Disadvantaged students (those eligible for pupil premium in year 11) were less likely to sustain a level 4 or higher destination (58.0%) than other students (66.6%)
This gap is primarily seen in degree destinations, with disadvantaged students 7.9 percentage points less likely to sustain a degree destination (53.7%) than non-disadvantaged students (61.6%). This gap widens when looking at sustained destinations in a top-third higher education destination, with disadvantaged students 10.0 percentage points less likely to sustain a destination (10.8%) than non-disadvantaged students (20.8%).
Non-disadvantaged students were 1.4 percentage points more likely to sustain an apprenticeship destination (2.6%) than disadvantaged students (1.2%). In contrast, disadvantaged students were 0.6 percentage points more likely to sustain a level 4 or 5 destination (3.0%) than non-disadvantaged students (2.4%).
Female students were more likely to progress to a level 4 or higher destination (68.1%) than male students (61.3%)
This was a gap of 6.8 percentage points. This was driven by degree destinations, with female students 8.5 percentage points more likely to sustain a degree destination (64.0%) than males students (55.5%). However, the gap between female (19.8%) and male (17.9%) students sustaining a top third higher education destination students was closer with just a 1.9 percentage points gap.
In contrast, female students were 1.7 percentage points less likely to sustain a higher apprenticeship destination (1.6%) than male students (3.3%). Female and male students were equally likely to sustain a level 4 or 5 destination (2.5%).
There is large variability in the rate of progression by ethnicity group
Students from the Asian or Asian British major ethnicity group were the most likely to sustain a level 4 of higher destination (80.8%), 21.0 percentage points ahead of students from the White major ethnicity group, who had the lowest progression rate. This gap widens when comparing sustained degree destinations, with students of the Any other ethnicity group 21.4 percentage points more likely to sustain a degree destination (76.0%) than White ethnicity students (54.6%).
However, while Black or Black British ethnicity students had near the highest rates of progression to a level 4 or higher destination (78.6%) and degree destination (74.9%), they had the lowest rate of progression to a top third higher education destination (16.7%). This was 7.4 percentage points below the highest progression rate for this destination type - Asian or Asian British ethnicity students (24.1%).
Students of White ethnicity were more likely to sustain a higher apprenticeship destination (2.6%) and a level 4 or 5 destination (2.6%) than other major ethnicity groups. Black or Black British ethnicity students were least likely to sustain a higher apprenticeship destination (1.3%, a 1.3 percentage point gap) and students of the Mixed Dual Background and Any other ethnicity groups least likely to sustain a level 4 or 5 destination (2.0%, a 0.6 percentage point gap to the figure for students from the White major ethnicity group).
Students of White ethnicity have the largest disadvantage gap for progression to level 4 or higher destinations
Students of White ethnicity had the largest disadvantage gap (16.3 percentage points) of all major ethnicities. In comparison, students of the Any other ethnicity group had the smallest disadvantage gap (2.5 percentage points).
For disadvantaged students, students of White ethnicity had the lowest rate of progression to a level 4 or above destination (45.9%), while students of any other ethnic group had the highest (77.8%), a 31.9 percentage point difference.
For non-disadvantaged students, students of White ethnicity had the lowest rate of progression to a level 4 or above destination (62.2%), while Asian or Asian British ethnicity students had the highest (82.7%), a 20.5 percentage point difference. Non-disadvantaged white students also had a lower rate of progression to a level 4 or higher destination than most disadvantaged ethnicity major groups, above only disadvantaged Mixed Dual Background ethnicity students (61.7%) and disadvantaged White ethnicity students (45.9%).
Disadvantaged male students were the least likely to sustain a level 4 or above destination
Disadvantaged male students were 6.8 percentage points less likely to sustain a level 4 or above destination (54.1%) than disadvantaged female students (60.9%). This was mainly seen in a 7.6 percentage point gap in degree destinations. However, for top-third higher education destinations, this gap narrowed to 1.1 percentage points.
Non-disadvantaged male students were 7.0 percentage points less likely to sustain a level 4 or above destination (62.9%) than non-disadvantaged female students (69.9%), meaning the gap in progression for each sex remained similar regardless of disadvantage status. This was again driven by a large gap in degree destinations (9 percentage points), with this gap narrowing to 2.3 percentage points for top-third higher education destinations.
The disadvantage gap also remains regardless of sex, with non-disadvantaged males 8.8 percentage points more likely to sustain a level 4 or above destination than disadvantaged males, and non-disadvantaged females 9.0 percentage points more likely to sustain a level 4 or above destination than disadvantaged females. For both sexes, the disadvantage gap was driven by degree destinations, with an 8.8 and 7.4 percentage point gap for females and males, respectively. Both sexes also had a large disadvantage gap for top third higher education destinations, with a 10.6 and 9.4 percentage point gap for females and males, respectively.