National Learner Survey Wave 3 2020-21: Initial report of COVID-19 related questions from the dataset

Lucy Mallinson and Dr Anthea Rose Lincoln Higher Education Research Institute (LHERI)

Report

This short report provides an insight into the impact of COVID-19 on learners across Lincolnshire in the context of school closures and the challenges they experienced in continuing their learning from home. The data are drawn from the annual learner survey that forms part of the national impact evaluation of Uni Connect. Key findings

• Over half of all students that responded to the survey said that COVID-19 had not influenced their decision about what to do when they finish their current studies. However, 26% said that it had affected their decision either to some extent or a great deal and a further 17% were not sure. • With regards to applying to HE at aged 18 or 19, two thirds were just as likely, or more likely, to apply now as they were before COVID-19. However, almost 30% were not sure. Despite this, COVID-related reasons for both wanting to go, and not going on to HE, were low down the list. This requires further investigation and could be explored during the focus groups planned for the Summer term. • UC students were more likely to have stayed in school or college or a combination during the first lockdown in March to July 2020 than Non-UC students. This is probably because UC students are more likely to be classed as vulnerable and therefore entitled to be in school some or all of the time. • Over two thirds of students reported experiencing one or more difficulties learning from home. The biggest barrier was limited contact with tutors and/or subject teachers, with 36% of all students reporting this as an issue. • A quarter of all students lacked a quiet place to study, another quarter had caring responsibilities for other family members and 11% did not have a computer to use for school or college work. • Within gender, male students were less likely to experience difficulties studying at home than others (female students, other and prefer not to say). • Students in Years 11 and 13 (who would have been in Years 10 and 12 during the school closures) were more likely than other year groups to experience barriers to learning from home. This issue, particularly with regards to the then Year 10 students, was highlighted by Area Engagement Officers and teachers at case study schools during evaluation interviews Summer 2020 and reported in the Evaluation End of Year One report (October 2020).

1 | P a g e

• Gender was associated with six out of seven of the barriers listed, the exception being lack of computer. Female students were 1.5 times more likely than male students to report that being asked to help with other family members, such as younger siblings, made it more difficult to continue learning from home. • UC learners were 1.4 times more likely than their Non-UC counterparts not to have a computer to use for school or college work. • Across all younger learners in Years 9 to 11, 12% did not have a computer for school or college work. However, analysis at a school level showed that for three schools and one college the proportion was over 25%. • The level of contact students had with their tutor and/or subject teachers varied between schools. This is a subjective measure and depends on students’ expectations. Across all Years 9 to 11, 34% of students reported this as an issue, however at six schools the proportion was between 40-48%. Across all students in Years 12 and 13 the proportion was 44%, rising to 50-59% for four schools.

2 | P a g e

1. Introduction A major part of the Uni Connect National Evaluation, run by CFE Research on behalf of Office for Students (OfS), is the learner survey capturing students’ Higher Education (HE) knowledge and aspirations. The survey has been carried out in the Autumn term (between October and December) each year since the baseline survey in 2017. Decisions about Wave 3 of the survey, due to be carried out Autumn 2020, were made by OfS in the Summer of 2020 in consultation with all participating Uni Connect partnerships. Under consideration was: whether to run the survey at all due to the current pandemic; if so whether to provide schools with a longer participation period to maximise the number of responses; and what, if any, COVID-19 related questions should be included. The decision was made to launch the survey in Autumn 2020 as in previous years, but to extend the closing date to the 31 March 2021 and to include six questions exploring the impact of COVID-19 on learners. These questions asked where students studied during the first school lockdown in March to July 2020, what circumstances, if any, made it more difficult to continue learning at home and whether COVID-19 had affected their intentions of applying to HE. The revised Wave 3 survey opened for participation at the beginning of November 2020. Schools in Lincolnshire were invited to participate and at the end of March 2021, after data cleaning, a total of 3,866 responses were collected, of which 771 (20%) were from Uni Connect learners. This represents a slightly higher proportion than the actual level of Lincolnshire’s Uni Connect learners (17%). As expected, the total responses received were less than in previous years; A total of 10,900 responses were collected in Lincolnshire during Wave 2 (2019) and 9,800 during Wave 1 (2018). The report presented here is based on an initial analysis of the six questions relating to the impact of COVID-19 (as outlined above) on participating students from schools in Lincolnshire, and on responses from all students that responded to the survey. Some demographic comparisons have been made and areas of interest are highlighted. Differences, where they exist, at a school level have also been flagged. All statistical analysis was carried out in SPSS, and a p value of less than 0.05 was the criterion for statistical significance.

