college 1320 3.6% 11% University 37149 11190 30.1% 89% Grand 12510 33.7% 100% FE college 1435 3.6% 11% 39402 University 11790 29.9% 89% 28

Level 3 Cohort Tracked Population Grand 13220 33.6% 100% 2008-09 2009-10 FE college 1440 3.5% 11% University 41076 11860 28.9% 89% Grand 13300 32.4% 100% FE college 1520 3.4% 11% University 45166 12225 27.1% 89% Grand 13745 30.4% 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 2005-06 38220 3% 43% 46% 5 yrs 2006-07 37150 3% 40% 43% 4 yrs 2007-08 39400 3% 39% 42% 3 yrs 2008-09 41075 3% 36% 38% 2 yrs 2009-10 45165 2% 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 2005-06 at 21% and this increased to 23% in 2009-10. This is lower than the London domicile average of 33% in 2009-10. Waltham Forest had a progression rate of more than double that of Sutton, at 44% in 2005-06 and this decreased to 40% in 2009-10. This is considerably higher than the London domicile average of 33% in 2009-10. 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 2009-10) 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

2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 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

2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 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 2005-06 the prescribed HE progression rate of males was higher than that of females (34.2% vs 31.2%) but the gender gap declined by 2009-10 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 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Change 2005-2009 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

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 2005-06 BTEC FT learner group progressed to higher education compared to 47.3% of the 2009-10 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 2006-07 onwards. Advanced VCE learners in 2005-06 had a higher education progression rate of 60% (mainly to prescribed HE) and this group more or less disappeared in the 2006-07 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) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 % point change 2005-2009 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 3 34.9% 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

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 2005-06 FE cohort 2006-07 FE cohort 2007-08 FE cohort 2008-09 FE cohort 2009-10 FE cohort Course Type First Degree 10875 82% 10205 82% 10990 83% 11115 84% 11495 83% 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 1245 9% 1160 9% 925 7% 820 6% 1070 8% -175 PG 50 0% 40 0% 45 0% 30 0% 35 0% -15 13345 100% 12510 100% 13220 100% 13300 100% 13775 100% 430 4.9 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 2005-2009 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 2009-10. Table 21: Trends in higher education progression rate by ethnicity HE Progression rate for each FE cohort when tracked for one year Ethnic group 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 % point Diff 2009-10 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

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 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 % point Diff 2009-10 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 2009-10 (see Table 11), who have not progressed to higher education at the same rate as they did in 2005-06. 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 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Q1 - Very low HE % Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 - High HE % 34

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 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Tracked population diff. Change 2005-2009 All HE Tracked population diff. All HE Progression Rate % point diff. 0 out of 4 28% 26% 26% 26% 1110 65-2.5% 1 out of 4 34% 34% 33% 31% 895 25-4.9% 2 out of 4 38% 37% 36% 35% 1760 60-3.7% 3 out of 4 40% 38% 38% 36% 1790 125-6.1% 4 out of 4 31% 28% 30% 29% 1395 155-7.1% Grand 35% 34% 34% 32% 6945 430-4.4% 5 For each indicator (IMD, EST, IDAC, the student lives in the 40% most deprived area, www.communities.gov.uk and for POLAR3 Q1-Q2, HEFCE 2012), 35

5. DETAILED PROGRESSION PATTERNS FOR THE 2005-06 LEVEL 3 FE COHORT 5.1 Progression by age, higher education funding type and timing of higher education entry The 2005-06 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 17-19 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 17-19 years. (6% compared to 1%). The younger age group, 17-19 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 17-19 year olds progress immediately compared to 68% of age 25+ learners. Table 23: 2005-06 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 36 2006-07 Timing of HE entry - 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Age group Non-Prescribed HE Non-Prescribed HE 17-19 years 19385 195 1% 77% 13% 5% 4% 2% 20-24 years 4580 170 4% 85% 10% 2% 1% 2% 25 years+ 14260 800 6% 82% 9% 4% 3% 2% Grand 38220 1165 3% 82% 10% 4% 2% 2% Prescribed HE Prescribed HE 17-19 years 19385 12345 64% 77% 15% 5% 2% 1% 20-24 years 4580 1735 38% 80% 10% 4% 3% 3% 25 years+ 14260 2175 15% 68% 14% 9% 5% 4% Grand 38220 16260 43% 76% 15% 5% 2% 2%

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 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 HE HE 17-19 years 19385 12540 65% 77% 15% 5% 2% 1% 20-24 years 4580 1910 42% 80% 10% 4% 3% 3% 25 years+ 14260 2980 21% 71% 13% 8% 4% 4% Grand 38220 17425 46% 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 23980 165 15070 15235 1% 63% 64% All Level 3 Part Time 14240 1000 1190 2190 7% 8% 15% All level 3 38220 1165 16260 17425 3% 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

Figure 5: Chart showing HE study mode by FE mode of study 5.4 Mode and delivery Of the 2005-06 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

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 2005-06 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 25. 86% 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: 2005-06 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 3710 30 2420 2450 1% 65% 66% GCE A2 Level/IB 7250 15 6210 6225 0% 86% 86% GCE AS Level 3700 15 1445 1465 0% 39% 40% BTEC (Full Time) 5565 80 2880 2960 1% 52% 53% NVQ 3360 555 270 820 16% 8% 24% Other Vocational FT 3755 25 2110 2140 1% 56% 57% Other Vocational PT 10880 445 925 1370 4% 8% 13% All Level 3 38220 1165 16260 17425 3% 43% 46% 39

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 (2005-06 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