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 [email protected] ++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
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 (prescribed HE or HE in FE) Diploma Non-prescribed Skills Funding Agency Further Education Colleges e.g. NVQ, Diploma, Certificate Higher Education (SFA) and previously the Learning and Skills Council (LSC)
Qualification type Further description Access to HE All Access to HE programmes GCE A2 Level/IB Full-time A Levels and International Baccalaureate (IB) programmes GCE AS Level Full and part-time AS level programmes BTEC (Full Time) All full-time BTEC qualifications Other full time vocational qualifications including CACHE and Art Other Vocational Full-time Foundation programmes. Also included Advanced VCE to 2006-07
FE qualifications FE NVQ Part-time NVQ level 3 qualifications Other Vocational Part-time Other part-time vocational and professional qualifications First Degree Degree programmes Foundation Degree Foundation degree programmes Part-time Higher National Certificate and full-time Higher National HNC/HND Diploma programmes Other undergraduate programmes not included above including OUG qualifications Certificates and Diplomas in Higher Education
HE HE NVQ NVQ programmes at level 4 and above PG 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 programmes1 (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 Higher Education COHORTS 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
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 up- to-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 1st 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 Number Total Number Total Number Total Number Total Number Total 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% Total 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 2 % of % of % of % of % of Age Number Total Number Total Number Total Number Total Number Total 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% Total 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
Number Number Number Number Number
%of Total %of Total %of Total %of Total Domicile region %of Total 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% Total 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
Number Number Number Number Number
%of Total %of Total %of Total %of Total Type %of Total 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
FE Year
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
FE Level 3
Qualification
Number Number Number Number Number
%of Total %of Total %of Total %of Total Type %of Total 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
% of of % of % of % of % of %
Total Total Total Total
London Borough Total
Number Number Number Number Domicile Number 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
FE Year
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
% of of % of % of % of % of %
Total Total Total Total
London Borough Total
Number Number Number Number Domicile Number 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% Total 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
Number Number Number Number Number
%of Total %of Total %of Total %of Total Level 3 %of Total Barking and 1015 2.7% 1070 2.9% 985 2.5% 1100 2.7% 1255 2.8% Dagenham College Barnet and 1795 4.7% 1610 4.3% 1405 3.6% 1445 3.5% 1785 4.0% Southgate College Bexley College 580 1.5% 505 1.4% 535 1.4% 570 1.4% 650 1.4% Bromley College of 475 1.2% 515 1.4% 535 1.4% 510 1.2% 835 1.9% Further and Higher Education
19
ILR Year
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
FE Provider of
Number Number Number Number Number
%of Total %of Total %of Total %of Total Level 3 %of Total Capel Manor 290 0.8% 295 0.8% 355 0.9% 205 0.5% 255 0.6% College 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 1630 4.3% 1620 4.4% 1770 4.5% 1865 4.5% 2075 4.6% Thames College
20
ILR Year
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
FE Provider of
Number Number Number Number Number
%of Total %of Total %of Total %of Total Level 3 %of Total 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 Total 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
Table 8: Ethnicity breakdown of the tracked cohort by FE Year
ILR Year
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
% of of % of % of % of % of %
Total Total Total Total Total
Number Number Number Number Ethnicity Number 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% Total 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
Table 9: Ethnic background of tracked population by age group – 2005-06 cohort
Grand Ethnic Group Up to 19 years 20-24 25 plus Total 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 Total 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
FT
PT
NVQ
A/A2
Access
ASonly
BTEC FT
Vocational Vocational Vocational
GCE A Level GCE Level A GCE Level A Ethnicity GrandTotal 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
%3 of total population within ethnic group
FT
PT
NVQ
A/A2
Access
ASonly
BTEC FT
Vocational Vocational Vocational
GCE A Level GCE Level A GCE Level A Ethnicity GrandTotal 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 Total 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
Table 11: POLAR3 breakdown of the tracked cohorts
Diff % growth POLAR3 Quintile 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 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 Total 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
Q2 Q2 Q2
- -
Growth
low
–
high high Q2
2005-06 to
-
–
Q5
rates rates
Q2 2009-10
Q1
-
Q5
% of all Q5 Q5 all of % Q5 all of %
tracked pop tracked pop tracked pop tracked
FE Qualification Q1
tracked pop tracked
participation participation participation % of all Q1 all of % Type Q1 all of % 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 Total 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 non- prescribed 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
FE Level 3 Tracked Cohort Age Group 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 Total 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 Total 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 Total 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
