Disadvantage status and pupil premium
Students were considered disadvantaged in year 11 and were eligible for pupil premium funding if they had been eligible for free school meals at any point in the last six years, had been looked after by the local authority, or had been adopted from care. Students eligible for free school meals are a subset of the wider disadvantaged group. See methodology for details.
Disadvantage status
Disadvantage students were less likely to have a sustained destination than non disadvantage students
Students who were eligible for pupil premium in year 11 (around a quarter of the cohort in all state funded schools and colleges) were 12.8 percentage points less likely to have an overall sustained destination when leaving 16 to 18 study compared to all other students. This gap in the previous year was 11.9 percentage points, although the change in the cohort composition could account for this difference.
Disadvantaged students were more likely to stay in further education and less likely to progress to higher education
While 45.8% of non-disadvantaged students leaving 16 to 18 education progressed directly to higher education, the rate for the disadvantaged group was 35.6%. On the other hand, 7.7% of disadvantaged students continued in further education, compared to 6.1% of all other students.
Gender
Female students were more likely to have an overall sustained destination than male students
Overall, 85.2% of female students had a sustained destination compared to 79.9% of male students. This is a difference of 5.3 percentage points.
Female students were more likely to continue in education than males (55.2% compared to 47.1%) and were less likely to take up apprenticeships (5.6% compared to 8.8%) after 16 to 18 study than male students.
The gender gap is most pronounced in progression to higher education. While 47.9% of female students went to higher education, the corresponding figure for male students was 39.2%. This is a difference of 8.7 percentage points.
A higher proportion of male students had no recorded activity in the year following the end of 16 to 18 study when compared to female students (5.9% compared to 3.7%, respectively).
Destinations varied by gender and disadvantage status
Disadvantaged female students were 8.1 percentage points more likely to sustain an education destination than disadvantaged male students (48.2% compared to 40.1%, respectively). Interestingly, there were similar proportions of disadvantaged female students and non-disadvantaged male students who sustained an education destination (48.2% and 48.9%, respectively). Disadvantaged male students (40.1%) were 8.8 percentage points less likely to sustain an education destination than non-disadvantaged male students (48.9%).
Non-disadvantaged male students were more likely to sustain an apprenticeship destination (9.5%) than non-disadvantaged female (5.7%), disadvantaged male (6.3%) and disadvantaged female students (5.4%).
Non-disadvantaged female students were more likely to sustain an employment destination (24.8%) than the other groups while disadvantaged male students were least likely to sustain an employment destination (21.5%).
Ethnicity
Destination outcomes varied by ethnicity, particularly at the level of minor ethnic group
While there was relatively little variation between the major ethnic groups, the overall rate of sustained destinations varied significantly when looking at the more detailed minor ethnicity groupings.
Students who identified as Traveller of Irish Heritage or as Gypsy/Roma were the least likely to sustain a destination (47.8% and 41.8%). This is 34.8 and 40.8 percentage points lower than the national average (82.6%). The two groups (Gypsy/Roma and Traveller of Irish Heritage) are relatively small and their outcomes are volatile between years.
Within the Asian ethnic group, students of Chinese and Indian ethnicity were most likely to have a sustained destination (90.9% and 88.7%), followed by students of Bangladeshi background (86.0%). Pakistani students were least likely to sustain a destination.
Students who were either white and Black Caribbean (76.1%) or Black Caribbean (77.0%) were less likely to continue in a sustained destination compared to the national average for their major ethnic group (Mixed Dual Background; 80.7% and Black or Black British ethnic group; 84.3%). Students of Black African (86.8%) ethnicity were more likely to sustain a destination compared to the national average for Black or Black British major ethnic group.
Special educational needs - 16-18 status
Students with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream schools were less likely to have a sustained destination overall
Students with recorded special educational needs (SEN) were 5.2 percentage points less likely to have an overall sustained destination than those students without SEN (83.9% compared to 89.1%, respectively).
In fact students with SEN were less likely to sustain a destination for each of the main destinations (education, apprenticeship or employment) individually. The largest gap between the two groups is for education destinations.
Learning difficulties or disabilities
The learning difficulties or disability indicator is only recorded for college students, the changes in the cohort inclusion rules which we have discussed throughout the release disproportionately affect college students compared to school students, as such the results discussed on this indicator should be viewed with caution, particularly when looking across years.
College students with identified Learning difficulties or disabilities (LLDD) were less likely to have an overall sustained destination compared to students with no identified Learning difficulties or disabilities (LLDD)
Students with identified Learning difficulties or disabilities (LLDD) were 8.7 percentage points less likely to have an overall sustained destination than those students with no identified Learning difficulties or disabilities (LLDD) (78.5% compared to 69.8%, respectively).
In fact students with LLDD were less likely to sustain each of the main destinations (education, apprenticeship or employment) individually. The largest gap between the two groups is for education destinations, closely followed by employment.
Special educational needs - at key stage 4 status
For the first time this year we have included a breakdown by the students special education needs (SEN) status as at key stage 4 (KS4), rather than during 16-18 study. As schools and colleges record SEN differently, including KS4 SEN status allows a better view across the whole cohort. We will only have this SEN status for students who completed key stage 4 in England.
The cohort covered by this breakdown is quite different to the 16-18 SEN breakdown which only covers schools and has a different qualification level breakdown. Comparisons across the two breakdowns should therefore be avoided.
Due to the make up of the cohort in this years release, the results for SEN students look different this year than previous years and comparisons should be avoided.
Students with special educational needs (SEN) at key stage 4 were less likely to have a sustained destination overall than students with no identified special educational needs
Students who had education, health and care plans were less likely to sustain any of the main destinations (education, apprenticeship or employment) than students with no identified special educational needs or SEN support students. They were however more likely to sustain an education destination (43.0%) than those with SEN support (38.7%).