I was visiting a school in East London to see for myself how they teach students resitting their maths GCSE because they didn’t achieve at least a C grade. I asked one of the young people for his verdict. “I can’t see the point,” he told me. “All I want to do is be a Tube driver.”
Out of curiosity, I visited a careers web page after I left. It turns out that the entry requirements for applying to become a driver on the London Underground include a C grade in maths GCSE. This student’s dream job depended on him getting a qualification he saw no point in.
The story illustrates a straightforward reality: achieving level 2 in English and maths, preferably as GCSEs, is a prerequisite for progressing into good-quality jobs, apprenticeships and further education. Yet too many young people do not make the grade.
The latest figures tell us that 41 per cent of students did not achieve a C in English and maths GCSE by 16. Just 22 per cent of those students went on to gain an A*-C GCSE (or other level 2 qualification in those subjects) by age 19. This means that almost a third (30 per cent) of students leave formal education without achieving a good standard in English and maths.
The scale of the challenge is even bigger for students from disadvantaged backgrounds: one in two young people from low-income households didn’t achieve the expected level in these core subjects by 19 and, as a result, will be denied access to secure and well-paid careers. This isn’t just a personal tragedy for the individual, it’s a massive waste of talent for the country and a huge barrier to improving social mobility.
There is no doubt that the requirement for students who do not achieve at least a C in English and maths to be studying towards those qualifications has put extra pressures on the post-16 sector - all at a time of tightened budgets and staff recruitment and retention problems.
Implemented well, however, the policy has the potential to equip more young people with the qualifications they need to compete for quality jobs. But its success will depend on ensuring that young people have access to high-quality teaching and tried-and-tested catch-up programmes - as well as an understanding of why these qualifications matter so much.
The generally low success rates for resits proves that simply keeping these young people in compulsory education for another year is not enough. There is a danger that we are keeping a majority of young people from the poorest homes in education only to brand them a failure once again.
It is vital, therefore, that we gain a better idea of which strategies work (and, crucially, which do not) in order to support the post-16 sector - FE colleges, sixth-form centres, schools, work-based learning providers - to make the best decisions about how to help their students. This is why the Education Endowment Foundation, the organisation I lead, is extending our evidence-informed approach to the FE sector.
Together with banking company JP Morgan, we have launched a £5 million funding programme to improve the attainment outcomes and employment prospects of disadvantaged 16- to 18-year-old students, with a focus on supporting those students who need to improve their English and maths. We’ll fund robust, independent evaluations of promising programmes to help identify (and then scale up) the most cost-effective.
We are realistic enough to know that there are no quick fixes. But giving teaching professionals the evidence they want and need is the best way to make sure that post-16 education gives all young people the opportunities they deserve.
Sir Kevan Collins is chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation
