Beyond teacher assessed grades: Post-16 education choices and COVID-19

This project will investigate the impact of Teacher and Centre Assessed Grades on young people’s qualification choices and course completion rates in the 16-19 phase and subsequent further and higher education.

Why is this important?

During the pandemic, examinations for GCSEs, A Levels, and equivalent qualifications were replaced with Teacher Assessed Grades (TAGs) and Centre Assessed Grades (CAGs). The higher grades achieved by all students under TAGs/CAGs in 2020 and 2021 may have had implications for students’ transition into their next phase of education. Higher grades may have influenced the qualification types of students applied for, specific subjects, or their chosen institutions.  This is unlikely to have affected all students equally, as disadvantage gaps widened during the pandemic.

Previous Nuffield-funded research on higher education ‘mismatch’ found that undermatch – higher attainers on less selective courses – is more common for disadvantaged students. This project will extend the research on Higher Education transitions and course selection to cover the cohorts awarded teacher assessments in 2020 and 2021. In the 16-19 phase, the project will examine whether the types of courses chosen by students from different backgrounds differed from previous years and whether this affected their course completion rates. New mismatch measures will be created for the 16-19 phase to understand the groups who were more likely to undermatch.

What does it involve?

The aim of the project is to inform government policy, and that of related organisations which work to facilitate the delivery and transition between key stage 4, further and higher education courses. The three research questions addressed by the project are:

1. How did enrolment to the available 16-19 pathways vary for those that had their GCSE results affected by the pandemic, compared to previous years, and between student groups?
2. How did the retention rates of these students vary?
3. Are certain student groups likely to opt for more/less demanding courses than those with similar grades to them? How did this ‘mismatch’ vary throughout the pandemic and interact with retention and attainment outcomes, in the 16-19 phase and continued FE/HE study?

The research questions would be addressed through quantitative analysis of administrative data that captures student level pathways and outcomes (Post-16 Learning Aims, NPD, ILR and HESA) for pre and post pandemic years.

How will it make a difference?

The research will inform decisions about the appropriacy of entry criteria for attracting students who can thrive on different courses, the effective use of careers information and guidance, and 16-19 reforms. The insights would be used to improve support and guidance for subsequent cohorts of young people at transition points.