Number Change, 2005-06 - 2009-10 % Number Change 2005-06 - 2009-10 All Tracked Non- HEFCE All Tracked Non- Total Population prescribed HE Population prescribed HEFCE HE HE Age Group Difference HE change change Total HE Difference HE change change change 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 Total 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
1 year progression only Level 3 Grand Total Cohort Delivery of tracked Number to higher % HE % of Total HE Tracked population education Progression
FE college 1430 3.7% 11% 2005-06 University 38220 11915 31.2% 89% Grand Total 13345 34.9% 100%
FE college 1320 3.6% 11% 2006-07 University 37149 11190 30.1% 89% Grand Total 12510 33.7% 100%
FE college 1435 3.6% 11% 2007-08 39402 University 11790 29.9% 89%
28
Grand Total 13220 33.6% 100%
FE college 1440 3.5% 11% 2008-09 University 41076 11860 28.9% 89% Grand Total 13300 32.4% 100%
FE college 1520 3.4% 11% 2009-10 University 45166 12225 27.1% 89% Grand Total 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
Total HE progression (over number of years)
% Total HE Number of
Non-Prescribed HE % Prescribed HE
Cohort Level 3 3 Level
Tracked Progression years tracked Population 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
Table 17: Trends in immediate higher education rates and trends at Borough level
Non-Prescribed HE Prescribed HE Progression Total HE Progression Rates- FE Progression Rates – FE Rates – FE cohort year cohort year cohort Year Borough
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
------
06 07 08 09 10 06 07 08 09 10 06 07 08 09 10
Barking and 5% 4% 5% 6% 4% 24% 22% 27% 28% 23% 29% 26% 32% 33% 27% Dagenham 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 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 29% 33% 34% 32% 30% 30% 35% 35% 33% 31% Westminster 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 3% 1% 2% 2% 1% 30% 34% 33% 29% 28% 33% 35% 35% 31% 29% and Fulham 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 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 29% 33% 35% 25% 32% 31% 34% 35% 26% 33% and Chelsea Kingston upon 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 23% 22% 24% 24% 28% 25% 24% 27% 26% 29% Thames 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 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 27% 27% 25% 28% 30% 29% 27% 27% 30% 32% upon Thames 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
Non-Prescribed HE Prescribed HE Progression Total HE Progression Rates- FE Progression Rates – FE Rates – FE cohort year cohort year cohort Year Borough
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
------
06 07 08 09 10 06 07 08 09 10 06 07 08 09 10
Tower Hamlets 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 41% 42% 41% 42% 35% 41% 44% 42% 43% 37% Waltham 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 43% 41% 39% 38% 39% 44% 43% 42% 40% 40% Forest Wandsworth 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 27% 26% 28% 28% 30% 28% 29% 30% 30% 32% Total 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% Total 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% Total 32.4% 31.5% 31.2% 30.1% 28.4% -4.0% Total 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% Total 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 FE Level 3 Cohort year - % HE Progression Rate, (tracked to Type HE for one year) % point change 2005-2009 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
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 48.0% 28.5% 25.2% 23.9% 22.5% -25.4%* Full-time Other Vocational 7.1% 7.7% 6.5% 6.8% 7.0% -0.1% Part-time 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
Table 20: Number of higher education entrants for each of the five FE cohorts (tracked for one year) by higher education qualification Type
2005-06 FE 2006-07 FE 2007-08 FE 2008-09 FE 2009-10 FE
cohort cohort cohort cohort cohort
Course Type
difference
Number % % Number
% of Total of % Total of % Total of % Total of % Total of %
HE HE HE HE HE HE
entrants entrants entrants entrants entrants First Degree 10875 82% 10205 82% 10990 83% 11115 84% 11495 83% 620 Foundation 380 3% 430 3% 480 4% 615 5% 745 5% 365 Degree 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 Total 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 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- % point Diff Ethnic group 06 07 08 09 10 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
HE Progression rate for each FE cohort when tracked for one year 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- % point Diff Ethnic group 06 07 08 09 10 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 Total 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
37%
36%
36%
35%
35%
35%
34%
34%
34%
33%
33%
32%
32%
31%
31%
29%
29%
29%
28%
27%
25%
25%
24%
24% 19%
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 disadvantage5 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 Change 2005-2009 All HE All HE Tracked Tracked Progression Disadvantage population population Rate % indicators 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 diff. diff. 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 Total 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
HE progression Timing of HE entry - % of Total Total % 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- Total Total HE HE 07 08 09 10 11 tracked Age group Level 3 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 Total 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 Total 38220 16260 43% 76% 15% 5% 2% 2%
36
HE progression Timing of HE entry - % of Total Total % 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- Total Total HE HE 07 08 09 10 11 tracked Age group Level 3
Total HE Total 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 Total 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
HE HE
Non
tracked % Non- %
Total Total Number
Total HE HE Total Prescribed Prescribed % HE
Total Population Population Total
Total Total
FE Level and Mode and Level FE Prescribed HE Prescribed 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
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
Tracked for five years into HE
-
Total
-
Qualification Type
Population Non
% %
Level 3 Non
HE HE HE HE HE % HE %
tracked Total
% %
Number
Total HE HE Total
Total Total
Prescribed Prescribed Prescribed Prescribed
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
Table 26: 2005-06 cohort tracked for five years with % of higher education subject studied by FE sector subject area.
