Last week brought the results for examinations held across the UK. They represent pivotal points in a student’s career when critical decisions are made. They also reflect the stark social divide that permeates the UK. The existing attainment gaps between the most and least advantaged surfaces into view when the exam results emerge. There is a simple conclusion that cannot be evaded. Resources and family advantages trump other factors in determining success. The UK government is right to target child poverty and a ‘Children’s Wellbeing Bill’ in the King’s Speech. But this is long-term and too many are experiencing disadvantage now with their opportunities being closed off through few resources that they cannot overcome.
The usual congratulations and praise have been issued from our political masters as optimistic gleaming students appear in the media. The idea is to praise those succeeding in their endeavours and hard work. They fully deserve the credit and best wishes for the future. However, the hype hides those who have failed in their goals and find they must downgrade their aspirations. Help is there for them, but we must not forget their disappointment. Lower than expected A-level (Higher in Scotland) results mean they must join the clearing rush to get a university place. Although most pass T-levels, dropping out or failing is a disaster not easily fixed. GCSE (Level 5 standard/O-grades in Scotland) is now an even more pivotal step in defining a future career. Nearly 30% have failed to achieve the required 4/C grades in Mathematics and English needed to progress in post-16 education. Recent research at UCL has shown the consequences of this for a large number of students. Their choices will be extremely limited. There was a similar pattern in Scotland a week earlier.
The landscape from above.
After the A-level results emerged in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we saw the grades had continued with the return to pre-pandemic levels as for 2023. Overall, the proportion of A /A* grades was similar from 27.2% in 2023 to 27.8% in 2024. Data by subject for England Wales and Northern Ireland is available here from the Joint Council for Qualifications. The overview of more students with higher grades and a shift towards STEM subjects, especially Mathematics, looks good from a height. However, nearer the ground, the terrain looks much tougher. There are many pits and troughs of disadvantage tainting the results. While many students can climb out and enjoy the view ahead, there are too many failing to achieve much through no fault of their own other than being born on the wrong side of the tracks.
Alternatives under the microscope.
The regulator, Ofqual, has useful data and infographics for England covering A-levels, GCSEs and technical qualifications. T-level results are produced separately by the government Department for Education. They reveal that a small number of 7,380 received results this year with 88.7% passing. By contrast, the recently reprieved BTEC results showed 39,000 were awarded qualifications with a Distinction/ Merit/ Pass grading equivalent to 3 A-levels. Another 20,000 results were awarded in qualifications equivalent to 2 A-levels.
Despite government pressure to scrap BTECs and replace them with T-levels, it seems the latter are not gaining any traction. Students prefer the flexibility of BTECs, or a combination of BTECs with A-levels, that keeps the door to higher study at university open. The new government has temporarily reprieved the remaining BTECs before they disappear in 2025, but T-levels remain on the table. See recent review from the House of Commons Library and TEFS 25th July 2024 ‘The trouble with T-levels: the bridge is closed’.
Making choices and reinforcing existing inequalities at sixteen.
Many students with positive GCSE results are forced into making a major life choice at sixteen. Those with good results will consider A-levels, but that entails serious decisions about the affordability of university. The option of T-levels is there as an alternative, but that largely cuts off the university route. There is still the option of BTECs and other vocational qualifications that offer considerable flexibility. However, they come with a big problem for the least advantaged. Some families on universal credit will find that embarking on A-levels, T-levels or BTECs means that child benefit continues until age nineteen. However, embarking on a higher course means the benefit is lost, despite them still being a ‘dependent’. This can come as a shock for families where the student must stay at home.
“You cannot get Child Benefit if your child is studying an ‘advanced’ course, such as a university degree or BTEC Higher National Certificate, or if a course is paid for by an employer”.
The result is study time diverted into more hours in part-time work. This brings with it considerable disadvantages not faced by those who can study full-time.
The attainment gap reinforces inequalities.
There have been many studies revealing a stark attainment gap between those with advantages and resources and those without from an early age. However, despite some partially effective solutions, the gaps continue. Instead, it appears the post-pandemic period has seen the gaps widening. The exam results show this clearly. There are wide disparities across different regions of England and elsewhere in the UK. It splits North to South and is likely to reflect differences in social deprivation.
The first indication lies in the exam results for different types of school. Figure 1 shows the impact on A-level grades with independent schools coming out ahead by a wide margin.
All other things being equal, it appears that superior resources and family backing trumps other considerations. It is no wonder families of means opt for private schools for their children (despite VAT). The next best thing is a secondary selective school. The better results imply that the selection reinforces the notion that ability is deciding the results alone. However, we must not forget that the selection may simply be picking students from better-off backgrounds who have already had advantages.
Despite the hype surrounding academies as better than local authority-run schools, the difference between them and comprehensives is minimal. This might be explained by an aversion to taking special educational needs pupils who end up in comprehensives.
Clear gaps in Scotland.
The results for Scotland in 2024 were the first to reveal that there was a gap widening between areas of less advantage and the most advantaged areas as illustrated for Higher results in Figure 2. This comes from the SQA’s timely ‘Scotland equalities monitoring report’ (.pdf).
Using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD see footnote) as a measure, the gap between the least advantaged Quintile 1 SIMD areas and the most advantaged Quintile 5 areas is very plain to see. It is beginning to widen as the educational disruption of COVID-19 shows its effect on the least advantaged.
