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

This project investigated 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.

Aims

When exams were cancelled in 2020 and 2021, Centre and Teacher Assessed Grades (CAGs/TAGs) meant more students met the entry requirements for level 3 and higher education courses. The project examined how this affected post-16 choices and course completion, and explored ‘mismatch’: whether some groups tended to enter 16-19 or degree courses whose typical entrants had higher or lower prior attainment than their own, and whether grade inflation widened or narrowed inequalities. 

Methodological approach

Using linked National Pupil Database, Individualised Learner Record and Higher Education Statistics Agency data for students finishing GCSEs between 2015 and 2023, the project compared enrolment and retention for pandemic affected cohorts with earlier years. Mismatch was measured by ranking students and courses nationally by prior attainment and comparing the two: students overmatched where typical entrants had higher prior attainment, and undermatched where lower. An established higher education method from UCL’s Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO) was extended and adapted for 16-19 courses. 

Key findings

Level 3 participation rose by 4 percentage points among students awarded CAG/TAG GCSEs, mainly drawing students away from apprenticeships and lower-level courses.

Level 3 completion rates fell for these cohorts, but 67.5 per cent of the lowest-attaining entrants still completed, suggesting many were able to succeed at level 3.

In 16-19, high-attaining boys and students in London, free schools and selective schools were more likely to overmatch; White students and those in sponsored academies were more likely to undermatch.

In higher education, private school students entered courses ranked around 10 percentiles above equally attaining state school peers. Grade inflation slightly widened this gap while narrowing the gender gap, in favour of girls. 

Implications

The findings support the introduction of V levels, and mixed academic and vocational programmes should be reported in accountability data. Lower retention among disadvantaged students and those with special educational needs strengthens the case for a 16-19 student premium and timelier vulnerability data for providers. Level 3 entry requirements are broadly suitable and should be maintained, with flexible discretion and stepped pathways for those who narrowly miss them. Policymakers and schools can do more to reduce inequalities in access to higher education courses, and the results reinforce that external exams are the fairest way to assess students. Future work will help schools use course rankings in careers advice.