% of FE Sector % of Total FE Sector Total HE Subject HE Subject HE subject Subject HE Subject subject
(N4) Accounting 30.5% (W2) Design studies 13.2% Arts, Media Accounting (N1) Business studies 19.0% (G4) Computer science 11.8% and and Finance (L1) Economics 8.6% (W1) Fine art 10.3% Publishing (270) (G1) Mathematics 4.8% (70) (W5) Dance 8.8% (G5) Information systems 4.8% (Y0) Combined 7.4% (N3) Finance 4.5% (P3) Media studies 5.9% (X3) Academic studies in (K2) Building 46.8% education 43.6% Child (N1) Business studies 34.5% (N1) Business studies 25.0% Building and Developmen Construction (H2) Civil engineering 22.8% t and (N4) Accounting 25.0% (80) (K1) Architecture 10.1% Wellbeing (L1) Economics 12.5% (N4) Accounting 9.7% (305) (L9) Others in social studies 12.5% (N2) Management studies 7.7% (N2) Management studies 12.5% (H6) Electronic & electrical (W2) Design studies 46.8% engineering 37.6% (W6) Cinematics & Crafts, photography 9.9% (H3) Mechanical engineering 12.8% Creative Art (W1) Fine art 7.4% Engineering (H4) Aerospace engineering 9.9% and Design (280) (1345) (K1) Architecture 5.4% (H1) General engineering 9.1% (W9) Others in creative arts & design 3.1% (H2) Civil engineering 7.7% (P3) Media studies 3.0% (B7) Nursing 35.2% (G4) Computer science 44.7% (L5) Social work 23.5% (G5) Information systems 20.0% Health and (C8) Psychology 6.6% (N1) Business studies 5.9% ICT for Users Social Care (B9) Others in subjects (H6) Electronic & electrical (1240) (1045) allied to medicine 5.9% engineering 4.7% (L3) Sociology 5.9% (G6) Software engineering 3.5% (X3) Academic studies in education 3.2% (W2) Design studies 3.5%
(M2) Law by topic 32.4% (G1) Mathematics 15.1% (M1) Law by area 13.9% (L1) Economics 6.9% Law and Mathematic (B2) Pharmacology, toxicology Legal s and (C8) Psychology 6.5% & pharmacy 5.3% Services Statistics (445) (625) (H6) Electronic & electrical (L3) Sociology 5.4% engineering 5.0% (N1) Business studies 4.9% (N4) Accounting 4.6% (L2) Politics 3.4% (N1) Business studies 4.6% (P3) Media studies 23.8% Nursing and (B7) Nursing 80.0% Media and (W6) Cinematics & Subjects and (B9) Others in subjects allied to Communicat photography 8.8% Vocations medicine 3.0% ion (870) (W2) Design studies 5.7% Allied to (L5) Social work 2.6% (G4) Computer science 4.6% Medicine (B3) Complementary Medicine 2.4%
41
% of FE Sector % of Total FE Sector Total HE Subject HE Subject HE subject Subject HE Subject subject (L3) Sociology 4.5% (470) (Y0) Combined 1.9% (B2) Pharmacology, toxicology (P5) Journalism 4.4% & pharmacy 1.5% (W3) Music 25.8% (C6) Sports science 61.8% (W4) Drama 23.1% (C8) Psychology 3.7% Sport, (P3) Media studies 5.7% (N1) Business studies 3.3% Performing Leisure and Arts (620) (W5) Dance 5.2% Recreation (N2) Management studies 3.3% (W6) Cinematics & (300) photography 3.6% (X1) Training teachers 2.3% (Q3) English studies 2.4% (X9) Others in education 2.3% (N8) Hospitality, leisure, tourism and transport 58.3% (N1) Business studies 9.4% Travel and (N2) Management studies 8.7% Tourism (N6) Human resource (250) management 3.9% (N5) Marketing 3.5% (L3) Sociology 2.4%
5.9 Borough level higher education progression rates with delivery breakdown
At borough level there are varying higher education progression rates as presented in Table 27. For example, Harrow has an overall higher education progression rate of 61%, made up of 56% progression to University delivered higher education and 6% to FE college delivered higher education. For Harrow domicile students, 92% of all higher education was delivered by Universities. In contrast, Havering had a much lower higher education progression rate at 36%. Universities delivered 84% of all higher education to Havering domiciled students compared to 16% which was delivered by FE colleges.
Table 27: Breakdown of higher education delivery by borough 2005-06
HE Progression Rates % Share of HE entrants
Tracked Borough
population
Total
delivered
Delivered Delivered Delivered
FE college college FE
FE College College FE
University University University
Barking and Dagenham 765 30% 8% 38% 22% 78% Barnet 1555 43% 6% 49% 12% 88% Bexley 535 29% 7% 37% 21% 79% Brent 1615 44% 7% 51% 13% 87% Bromley 455 26% 7% 32% 21% 79% Camden 730 39% 5% 44% 12% 88% City of London 20 44% 6% 50% 11% 89%
42
HE Progression Rates % Share of HE entrants
Tracked Borough
population
Total
delivered
Delivered Delivered Delivered
FE college college FE
FE College College FE
University University University
City of Westminster 665 39% 3% 42% 8% 92% Croydon 1565 41% 4% 45% 10% 90% Ealing 1550 47% 5% 52% 9% 91% Enfield 1120 45% 6% 51% 11% 89% Greenwich 1070 37% 7% 43% 15% 85% Hackney 1715 46% 4% 51% 9% 91% Hammersmith and Fulham 670 38% 4% 42% 9% 91% Haringey 1390 45% 5% 50% 10% 90% Harrow 1535 56% 5% 61% 8% 92% Havering 1525 30% 6% 36% 16% 84% Hillingdon 825 36% 5% 41% 13% 87% Hounslow 950 39% 9% 48% 19% 81% Islington 1045 42% 5% 47% 11% 89% Kensington and Chelsea 535 35% 5% 39% 12% 88% Kingston upon Thames 515 30% 6% 36% 17% 83% Lambeth 1705 42% 5% 47% 10% 90% Lewisham 1435 43% 5% 48% 10% 90% Merton 595 39% 7% 46% 15% 85% Newham 2145 51% 4% 55% 7% 93% Redbridge 845 35% 6% 41% 15% 85% Richmond upon Thames 1055 37% 5% 42% 11% 89% Southwark 1515 47% 5% 52% 9% 91% Sutton 485 24% 7% 31% 21% 79% Tower Hamlets 1230 49% 3% 52% 6% 94% Waltham Forest 1440 51% 4% 55% 7% 93% Wandsworth 1005 35% 3% 38% 9% 91% Total 35795 42% 5% 47% 11% 89% 5.10 Borough level higher education progression rates by qualification type
Table 28 shows a breakdown of the 2005-06 tracked population by qualification type for each borough. This table provides a useful context for borough level higher education progression rates. Bexley, for example, has a low proportion of students studying GCE A/A2 qualifications at 7% and this compares to 21% of students in Brent studying these qualifications in FE.