3 | P a g e

2. Data cleaning process Data cleaning was carried out to remove all duplicate and incomplete responses, the process is detailed in the panel below.

Data cleaning process: 1. Check all entries included participant consent – removal of those that did not 2. Removal of incomplete entries (criterion for complete: 75% of key predetermined questions)

3. Removal of duplicate responses: earliest most complete entry kept

3. Demographic background Overall, 3,866 responses were collected, the breakdown by year group and Uni Connect (UC) and non-Uni Connect (Non-UC) learners is shown in Table 1. For the purpose of this report college year groups, i.e. Level 2, Level 3 Years 1 and 2 are referred to by school year equivalent within the text, i.e. Years 11, 12 and 13 respectively. The proportion of UC learners from Years 10 and 11 responding to the survey was slightly higher than other year groups. An explanation for this is that a targeted approach for UC learners was taken by CFE Research: UC learners that had responded in previous Waves of the survey were sent an email with an invitation to participate using a unique survey link. However, whilst this increased the proportion in these year groups it does not entirely explain the difference.

Table 1: Total number of participants by year group and by UC/Non-UC learners Total number of UC and Non-UC (% within year group) Year Group responses (%) UC Non-UC Year 9 1108 (28.7%) 181 (16.3%) 927 (83.7%) Year 10 1049 (27.1%) 239 (22.8%) 810 (77.2%) Year 11/Level 2 809 (20.9%) 204 (25.2%) 605 (74.9%) Year 12/Level 3 Yr1 516 (13.3%) 85 (16.5%) 431 (83.5%) Year 13/Level 3 Yr2 384 (9.9%) 62 (16.1%) 322 (83.9%) Total 3870 (100%) 771 (19.9%) 3,095 (80.1%)

Demographic characteristics (gender, ethnicity, English as main language, self- reported disability, and first in family to attend HE) are summarised in Table 2. Note, not all these questions were answered in full.

4 | P a g e

Table 2: Demographic details of students Wave 3 survey Year 9 Year 10 Yr 11/Level 2 Yr 12/L3 Yr1 Yr 13/L3 Yr2 Total Characteristic Detail n % n % n % n % n % n %

Gender (n = 3,681) Female 590 57.5% 607 60.2% 463 60.4% 342 67.9% 228 60.8% 2,230 60.6% Male 386 37.6% 351 34.8% 267 34.9% 146 29.0% 143 38.1% 1,293 35.1% Other 24 2.3% 30 3.0% 10 1.3% 5 1.0% 3 0.8% 72 2.0% Prefer not to say 27 2.6% 21 2.1% 26 3.4% 11 2.2% 1 0.3% 86 2.3% Total 1027 100% 1009 100% 766 100% 504 100% 375 100% 3,681 100%

Ethnicity (n = 3,680) White – British, Irish, Scottish, Welsh 847 82.6% 829 82.1% 633 82.6% 425 84.5% 323 83.1% 3,057 83.1% White – Other 58 5.7% 75 7.4% 49 6.4% 33 6.6% 24 6.4% 239 6.5% Black 4 0.4% 5 0.5% 9 1.2% 3 0.6% 1 0.3% 22 0.6% Asian 39 3.8% 45 4.5% 29 3.8% 18 3.6% 11 2.9% 142 3.9% Mixed 40 3.9% 25 2.5% 17 2.2% 13 2.6% 11 2.9% 106 2.9% Other 14 1.4% 9 0.9% 12 1.6% 5 1.0% 2 0.5% 42 1.1% Prefer not to say 23 2.2% 22 2.2% 17 2.2% 6 1.2% 4 1.1% 72 2.0% Total 1025 100% 1010 100% 766 100% 503 100% 376 100% 3,680 100%

English main Yes 984 94.2% 941 92.6% 726 93.1% 470 92.9% 364 96.3% 3,485 93.6% language (n = 3,725) No 61 5.8% 75 7.4% 54 6.9% 36 7.1% 14 3.7% 240 6.4% Total 1045 100% 1016 100% 780 100% 506 100% 378 100% 3,725 100%

Disability (n = 3,692) Yes 126 12.2% 134 13.3% 112 14.6% 87 17.3% 47 12.5% 506 13.7% No 757 73.3% 712 70.5% 545 71.0% 350 69.4% 286 75.9% 2,650 71.8% Prefer not to say 150 14.5% 164 16.2% 111 14.5% 67 13.3% 44 11.7% 536 14.5% Total 1033 100% 1010 100% 768 100% 504 100% 377 100% 3,692 100%

