I was recently at an event for colleagues at universities working to widen access to higher education. It was inspiring to see hundreds of people committed to engaging those least likely to apply for university, coming together to share case studies, best practice and research on how to increase the number of first-generation scholars.

I attended a presentation on outcomes of a research project on what happens to those from a widening access background after they’ve started their course. It’s well documented that this group of students is more likely to drop out in year one but it seems that students who have completed a Btec course are even more likely to leave early. The data collected looked at the progress from key stage five into higher education, which to me, was missing a key part of the puzzle.

There seemed to be an implicit assumption that young people at 16 can choose across all available options at Level 3 and that this is the choice that impacts on their success at university. The simple fact is that they can’t. Decisions about Level 3 study are driven by achievement in key stage 4, and there is a tiered system, which still reflects attitudes of many regarding what constitutes the “best” in education.

Not strong enough

Quite a few years ago I attended a seminar where an admissions tutor from the Russell Group was very clear that they were not prejudiced against Btec qualifications and went onto say that facilitating subjects gave no advantage to admission over other subject choices. The problem, he said, was that the GCSE profile of most students on Btec courses was not strong enough and this automatically discounted them from admission to his group of institutions as this was a key measure in suitability - more important than AS grades, before reform. So, I ask the question: are your progression opportunities for higher education fixed the minute you open your GCSE results? 

Do well enough (grade 8 and above) in 9 or more GCSE’s including facilitating subjects to have access to A levels and you might have a shot at a Russell Group University, even Oxbridge. Do less well, but perhaps have a decent suite of 6 to 8 GCSEs at or above a grade 6 and you can go onto “less demanding” A levels and apply to one of the more selective universities.

Achieve 5 GCSEs at grades 4 or 5 and you’re probably looking at an applied general qualification (such as Btec) and it may well be applications to recruiting universities. If you don’t achieve 5 GCSEs, particularly if either English or maths is below a grade 4 and it’s a Level 2 qualification with a resit (or two) attached and progression onto a Level 3 applied general qualification (AGQ).

Narrow progression options 

As it happens, I taught quite a few students who have made the choice to take a Btec, with a very high GCSE profile, but their choice of subject wasn’t one you could study at a Russell Group university, so they are in a minority that have actively chosen to narrow their progression options.

I worry about the life choices presented to young people based on a set of exams taken at 16. Is this really the point at which to fix their future? Colleges are often seen as the place young people go to for a “second chance”. This (rightly) irritates some institutions, with a history of high performing A level and AGQ provision - they are often a first choice for progress to university.

But let’s face it, when it is a second chance, it’s not an equal one, is it? Get it wrong, or underperform the first time and so many opportunities are closed to you. Is it any wonder that with complex, challenging circumstances such as caring responsibilities, work, little family infrastructure, attending a poorly performing school, that some of our brightest, but most vulnerable young adults never make it to the institutions they deserve? 

Colleges take chances on young people and adults every day to offer them opportunities to progress with a poor grade profile or no qualifications on entry and those chances often pay off. Success comes from dedicated staff getting to know each student as an individual and tailoring support to close the knowledge and skills gaps. It’s therefore not entirely surprising that they drop out if that support ends abruptly, with an expectation that every student is at the same stage of their studies, particularly with the huge increase of unconditional and reduced offers (but that’s another blog). Perhaps there is some good practice that the FE sector can share?

Kirsti Lord is deputy chief executive at the Association of Colleges