43
Table 28: 2005-06 cohort FE Borough level higher education progression rates by qualification
FE Qualification Type
FT
PT
A Level Level A
NVQ
A/A2
Access
ASonly
BTEC FT
Vocational Vocational Vocational
GCE GCE Level A Borough GrandTotal Barking and Dagenham 13% 16% 11% 8% 16% 8% 29% 100% Barnet 10% 10% 22% 10% 9% 9% 30% 100% Bexley 19% 13% 7% 4% 13% 8% 37% 100% Brent 9% 13% 21% 8% 10% 11% 29% 100% Bromley 12% 16% 8% 4% 13% 7% 41% 100% Camden 15% 11% 11% 8% 7% 14% 34% 100% City of London 6% 6% 17% 28% 0% 0% 44% 100% City of Westminster 9% 10% 17% 10% 6% 9% 38% 100% Croydon 12% 18% 14% 11% 13% 10% 22% 100% Ealing 5% 22% 23% 9% 7% 8% 25% 100% Enfield 10% 16% 16% 14% 9% 12% 23% 100% Greenwich 16% 9% 13% 11% 16% 8% 27% 100% Hackney 10% 18% 21% 11% 6% 10% 24% 100% Hammersmith and Fulham 10% 15% 15% 11% 7% 11% 31% 100% Haringey 11% 14% 19% 12% 7% 11% 25% 100% Harrow 5% 10% 39% 9% 6% 11% 20% 100% Havering 2% 12% 29% 8% 13% 13% 22% 100% Hillingdon 10% 21% 13% 5% 9% 9% 32% 100% Hounslow 9% 15% 18% 11% 8% 9% 31% 100% Islington 12% 14% 17% 12% 4% 11% 29% 100% Kensington and Chelsea 11% 10% 13% 10% 5% 14% 38% 100% Kingston upon Thames 9% 9% 14% 13% 10% 7% 38% 100% Lambeth 11% 16% 19% 10% 7% 10% 27% 100% Lewisham 11% 13% 19% 8% 13% 9% 26% 100% Merton 9% 18% 16% 9% 10% 10% 28% 100% Newham 9% 19% 27% 10% 6% 13% 15% 100% Redbridge 8% 22% 14% 8% 12% 9% 27% 100% Richmond upon Thames 6% 9% 26% 9% 4% 5% 42% 100% Southwark 12% 16% 17% 13% 6% 12% 24% 100% Sutton 8% 14% 7% 7% 20% 4% 39% 100% Tower Hamlets 12% 15% 25% 12% 3% 8% 24% 100% Waltham Forest 11% 14% 28% 9% 6% 16% 17% 100% Wandsworth 12% 12% 13% 11% 6% 10% 36% 100% Grand Total 10% 15% 20% 10% 9% 10% 27% 100%
44
5.11 Non-prescribed higher education providers (2005-06 level 3 cohort who progressed)
Providers of non-prescribed HE are detailed in Table 29. The top three providers of non-prescribed HE were Barnet and Southgate College, Havering College and Barking and Dagenham College.
Table 29: Non-prescribed HE providers
Non-prescribed % of Total Provider (of Non-prescribed HE level study) HE entrants HE entrants
Barnet and Southgate College 105 9% Havering College of Further and Higher Education 85 7% Barking and Dagenham College 75 7% College of North West London 60 5% Lambeth College 55 5% Kingston College 45 4% West Thames College 45 4% Ealing, Hammersmith & West London College 45 4% Croydon College 45 4% Hackney Community College 45 4% City and Islington College 40 3% Bexley College 35 3% Uxbridge College 35 3% Southwark College 35 3% Harrow College 35 3% The City Literary Institute 30 3% Lewisham College 30 3% Southgate College 30 3% Greenwich Community College 30 2% Richmond Upon Thames College 25 2% City Of Westminster College 25 2% Waltham Forest College 20 2% Bromley College of Further and Higher Education 20 2% Carshalton College 20 2% The College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London 20 2% Newham College of Further Education 20 2% Richmond Adult Community College 15 1% South Thames College 15 1% Tower Hamlets College 10 1% Mary Ward Centre 10 1% Stanmore College 10 1%
45
Non-prescribed % of Total Provider (of Non-prescribed HE level study) HE entrants HE entrants
Kensington and Chelsea College 5 1% Merton College 5 1% Westminster Kingsway College 5 1% Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council 0 " Child Care Training Consultancy Limited 0 " Redbridge College 0 " North Hertfordshire College 0 " Havering London Borough Council 0 " Bromley Adult Education College 0 " Croydon London Borough Council 0 " Kaplan Financial Limited 0 " Access to Music Limited 0 " Newham Borough Council 0 " Orpington College of Further Education 0 " Quay Assessment Training Limited 0 " South Essex College of Further and Higher Education 0 " Hillingdon London Borough Council 0 " Total 1165 100%
5.12 Prescribed HE providers
The top 35 providers of prescribed HE are listed in Table 30. London based Universities dominate the top of the list indicating that Level 3 learners at London FE colleges do not travel far geographically when they progress onto higher education.