First in family Yes 173 16.6% 178 17.6% 199 25.8% 147 29.1% 137 36.2% 834 22.5% (n = 3,708) No – Grandparent(s) 110 10.6% 95 9.4% 65 8.4% 39 7.7% 32 8.5% 341 9.2% No – Parent/Guardian(s) 305 29.3% 264 26.1% 204 26.4% 151 29.9% 120 31.7% 1044 28.2% No – Sibling(s) 152 14.6% 170 16.8% 138 17.9% 100 19.8% 63 16.7% 623 16.8% Don’t know 300 28.8% 306 30.2% 166 21.5% 68 13.5% 26 6.9% 866 23.4% Total 1040 100% 1013 100% 772 100% 505 100% 378 100% 3708 100%

5 | P a g e

The overall response rate of female students (61%) was higher compared to male students (35%), this is a wider gap than in previous years: Wave 2: 55% vs 40%, Wave 1: 54% vs 42%. The higher response rate was evident across all year groups, ranging from 58% female students (versus 38% male students) in Year 9 to 68% female students (versus 29% male students) in Year 12. As in previous years, the proportion of students reporting a disability (learning difficulty or long-term physical or mental health condition), was similar in proportion to those that prefer not to say. This is notable because in reporting the results of the survey in prior years, both groups scored some or all the survey measures lower than those without a self-reported disability. As students move through the year groups the number of students responding ‘don’t know’ to the question ‘if you go on to higher education, would you be the first person in your immediate family to go’ reduces from approximately 30% in Years 9 and 10 to 22%, 14% and 7% in Years 11, 12 and 13 respectively. Indicating that discussion about familial participation in HE occurs more frequently as students get older.

4. Participation by school/college Responses were received from students attending 43 schools and colleges across Lincolnshire, however the total number of responses from each ranged from just one to 657. The number of responses received from students attending 20 schools and one college are shown in Table 3 below, these responses make up 95% of the total received. Schools and colleges with less than 40 student responses are not shown and are not included in the school/college analysis within this report as the sample size is too small to have any significant meaning.

6 | P a g e

Table 3: Participation shown by number and proportion of total responses received, by school/college (minimum 40 responses) Number of responses School (% of total received) , 51 (1.3%) 51 (1.3%) 94 (2.4%) 282 (7.3%) , 59 (1.5%) Gainsborough 74 (1.9%) , Boston 238 (6.2%) Huntcliff School, Kirton 75 (1.9%) Lincoln Christ’s Hospital School 40 (1.0%) Queen Elizabeth’s High School, Gainsborough 305 (7.9%) Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School, Horncastle 262 (6.8%) Sir Robert Pattinson Academy 48 (1.2%) Academy 169 (4.4%) 65 (1.7%) Spalding High School 445 (11.5%) St George’s Academy, Sleaford 307 (7.9%) The Priory Witham Academy, Lincoln 120 (3.1%) Thomas Cowley High School 118 (3.1%) University Academy Holbeach 164 (4.2%) University Academy Long Sutton 47 (1.2%) William Farr Comprehensive School, Welton 657 (17.0%) Total 3,671 (95.0%)

7 | P a g e

5. Has COVID-19 influenced your decision about what to do next? Participants were asked whether COVID-19 had affected their decision about what they would like to do when they finished their current studies, at the end of Year 11 for those students in Years 9 to 11 and at the end of Year 13 for those students in Years 12 and 13. Just over half of the students that responded said that COVID-19 had not affected their decision at all, however the remainder (43%) felt it had affected their decision either a great deal or to some extent, or that they were not sure. This question was not directional, i.e. it did not determine if they were more, or less, likely to choose HE over full-time employment, for example (Table 4 below).

Table 4: Has COVID-19 influenced your decision about what to do next? Frequency % No, not at all 2,187 56.6% Yes, to some extent 855 22.1% Not sure 671 17.4% Yes, a great deal 148 3.8% Total 3,861 100%

6. Impact of COVID-19 on likelihood of applying to HE All students in Years 9 to 12 and those in Year 13 that had not already applied through UCAS to HE, were asked if COVID-19 had affected their decision about whether or not to apply to HE at age 18 or 19 (Table 5). Over two thirds of respondents were just as likely, or more likely, to apply now as they were before COVID-19.

Table 5: Has COVID-19 affected your decision whether to apply to HE at age 18 or 19? Frequency % No, I’m just as likely to apply now as I was before COVID-19 2,193 62.3% I’m not sure 1,039 29.5% Yes, I’m now less likely to apply 154 4.4% Yes, I’m now more likely to apply 135 3.8% Total 3,523 100%

In the survey students were subsequently asked the likelihood of applying to HE. Those that answered either ‘fairly likely’, ‘very likely’ or ‘definitely will apply’, along with those that had already applied through UCAS were asked the main reason for wanting to go to HE (Table 6).