The same is expected in England and elsewhere.
A similar analysis has not been done on the results in Northern Ireland and Wales. However, one might expect the same trends in England and other similar jurisdictions. Unfortunately, it is hard to see if this is the case. As for 2023, an equalities analysis will not be released until later this year. The ‘2023 Ofqual Equalities analysis interactive report’ only came out in December so we wait with bated breath again. However, its approach to the analysis appears to be a methodological smokescreen and you might look yourself to see if anything meaningful about ‘equality’ can be gleaned.
It starts with,
“It should be noted that differences in attainment between groups of students can have multiple and complex causes. It is not possible to disentangle causal factors such as the effects of teaching and learning from the impacts of different awarding arrangements put in place during and after the pandemic. Therefore, while we aim to report differences in attainment associated with students’ characteristics where they appear to exist, we do not speculate on their underlying causes.”
Then goes on to explain that,
We used regression modelling to estimate differences in results for groups of students after controlling for other variables. The variables analysed were:
- ethnicity
- gender
- special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) status
- free school meal (FSM) eligibility (a measure of deprivation)
- Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) score
- prior attainment
- first language (GQ only)
- region (GQ only)
- centre type (GQ only) according to JCQ categories
The outcome is that the probability of achieving high grades is calculated for each variable whilst ‘controlling’ for the other variables. It comes as no surprise that,
“Prior attainment is the stronger predictor of achievements in these qualifications and including it in the models gives a more accurate interpretation of the effect size of other variables”.
It might be assumed that, in using this methodology, each variable is independent of the others. It is stated that,
“Multivariate analyses allow the effect of a characteristic to be considered while controlling for the impacts of other variables”.
However, many of the variables are not independent. For example, prior attainment is highly likely to be strongly determined by SEND status, FSM eligibility and crucially the deprivation IDAC score. It is difficult to gauge the impact of the methodology without the complete dataset. However, it would be better and more transparent if the analyses showed the results more clearly as in the Scottish SQA report.
It comes out in the wash of university access.
Attainment at A-levels and Highers determines the route into higher education. This is in turn determined by many factors linked to prior attainment, deprivation and the type of school. Together they conspire to block the pathway for many students. So, there is no surprise when the university access data reveals similar gaps.
Many students are now working their way through clearing to find a university place. Those with more resources and more stable family support will have the upper hand and can look further from home. Others cannot afford this and are severely limited. The data from that UCAS– daily Clearing analysis 2024 at this point reveals the same old privilege gaps.
Figure 3 shows the acceptances to universities from postal areas with the least university participation (POLAR4 Quintile 1) to the high participation Quintile 5 areas. This measure is often used as a proxy for deprivation. The longstanding and obvious gap has widened slightly this year but largely remains stubborn in its persistence.
However, it might be better to consider areas using the more discerning Index of Multiple Deprivation (IDM see footnote), However, the gap is still large and equally persistent as shown in Figure 4. It doesn’t matter how it is viewed, those with better resources rise through university access.
The conclusion is stark. We live in a socially divided society. Access to higher education is determined by attainment that is mostly determined by access to resources. The odds are stacked against students from less well-off backgrounds and this seems to be accepted as inevitable. The whole system of examinations and assessments makes sure of this. However, it is not inevitable and there has to be a better way to encourage the potential of every student. Pushing them towards technical jobs should be a genuine choice and not determined by access to family resources.
In response to the examination results the Sutton Trust made this simple point that should be heeded.
“Differential patterns of achievement in qualifications reveal, rather than create, educational disparities. They are an important part of the evidence needed for addressing those disparities”.
The author, Mike Larkin, retired from Queen’s University Belfast after 37 years teaching Microbiology, Biochemistry and Genetics. He remains optimistic and loves mixed metaphors.
Footnote.
The participation of local areas (POLAR) classification groups areas across the UK based on the proportion of young people who participate in higher education.
It looks at how likely young people are to participate in higher education across the UK and shows how this varies by area. POLAR classifies local areas into five groups – or quintiles – based on the proportion of young people who enter higher education aged 18 or 19 years old. Quintile one shows the lowest rate of participation. Quintile five shows the highest rate of participation.
IMD
The English Indices of multiple deprivation (IMD) is a measure of relative deprivation for small, fixed geographic areas of the UK. IMD classifies these areas into five quintiles based on relative disadvantage, with quintile 1 being the most deprived and quintile 5 being the least deprived. Explained in more detail here. https://data.cdrc.ac.uk/dataset/index-multiple-deprivation-imd
This measure is weighted across seven domains, each with a sub-domain and totalling 37 sub domains.
- Income Deprivation (22.5%)
- Employment Deprivation (22.5%)
- Education, Skills and Training Deprivation (13.5%)
- Health Deprivation and Disability (13.5%)
- Crime (9.3%)
- Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%)
- Living Environment Deprivation (9.3%)
SIMD
The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) is a tool for identifying the places in Scotland where people are experiencing disadvantage across different aspects of their lives.
WIMD
The Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) is the Welsh Government’s official measure of relative deprivation for small areas in Wales. It identifies areas with the highest concentrations of several different types of deprivation. It is a National Statistic produced by statisticians at the Welsh Government.