Table 30: Providers of prescribed HE for 2005-06 Level 3 cohort who progressed
Context - Institution entrant population % of Total % share Prescribed Prescribed Provider (of Prescribed HE level (HESA) study) 2006-07 of total HE entrants HE Total HE HE entrants Entrant entrants Numbers of HEIs listed 0063 Kingston University 1225 9% 23135 4% 0083 The University of Westminster 1125 8% 24710 4% 0067 Middlesex University 1055 8% 23290 4% 0059 The University of Greenwich 950 7% 24915 4% 0076 London South Bank University 840 6% 23215 4% 0202 London Metropolitan University 840 6% 29495 5%
46
Context - Institution entrant population % of Total % share Prescribed Prescribed 2006-07 of total Provider (of Prescribed HE level (HESA) study) HE entrants HE Total HE HE entrants Entrant entrants Numbers of HEIs listed 0058 The University of East London 665 5% 19305 3% 0113 * University 650 5% 15510 3% 0060 University of Hertfordshire 640 5% 23725 4% 0139 Queen Mary and Westfield College 615 4% 12585 2% 0031 Roehampton University 540 4% 8535 1% 0115 The City University 445 3% 23835 4% 0024 University of the Arts, London 445 3% 30885 5% 0080 The University of West London 425 3% no data no data 0134 King's College London 295 2% 21230 4% 0001 The Open University 260 2% 176560 # 0131 Goldsmiths College 245 2% 7620 1% 0122 The University of Kent 205 1% 18385 3% 0039 St Mary's University College, Twickenham 185 1% 4175 1% 0149 University College London 170 1% 19385 3% 0009 Buckinghamshire New University 170 1% 9045 2% 0051 The University of Brighton 160 1% 21135 4% 0118 The University of Essex 155 1% 11660 2% 0026 University of Bedfordshire 150 1% 14550 3% 0206 University for the Creative Arts 145 1% 7460 1% 0074 The University of Portsmouth 135 1% 19860 3% 0068 De Montfort University 130 1% 21210 4% 0141 Royal Holloway and Bedford New College 125 1% 8335 1% 0047 Anglia Ruskin University 125 1% 20300 3% 0161 The University of Surrey 120 1% 15705 3% 0127 Birkbeck, University of London 120 1% 18480 3% 0162 The University of Sussex 105 1% 12445 2% 0157 The University of Reading 90 1% 14680 3% 0037 Southampton Solent University 85 1% 17455 3% 0012 Canterbury Christ Church University 85 1% 14945 3% Total 13730 100% 581200 100% Name suppressed by request 5.13 HE achievement rates of 2005-06 cohort starting full- time first degrees in 2006-07
In this section, we examine the achievement of a cohort of FE Level 3 learners who progress onto higher education. Given that the period of study for a First Degree is three to four years, we are unable to track every FE cohort. The most reliable achievement figures available will be for the
47
2005-06 FE Level 3 cohort who progressed into higher education in 2006-07 and who have been expected to complete in 2009-10 or 2010-11. Around 9500 learners who started a First Degree in 2006-07 were tracked for five years within the higher education datasets. Of these, 71% achieved their First Degree and an additional 6% achieved a lower award such as a Foundation Degree, or HND. Table 31 also shows that 21% of students did not achieve any award. Included in the table is comparison data for England higher education (HESA, 2011) entrants showing that nationally 77% were projected to achieve their First Degree. At delivery level, the achievement rate of FE colleges is lower than Universities where 26% of HE in FE learners did not achieve any award compared to 21% of students who studied at a University. FE programme level achievement rates also varied. For example, only 13% of entrants from the GCE A/A2 group did not achieve an HE award, compared to 31% of Access to HE entrants. BTEC and Access to HE students had the lowest achievement rates.
N.B. Nationally, non-continuation rates published by HESA in the Performance Indicator6 tables show that BTEC and Access to HE students have higher non-continuation rates (after one year) than students on GCE A level or IB programmes. Entrants with a BTEC qualification had a non- continuation rate of 13%, Access to HE 15% whereas GCE A level students was 5%.