8 | P a g e

Table 6: What is the main reason you want to go to HE? Frequency % To enable me to get a well-paid job 1,855 66.6% I enjoy learning 390 14.0% Other 201 7.2% I don’t know what else to do 110 4.0% It’s what my parents expect me to do 88 3.2% I don’t feel ready to start working yet 76 2.7% My teachers have encouraged me to go 32 1.1% It will be too hard to get a job because of COVID-19 23 0.8% It’s what all my friends are planning to do 9 0.3% Total 2,784 100%

Those that answered ‘don’t know’, ‘fairly unlikely’, ‘very unlikely’ and ‘definitely won’t apply’ to the likelihood of applying to HE question, along with those that had selected non-HE related answers to a prior question were asked what the main reason they might not go on to HE (Table 7).

Table 7: What is the main reason you might not go on to HE? Frequency % It depends on the grades I get 337 22.6% I am still undecided 272 18.2% I want to work and earn money 196 13.2% I have decided on a specific career (that does not require 148 9.9% further study) The cost is too much 140 9.4% It does not appeal to me 112 7.5% I want to travel 93 6.2% Other reason 73 4.9% My current qualifications are enough 38 2.6% COVID-19 has put me off going to HE 38 2.6% I do not have the necessary study skills 30 2.0% There is nowhere close enough to home 13 0.9% Total 1,490 100%

The two respective COVID-19 related responses are low down the list of reasons for both wanting to go, and for possibly not wanting to go to HE. This is despite almost 30% of respondents being unsure if COVID-19 has affected their decision about whether to apply to HE (see Table 5).

9 | P a g e

7. Where did you study between March and July 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdown? Most students studied at home during the lockdown period (87%), however 10% went to school/college as well as studying at home. A small proportion, almost 3%, stayed in school/college for the duration of the lockdown. UC students were more likely to have stayed in school/college or a combination of home and school/college than Non- UC students (Table 8).

Table 8: Where did you study between March and July 2020 by UC/Non-UC UC (%) Non-UC (%) Overall (%) Home 644 (83.5%) 2720 (87.9%) 3364 (87.0%) School/college and 104 (13.5%) 291 (9.4%) 395 (10.2%) home School/college 23 (3.0%) 84 (2.7%) 107 (2.8%) Total 771 (100%) 3095 (100%) 3866 (100%)

8. Difficulties studying at home – all students Students that studied at home or a combination of home and school/college were asked if any of the following made it more difficult to continue learning at home between March and July 2020 during the lockdown: (i) lack of computer to use for school/college work, (ii) lack of other equipment or resources ordinarily available within school/college, (iii) poor or no Wi-Fi connection, (iv) limited contact with tutor and/or subject teacher, (v) lack of quiet place to study, (vi) being asked to help with other family members, such as younger brothers and sisters, (vii) parents/carers unable to help with school/college work, and (viii) nothing, everything needed to continue learning at home was available. The final option (viii) could only be selected to the exclusion of the other options. However, if students had faced any difficulties then all that applied could be selected (i to vii). Over two thirds of students (67%) reported experiencing one or more barriers, whilst 33% had everything they need to continue learning from home. Table 9 lists the difficulties and shows the number and proportion of students that reported experiencing each.

10 | P a g e

Table 9: Did any of the following make it more difficult for you to continue learning at home? Frequency % Limited contact with tutor and/or subject teachers at 1,346 36.2% school/college Lack of a quiet place to study 956 25.7% Being asked to help out with other family members, such as younger brothers and sisters 919 24.7%

Lack of other equipment or resources you would normally 911 24.5% have in school/college to help you learn

Parents/carers unable to help with school/college work 756 20.3%

Poor or no Wi-Fi connection at home 615 16.5% Lack of a computer that you could use for your 409 11.0% school/college work

Students could select all options that applied (see above), Table 10 shows the number of students that reported one barrier, two to three and four to seven barriers, both overall and for UC/Non-UC.

Table 10: Number students reporting one or more barriers and by UC/Non-UC UC and Non-UC (%) Frequency (%) UC Non-UC On barrier 910 (36.3%) 160 (32.8%) 750 (37.2%) Two – three barriers 1,094 (43.7%) 228 (46.7%) 866 (42.9%) Four – seven barriers 502 (20.0%) 100 (20.5%) 402 (19.9%) Total 2,506 (100%) 488 (100%) 2,018 (100%)

9. Difficulties studying at home – demographic differences This section considers the effect of five demographic characteristics to the responses to ‘did any of the following make it more difficult for you to continue learning at home?’: gender, year group, ethnicity, UC/Non-UC and by school attended. Firstly, an analysis of those that reported one or more situations that made it more difficult to continue their studies compared to those that reported no barriers, and secondly, a breakdown of the seven underlying barriers. Note: As not all demographic questions were answered in full, data are only shown where a response was received. There were demographic differences in the experience of studying at home, specifically gender and year group (Table 11). Within gender, female students, other and those that preferred not to say were more likely to report difficulties than male students. Within year groups those in Years 11 and 13 were more likely to encounter difficulties than other year groups, note these students would have been in Years 10 and 12 respectively during the lockdown period March to July 2020.

11 | P a g e

Table 11: Students facing one or more barriers and those reporting no barriers by gender, year group, ethnicity and UC/Non-UC Barriers, one or Had everything Total Chi2 more needed Gender Female 1,517 (69.1%) 654 (30.1%) 2,171 (100%) Male 766 (62.1%) 467 (37.9%) 1,233 (100%) p<0.001 Other 54 (78.3%) 15 (21.7%) 69 (100%) Prefer not to say 60 (74.1%) 21 (26.4%) 81 (100%) Total 2,397 (67.4%) 1,157 (32.6%) 3554 (100%) UC UC learner 488 (66.1%) 250 (33.9%) 738 (100%) p=0.439 Non-UC learner 2,019 (67.6%) 967 (32.4%) 2,986 (100%) Total 2,507 ( 67.3%) 1,217 (32.7%) 3,724 (100%) Year group Year 9 677 (64.5%) 373 (35.5%) 1,050 (100%) Year 10 665 (66.0%) 342 (34.0%) 1,007 (100%) Year 11/L1 552 (70.7%) 229 (29.3%) 781 (100%) p<0.001 Year 12/L3Y1 316 (62.8%) 187 (37.2%) 503 (100%) Year 13/L3Y2 297 (77.5%) 86 (22.5%) 383 (100%) Total 2,507 (67.3%) 1,217 (32.7%) 3,724 (100%) Ethnicity White British 2,001 (67.9%) 946 (32.1%) 2,947 (100%) White Other 147 (63.1%) 86 (36.9%) 233 (100%) Black 12 (57.1%) 9 (42.9%) 21 (100%) Asian 91 (65.5%) 48 (34.5%) 139 (100%) p=0.340 Mixed 64 (62.1%) 39 (37.9%) 103 (100%) Other 31 (73.8%) 11 (26.2%) 42 (100%) Prefer not to say 50 (73.5%) 18 (26.5%) 68 (100%) Total 2,396 (67.4%) 1,157 (32.6%) 3,553 (100%)

12 | P a g e

Grouping students by the school/college they attend, students experienced different degrees of difficulties studying at home (Table 12), however a majority of students at each school, between 56% and 84%, experienced one or more barriers to learning from home.

Table 12: Students facing one or more barriers and those reporting no barriers by school Had everything Barriers, one or more Total (100%) needed De Aston School 47 (84%) 9 (16%) 56 UALS 35 (78%) 10 (22%) 45 Banovallum School 38 (75%) 13 (25%) 51 Thomas Cowley HS 80 (73%) 30 (27%) 110 LCHS 29 (73%) 11 (27%) 40 Boston HS 198 (71%) 79 (29%) 277 Skegness Acad. 113 (71%) 46 (29%) 159 St George's Acad. 210 (71%) 86 (29%) 296 Gainsborough Acad. 50 (69%) 22 (31%) 72 Spalding HS 298 (68%) 141 (32%) 439 QEHS, Gainsborough 202 (68%) 96 (32%) 298 William Farr 418 (66%) 214 (34%) 632 QEGS, Horncastle 168 (66%) 88 (34%) 256 Priory Witham 72 (64%) 40 (36%) 112) Boston GS 57 (64%) 32 (36%) 89 Sir Robert Pattinson Acad. 30 (64%) 17 (36%) 47 Huntcliff School 42 (63%) 25 (37%) 67 Boston College 30 (61%) 19 (39%) 49 UAH 92 (60%) 61 (40%) 153 Haven High Acad. 131 (59%) 91 (41%) 222 Spalding GS 36 (56%) 28 (44%) 64 2,376 1,158 3,534 Total (67.2%) (32.8%) (100%) Chi2 sig p=0.020

Data detailing each barrier by gender, UC/Non-UC learners and year group are shown in Tables 13 to 15. Ethnicity was not associated with barriers to continue learning from home, with the exception of ‘limited contact with tutor and/or subject teacher’, as the numbers of students in most categories were small these data are shown in Table 1 in the Appendix. Female students were more likely than male students to report experiencing difficulties with the exception of ‘lack of a computer to use for school or college work’; the differences were significant (Table 13). Female students were 1.5 times more likely to report that being asked to help out with other family members, such as younger siblings, made it more difficult to continue learning at home and 1.6 times more likely to report their parents/carers were unable to help with school or college work. The gender split is shown for female and male students only as the proportion of students selecting ‘other’ and ‘prefer not to say’ was small, however these data are shown in Table 2 in the Appendix.