Table 31: HE Achievement of 2005-06 FE cohort starting FT First Degree course in 2006-07 Total % % % First Achieve % No Achieve Unclassified Degree First Award Lower or Not Achievement Entrants Degree recorded7 Award known All FE Level 3 9540 71% 21% 6% 2%
By Delivery: FE College 180 62% 26% 10% 2% University 9365 71% 21% 6% 2%
By FE Programme: Access 1425 60% 31% 9% BTEC FT 1790 58% 31% 9% 2% GCE A Level A/A2 4450 82% 13% 4% 1% GCE A Level AS only 370 68% 23% 7% 2% NVQ " " " " " Vocational FTi 1295 68% 23% 9% 0% Vocational PT 185 67% 25% 7% 0% National comparison - HEFCE Performance Indicators, Projected Outcomes of FT First Degree entrants (2006-07) All England 324725 77% 14% 3% 1% (an additional 5% were recorded as Transfer)
6 HESA Performance Indicators, Tables SN1 2010-11 7 No award recorded between 2006-07 and 2010-11
48
5.14 HE subject achievement rates (2005-06 cohort starting first degree in 2006-07)
For some higher education subjects, achievement rates vary significantly from the average (71% Table 31). For example, Table 32 shows students on a Computer Science higher education programme are less likely to achieve their First Degree than students on an English studies programme, and many more students studying Computer Science subjects achieve a lower award than their intended First Degree.
Table 32: HE achievement of 2005-06 FE cohort starting FT First Degree course in 2006-07 by HE Subject (JACS2) (for subjects with entrant numbers 100+)
% % Achieved Achieve % HE First Lower % Achieve Unclassified/ HE subject entrants Degree Award No Award unknown) (N1) Business studies 715 72% 7% 21% 0% (W2) Design studies 590 72% 6% 22% 0% (C8) Psychology 555 75% 4% 20% 0% (G4) Computer science 550 58% 11% 32% 0% (M2) Law by topic 465 71% 7% 22% 0% (L3) Sociology 400 70% 7% 22% 1% (P3) Media studies 385 70% 7% 22% 0% (Q3) English studies 330 80% 3% 16% 1% (L5) Social work 320 69% 7% 24% 0% (N4) Accounting 315 73% 9% 16% 2% (M1) Law by area 300 81% 6% 13% 0% (W6) Cinematics & photography 250 73% 6% 19% 1% (C1) Biology 235 69% 6% 24% 1% (G1) Mathematics 230 79% 3% 18% 0% (C6) Sports science 230 63% 7% 30% 0% (W4) Drama 215 74% 7% 19% 0% (N2) Management studies 205 67% 7% 26% 0% (B2) Pharmacology, toxicology & pharmacy 200 77% 3% 18% 2% (L2) Politics 190 74% 5% 20% 1% (B9) Others in subjects allied to medicine 185 67% 9% 23% 1% (G5) Information systems 185 59% 8% 31% 3% (H6) Electronic & electrical engineering 180 56% 6% 36% 2% (X1) Training teachers 175 76% 10% 12% 2% (W3) Music 170 59% 3% 38% 0% (X3) Academic studies in education 170 62% 15% 24% -1% (V1) History by period 150 79% 5% 16% 0% (N5) Marketing 145 77% 3% 20% 1% (B1) Anatomy, physiology & 125 82% 6% 11% 0%
49
% % Achieved Achieve % HE First Lower % Achieve Unclassified/ HE subject entrants Degree Award No Award unknown) pathology (K1) Architecture 120 55% 16% 29% 0% (B7) Nursing 120 67% 10% 22% 1% (W1) Fine art 110 76% 7% 17% 0% (C7) Molecular biology, biophysics & biochemistry 100 72% 6% 22% 0%
5.15 HE progression by POLAR3 quintile
The higher education progression rate is higher for those learners living in POLAR Q5 than those who live in POLAR Q1 (34% against 28%). The non-prescribed HE rate was slightly higher for the Q1 group at 4% compared to 3% for the Q5 group. However, there was a 7% point difference between the prescribed HE progression rate of Q1 and Q5 learners.
Table 33: 2005-06 higher education progression rates by POLAR3 classification
Non- Tracked Total HE Prescribed HE Prescribed Total HE POLAR3 Quintile Population Population % HE % % 1 Very low HE 1235 345 4% 24% 28% participation 2 2885 840 3% 27% 29% 3 11120 4050 2% 34% 36% 4 11060 4090 2% 35% 37% 5 Very high HE 11875 4000 3% 31% 34% participation Grand Total 38175 13330 2% 32% 35%
5.16 2005-06 higher education progression by disadvantage
Table 34 shows that the group of learners who live in an area classified as most disadvantaged using 3 out of 4 indicators, had the highest higher education progression rate at 40%. This was significantly higher than the 28% higher education progression rate found for the group who lived in an area not classified as disadvantaged using any indicator (0/4). These findings are not in line with the results in Table 33.
50
Table 34: 2005-06 higher education progression rates by disadvantage classification
Tracked Non- Number out of 4 Population with HE entrant Prescribed Prescribed HE Total disadvantage indicators indicators Population HE % % HE % 0/4 8535 2350 3% 25% 28% 1/4 4800 1650 3% 32% 34% 2/4 14600 5490 3% 35% 38% 3/4 7715 3065 2% 38% 40% 4/4 2535 785 3% 28% 31% Grand Total 38185 13340 2% 32% 35% NB – the totals are different due to differences in the number of known postcodes
This is partly explained because POLAR is a proxy for disadvantage but determined by historical higher education participation in an area. BME groups have higher HE participation than White groups and 68% of the group who meet 0 out of 4 indicators are White compared to just 29% BME, whilst the four out of four group is more evenly split. The higher education progression rate for BME learners is higher than for White British learners (see Table 35).