13 | P a g e

Table 13: Barriers by gender

Female Male Total p-value Lack of computer to use for school/college work 228 (10.8%) 142 (11.5%) 370 (10.9%) p = 0.361 Lack of other equipment or resources normally available in 587 (27.0%) 242 (19.6%) 829 (24.4%) p < 0.001 school/college to help with learning Poor or no Wi-Fi 380 (17.5%) 171 (13.9%) 551 (16.2%) p = 0.006 Limited contact with tutor and/or 845 (38.9%) 395 (32.0%) 1240 (36.4%) p < 0.001 subject teachers at school Lack of quiet place to study 618 (28.5%) 248 (20.1%) 866 (25.4%) p < 0.001 Being asked to help out with 598 (27.5%) 228 (18.5%) 826 (24.3%) p < 0.001 other family members

Parents/carers unable to help 501 (23.1%) 175 (14.2%) 676 (19.9%) p < 0.001 with school/college work

UC learners were more likely to report that the lack of a computer to use for school or college work made it more difficult to continue learning at home than Non-UC learners (15% vs 10%), similarly for being asked to help out with other family members (28% vs 24%) (Table 14). Conversely, Non-UC learners were more likely to say that limited contact with their tutor and/or subject teachers had made it more difficult (37% vs 31%).

Table 14: Barriers by UC/Non-UC learners

UC Non-UC Total p-value Lack of computer to use for school/college work 108 (14.6%) 301 (10.1%) 409 (11.0%) p <0.001 Lack of other equipment or resources normally available in 161 (21.8%) 750 (25.1%) 911 (24.5%) p = 0.061 school/college to help with learning Poor or no Wi-Fi 109 (14.8%) 506 (17.0%) 615 (16.5%) p = 0.153 Limited contact with tutor and/or 231 (31.3%) 1115 (37.4%) 1346 (36.2%) p = 0.002 subject teachers at school Lack of quiet place to study 208 (28.2%) 748 (25.1%) 956 (25.7%) p = 0.082 Being asked to help out with other family members 206 (27.9%) 713 (23.9%) 919 (24.7%) p = 0.023 Parents/carers unable to help with 154 (20.9%) 602 (20.2%) 756 (20.3%) p = 0.672 school/college work

There were significant differences between the year groups for all the barriers. Younger students (Years 9 to 11) were more likely to report not having a computer than older students. Students in years 11 and 13 were more likely to report experiencing all the other barriers than students in Years 9, 10 and 12 (Table 15).

14 | P a g e

Table 15: Barriers by year group

Year 9 Year 10 Year 11/L2 Yr 12/L3Y1 Yr 13/L3Y2 Total p-value

Lack of computer to use for school/college work 109 (10.4%) 127 (12.6%) 102 (12.9%) 37 (7.5%) 34 (9.0%) 409 (11.0%) p = 0.008 Lack of other equipment or resources normally available in school/college to 220 (20.9%) 243 (24.1%) 200 (25.3%) 123 (24.8%) 125 (33.0%) 911 (24.5%) p < 0.001 help with learning Poor or no Wi-Fi 184 (17.5%) 163 (16.2%) 140 (17.7%) 53 (10.7%) 75 (19.8%) 615 (16.5%) p = 0.002 Limited contact with tutor and/or subject 324 (30.8%) 307 (30.5%) 333 (42.2%) 175 (35.4%) 207 (54.6%) 1346 (36.2%) p < 0.001 teachers at school

Lack of quiet place to study 251 (23.9%) 254 (25.2%) 219 (27.7%) 114 (23.0%) 118 (31.1%) 956 (25.7%) p = 0.023 Being asked to help out with other family 230 (21.9%) 235 (23.3%) 221 (28.0%) 128 (25.9%) 105 (27.7%) 919 (24.7%) p = 0.015 members Parents/carers unable to help with 196 (18.6%) 202 (20.0%) 195 (24.7%) 80 (16.2%) 83 (21.9%) 756 (20.3%) p = 0.002 school/college work

15 | P a g e

Analysis at a school level for each of the underlying difficulties demonstrated significant differences between the responses of students attending different schools. For the purpose of the analysis Years 9 to 11 and Years 12 and 13 were grouped together, firstly because of the significant differences between year groups (Table 15) and secondly because seven of the schools do not have sixth form provision.

Lack of computer to use for school/college work: For both the younger and older year groups there were significant differences between schools for ‘lack of computer to use for school/college work’. These differences for students in Years 9 to 11 ranged from no Spalding Grammar School students reporting a lack of a computer to 31% of students from Gainsborough Academy (Figure 1). For students in Years 12 and 13 the proportions ranged from 2% at QEHS Gainsborough to 29% of students from Priory Witham (Figure 2).

0%

Figure 1: Years 9 to 11/L2 – Lack of computer to use for school/college work; χ2 sig p<0.001

16 | P a g e

Figure 2: Years 12/L3Y1 & 13/L3Y2 – Lack of computer to use for school/college work; χ2 sig p=0.010

Lack of resources or other equipment that would normally be available in school or college to help with learning:

For ‘lack of resources or other equipment’ the difference between schools was significant for younger students only, this ranged from no students from Spalding Grammar School to 33% of students from Sir Robert Pattinson (Figure 3). The data for the older students are shown in Figure 1 in the Appendix.

0%

Figure 3: Years 9 to 11/L2 – Lack of other equipment or resources; χ2 sig p=0.006

17 | P a g e

Poor or no Wi-Fi connection at home:

Similarly, there were significant differences for ‘poor or no Wi-Fi’ for younger students only, ranging from 8% of students from Priory Witham to 28% from Banovallum School (Figure 4). For Years 12 and 13 overall 15% of students had poor or no Wi-Fi, ranging from no students from Priory Witham to 25% of student from QEGS Horncastle. The full range of data are shown in Figure 2 in the Appendix.

Figure 4: Years 9 to 11/L2 – Poor or no Wi-Fi connection at home; χ2 sig p=0.017

Limited contact with tutor and/or subject teachers at school or college:

For both the younger and older year groups there were significant differences between schools for ‘limited contact with tutor and/or subject teachers at school/college’. These differences for the younger students ranged from 11% of students from Boston College to 48% of students from Lincoln Christ’s Hospital School (Figure 5). For students in Years 12 and 13 the range reporting limited contact was from 25% at University Academy Holbeach to 59% of students from QEGS Horncastle (Figure 6).

18 | P a g e

Figure 5: Years 9 to 11/L2 – Limited contact with tutor and/or subject teachers at school/college; χ2 sig p<0.001

Figure 6: Years 12/L3Y1 & 13/L3Y2 – Limited contact with tutor and/or subject teachers at school/college; χ2 sig p=0.038

Lack of quiet place to study:

The differences between schools for students reporting a ‘lack of quiet place to study’ were not significant for either of the year groups. For students in years 9 to 11 the

19 | P a g e

range was from 8% from Spalding Grammar School to 38% from , and for students in Years 11 and 12 the range was 11% for students from QEGS Horncastle to 41% from Priory Witham. These data are shown in full in Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix.

Being asked to help out with other family members, such as younger brothers and sisters:

Similarly, the differences between schools for a ‘caring responsibilities’ were not significant for either of the year groups. For students in years 9 to 11 the range was from 14% from St George’s Academy to 35% from De Aston School, and for students in Years 11 and 12 the range was 19% for students from University Academy Holbeach to 33% from Boston College. These data are shown in full in Figures 5 and 6 in the Appendix.

Parents/carers unable to help with school or college work:

The differences between schools for ‘parents/carers unable to help with school/college work’ were significant for younger students only. The range for Years 9 to 11 was from 0% from Boston College to 42% from De Aston School (Figure 7). For students in Years 12 and 13 the range was 6% for students from University Academy Holbeach to 35% from QEHS Gainsborough. These data are shown in full in Figure 7 in the Appendix.

0%

Figure 7: Years 9 to 11/L2 – Parents/carers unable to help with school/college work; χ2 sig p<0.001

20 | P a g e

Nothing, I had everything I needed to continue learning at home:

Finally, for those who had everything they needed to continue learning at home there were significant differences between schools for younger students only. From 19% of De Aston School Year 9 to 11 students to 64% from Spalding Grammar School.