Table 35: Disadvantage breakdown by ethnicity
Number out of 4 disadvantage indicators Ethnicity 0/4 1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4 Grand Total Tracked population White 5790 2270 4725 2184 1260 16230 BME 2460 2420 9530 5380 1230 21020 % of Disadvantage group White 68% 47% 32% 28% 50% 43% BME 29% 50% 65% 70% 48% 55%
Meanwhile, the POLAR3 breakdown of the 2005-06 population (in Table 36) shows that there are a higher proportion of White learners classified as Quintile 1 (than BME) and this may explain the lower higher education progression rates for this group.
Table 36: POLAR breakdown by ethnicity
POLAR3 Quintile Ethnicity 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total Tracked population White 710 1580 3915 4255 5775 16230 BME 500 1230 6960 6500 5810 21000 % of POLAR quintile White 57% 55% 35% 38% 49% 43% BME 41% 43% 63% 59% 49% 55% NB – the totals are different due to differences in the number of known postcodes
51
5.17 Higher education progression and ethnicity
Higher education progression rates vary considerably at ethnic group level. Asian groups have the highest higher education progression rates at around 60% while White groups have the lowest higher education progression rates at around 32%. Given that the age composition of individual ethnic groups differs (see Table 9), it may be more revealing to examine higher education progression of ethnic groups with an age group breakdown (Table 37)
Table 37: 2005-06 cohort higher education progression rates by Ethnic group and higher education funding type
Tracked for five years Non- Tracked Prescribed Prescribed Total HE % Ethnic Group Population HE % Rate HE % Rate Rate Any other 1870 3% 46% 49% Asian or Asian British - any other Asian background 1375 3% 52% 55% Asian or Asian British –Bangladeshi 1415 1% 62% 63% Asian or Asian British –Indian 2440 3% 57% 61% Asian or Asian British –Pakistani 1220 2% 60% 62% Black or Black British - any other Black background 835 3% 52% 55% Black or Black British –African 6000 2% 59% 61% Black or Black British –Caribbean 3425 3% 46% 49% Chinese 455 3% 55% 58% Mixed - any other Mixed background 660 2% 50% 52% Mixed - White and Asian 320 2% 52% 54% Mixed - White and Black African 395 2% 52% 54% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 625 2% 48% 50% not known/not provided 940 2% 34% 36% White - any other White background 3320 5% 31% 37% White –British 12440 3% 27% 30% White –Irish 490 4% 28% 33% Grand Total 38220 3% 43% 46% 5.18 Higher education progression by ethnic group and age group
An age group breakdown at ethnic group level shows that there are still differences in the higher education progression rates of different ethnic groups. Table 38 shows that the higher education progression rate of White learners tends to be lower than the higher education progression rates of BME groups at all age levels.
52
Table 38; Ethnicity and Age group higher education Progression rates for 2005-06 cohort tracked for five years
HE Progression Rate Up to 19 Ethnic Group years 20-24 25 plus Any other 69% 48% 21% Asian or Asian British - any other Asian background 73% 48% 22% Asian or Asian British –Bangladeshi 72% 52% 16% Asian or Asian British –Indian 77% 42% 17% Asian or Asian British –Pakistani 72% 45% 19% Black or Black British - any other Black background 68% 53% 37% Black or Black British –African 76% 57% 37% Black or Black British –Caribbean 64% 42% 27% Chinese 78% 38% 22% Mixed - any other Mixed background 63% 49% 23% Mixed - White and Asian 68% 54% 21% Mixed - White and Black African 71% 45% 30% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 58% 48% 26% not known/not provided 64% 36% 16% White - any other White background 65% 44% 20% White –British 48% 27% 15% White –Irish 58% 43% 17% Grand Total 65% 42% 21%
5.19 Higher education delivery by ethnic group
There are clear differences in the higher education delivery breakdown of total entrants by ethnic group. For example, 91% of Black learners who progress, progress onto a University delivered higher education programme and this compares to just 82% of White learners. A higher proportion of White learners go onto a higher education programme delivered in an FE college.
Table 39: 2005-06 higher education entrants by ethnicity and higher education delivery breakdown
Delivery breakdown % of Total Total HE FE College University Ethnic Group entrants Delivery Delivery Any other 925 10% 90% Asian or Asian British - any other Asian background 755 10% 90% Asian or Asian British –Bangladeshi 895 4% 96% Asian or Asian British –Indian 1485 10% 90% Asian or Asian British –Pakistani 750 8% 92% Black or Black British - any other Black background 460 9% 91% Black or Black British –African 3675 8% 92% Black or Black British –Caribbean 1685 10% 90% Chinese 265 8% 92%
53
Delivery breakdown % of Total Total HE FE College University Ethnic Group entrants Delivery Delivery Mixed - any other Mixed background 340 8% 92% Mixed - White and Asian 170 9% 91% Mixed - White and Black African 215 9% 91% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 310 7% 93% not known/not provided 335 12% 88% White - any other White background 1215 19% 81% White –British 3785 17% 83% White –Irish 160 20% 80% Grand Total 17425 11% 89%
54
6. CONCLUSIONS
This study tracks patterns of higher education progression of five cohorts of Level 3 achievers in London FE colleges. A detailed investigation of higher education progression has been undertaken where higher education progression is examined in relation to both qualification types and learner characteristics. Borough level progression is also explored to reveal differences in learner progression rates at a geographical level.
By tracking five cohorts of level 3 learners higher education trends have been presented to compare progression across a period of time. In addition, a longitudinal progression picture is given showing that learners continue to enter higher education two, three, four and five years following achievement of their Level 3 qualification.