For students in Years 12 and 13 the range was 24% for students from Priory Witham to 44% from University Academy Holbeach. These data are shown in full in Figure 8 in the Appendix

Figure 8: Years 9 to 11/L2 – I had everything I needed to continue learning at home; χ2 sig p=0.003

10. Conclusions Overall, UC students reported more barriers to learning at home during the first COVID-19 lockdown than their Non-UC counterparts, as did female and younger students. Why such disparities exist merits further, qualitative, investigation so that the barriers can be addressed in the future. The survey data demonstrates that for a significant proportion of students the impact of COVID-19 in relation to future plans remains unclear.

21 | P a g e

Appendix

Table 1: Barriers by gender Female Male Other Prefer not to say Total p-value

Lack of computer to use for school/college work 228 (10.5%) 142 (11.5%) 12 (17.6%) 12 (14.8%) 394 (11.1%) p = 0.165 Lack of other equipment or resources 587 (27.0%) 242 (19.6%) 20 (29.4%) 27 (33.3%) 876 (24.7%) p < 0.001 Poor or no Wi-Fi 380 (17.5%) 171 (13.9%) 17 (25.0%) 19 (23.5%) 587 (16.5%) p = 0.003 Limited contact with tutor and/or subject teachers 845 (38.9%) 395 (32.0%) 26 (38.2%) 32 (39.5%) 1298 (36.5% p < 0.001 Lack of quiet place to study 618 (28.5%) 248 (20.1%) 29 (42.6%) 28 (34.6%) 923 (26.0%) p < 0.001 Being asked to help out with other family members 598 (27.5%) 228 (18.5%) 28 (41.2%) 28 (34.6%) 882 (24.8%) p < 0.001 Parents/carers unable to help with school/college work 501 (23.1%) 175 (14.2%) 25 (36.8%) 27 (33.3%) 728 (20.5%) p < 0.001

22 | P a g e

Table 2: Barriers by ethnicity White Other ethnic Prefer not White British Black Asian Mixed Total p-value Other group to say Lack of computer to use 338 (11.5%) 20 (8.6%) 2 (9.5%) 11 (7.9%) 9 (8.7%) 5 (12.2%) 9 (13.2%) 394 (11.1%) p = 0.632 for school/college work Lack of other equipment 742 (25.2%) 49 (21.0%) 4 (19.0%) 33 (23.7%) 27 (26.2%) 9 (22.0%) 15 (22.1%) 879 (24.7%) p = 0.806 or resources

Poor or no Wi-Fi 486 (16.5%) 37 (15.9%) 4 (19.0%) 17 (12.2%) 17 (16.5%) 7 (17.1%) 18 (26.5%) 586 (16.5%) p = 0.328 Limited contact with tutor and/or subject 1094 (37.1%) 70 (30.0%) 7 (33.3%) 61 (43.9%) 31 (30.1%) 16 (39.0%) 15 (22.1%) 1294 (36.4%) p = 0.013 teachers Lack of quiet place to 770 (26.1%) 61 (26.2%) 4 (19.0%) 37 (26.6%) 26 (25.2%) 6 (14.6%) 20 (29.4%) 924 (26.0%) p = 0.707 study Being asked to help out with other family 705 (23.9%) 72 (30.9%) 5 (23.8%) 41 (29.5%) 26 (25.2%) 9 (22.0%) 24 (35.3%) 882 (24.8%) p = 0.069 members Parents/carers unable to help with school/college 614 (20.8%) 50 (21.5%) 2 (9.5%) 23 (16.5%) 20 (19.4%) 6 (14.6%) 14 (20.6%) 729 (20.5%) p = 0.656 work

23 | P a g e

Figure 1: Years 12/L3Y1 & 13/L3Y2 – Lack of other equipment or resources that would normally be available in school/college to help with learning; χ2 not sig p=0.101

0%

Figure 2: Years 12/L3Y1 & 13/L3Y2 – Poor or no Wi-Fi connection at home; χ2 not sig p=0.158

24 | P a g e

Figure 3: Years 9 to 11/L2 – Lack of quiet place to study; χ2 not sig p=0.073

Figure 4: Years 12/L3Y1 & 13/L3Y2 – Lack of quiet place to study; χ2 not sig p=0.167

25 | P a g e

Figure 5: Years 9 to 11/L2 – Being asked to help out with other family members, such as younger brothers and sisters; χ2 not sig p=0.070

Figure 6: Years 12/L3Y1 & 13/L3Y2 – Being asked to help out with other family members, such as younger brothers and sisters; χ2 not sig p=0.712

26 | P a g e

Figure 7: Years 12/L3Y1 & 13/L3Y2 – Parents/carers unable to help with school/college work; χ2 not sig p=0.125

Figure 8: Years 12/L3Y1 & 13/L3Y2 – I had everything I needed to continue learning at home; χ2 not sig p=0.692

27 | P a g e