The study provides a rich context for understanding more about the higher education progression of FE Level 3 learners in London colleges showing that over 90% of Level 3 learners educated in London colleges are also domiciled in London and that FE colleges in London have seen a +18% growth in the number of students achieving Level 3 qualifications between 2005-06 and 2009-10. This growth is seen in all age groups and in particular, the number of students achieving a Level 3 BTEC qualification has nearly doubled during the same period. NVQ Level 3 learners have also more than doubled in number. There has also been a significant increase in the number of Level 3 achievers domiciled in an area classified as disadvantaged and with low higher education progression rates historically (POLAR3 Quintile 1 or 2); numbers have grown by +66% between 2005 and 2009.
Against this background of growth in Level 3 learner numbers, higher education progression rates have not seen the same increase. For the tracked 2005-06 cohort, the higher education progression rate was 35% and this dropped to 30% for the 2009-10 tracked cohort. However, for BTEC learners the higher education progression rate actually increased from 44% in 2005-06 to 47% in 2009-10 showing that nearly one in two BTEC leaners are progressing on to higher education. There was a marked decrease in the higher education progression rate of Other Vocational learners studying full-time and this was due to the loss of Advanced VCE learners after 2006-07. This group of learners had a healthy progression rate of 60%. The overall higher education progression rate trend is also impacted by the decrease in NVQ progression from Level 3 to Level 4 from 2007 onwards.
There is a clear pattern of progression from FE colleges at borough level, with higher rates reflecting those boroughs with larger numbers of students studying GCE A levels in FE colleges. Progression at ethnic group level also varies considerably. Black and minority ethnic groups, who make up over half of total Level 3 learners in London FE colleges, have higher HE progression rates than White learner groups.
Although the higher education progression rate was 30% for the 2009-10 tracked cohort, the rate for younger learners aged 17-19 years was 45%. Progression to prescribed HE programmes such as Degrees, Foundation degrees and HND/HNC was 43% and progression to non-prescribed HE programmes such as NVQ and Certificate and Diploma programmes at Level 4 was just 2%. Universities delivered to 89% of higher education entrants compared to 11% for FE college delivery of higher education. These proportions remained unchanged for the five tracked cohorts.
55
A more in depth picture of progression was obtained for the first tracked cohort in 2005-06 where the cohort was tracked for 5 years. The results in this section showed that 94% of full-time higher education was delivered by Universities whereas 54% of part-time higher education was delivered by FE colleges. Not surprisingly this section also shows that Level 3 learners who studied full-time were much more likely to progress to higher education than those learners who were studying their Level 3 programme on a part-time basis. When tracked for five years, A Level learner progression rates stood at 86% and those who had a BTEC qualification had a higher education progression rate of 53%. Nearly three quarters of learners who progressed went onto a First Degree programme. HE programme type and level varied by FE programme type where for example only one in ten NVQ learners went onto First Degree level. Longitudinal tracking of this early FE Level 3 cohort into higher education enabled an exploration of higher education achievement rates and showed that three in four learners who entered higher education after studying a Level 3 qualification at a London FE college went on to achieve a higher education qualification. Higher education achievement rates were highest for A level learners followed by Access to HE and BTEC learners.
This tracking study provides a detailed baseline of higher education progression rates for London FE college Level 3 learners. The results show varying degrees of progression rates depending on FE qualification type and learner characteristic and they also provide useful benchmarks for individual providers who are interested in identifying opportunities for increasing higher education progression and higher education achievement rates for future cohorts of learners. Individual institutional reports can be provided which will compare individual institutional data to the London- wide average and provide detailed breakdowns at subject level. Other detailed comparative reports can also be provided drilling down to provide useful analyses for awarding bodies, individual Boroughs, Sector Skills councils and researchers.
56
7. REFERENCES
BIS. (2009). Applications, Offers and Admissions to Research Led Universities. BIS.
Carter, P. J. (2009). Progression from Vocational and Applied Learning to Higher Education in England. UVAC.
HEFCE. (2007). Pathways to Higher Education - BTEC Courses. HEFCE.
HEFCE. (2012). POLAR 3 Young Participation in Higher Education. HEFCE.
HESA. (2011). Project outcomes of full-time First Degree entrants (2006-07) Table T5. Retrieved from HESA Performance Indicators: www.hesa.ac.uk
Joslin, H., & Smith, S. (2010). Progression Tracking Research Project First Release. University of Greenwich.
Joslin, H., & Smith, S. (2013a). Progression of Apprentices into Higher Education. BIS.
Joslin, H., & Smith, S. (2013b). Progression of Apprentices into Higher Education in London 2004 - 2010. Linking London.
Kozdras, S. (2012). Focus on London 2012: Skills - Degrees of Qualifiacation. GLA Intelligence Unit.
Parry, G., Callender, C., Scott, P., & Temple, P. (2012). Understanding Higher Education in Further Education Colleges. BIS.
UCAS. (2013). Accepted Applicant trends by Educational background. Retrieved from UCAS, Statistics Online Datatables: http://www.ucas.com/about_us/stat_services/stats_online/data_tables/
UCAS. (2013a, July). Educational Background (UK). Retrieved from UCAS: http://www.ucas.com/data-analysis/data-resources/data-tables/educational-background- uk
57