I also find it shocking that there’s apparently a ~15 percentage point gap between the proportion of girls and boys reaching a good level of development by 5.

I like the report for not shying away from mentioning that this is teacher-assessed - and whether stereotypes/bias is playing a role.

Crucially, it’s not an alternative to GCSE - it’s about giving students with grade 2 or below the time and teaching to build core skills and re-attempt the GCSE successfully.

This keeps ambition high and focused on the ultimate goal: more young people achieving a standard pass by 19, opening doors.

I have long believed that further education is where the next big transformation in the education system needs to happen. This transformation must include young people from all backgrounds. We’re ready to play our part to make sure it does.

#furthereducation #loveourcolleges #labourconference

At @getfurther.bsky.social, we’re ready to support as many disadvantaged young people as possible to gain these essential qualifications – so they can unlock their aspirations, whether that’s university or an apprenticeship.

Gateway qualifications in English & maths are critical to making this a reality. 9 in 10 university applicants have passed GCSE English & maths – and apprenticeships are no different. 3/4s of advanced apprenticeship adverts ask for these quals. For degree apprenticeships the bar is even higher.

Are 14-16 EHE programmes governed by their own separate funding rules, or 16-19 funding rules (or school age funding rules?)

There’s definitely dodgy ethics in the concept that colleges would turn children away because of a requirement to teach them more hours (we’re talking max 4 hours a week for English, 3 in maths).

They did give additional funding - £150m a year I think. I would argue it’s not enough though (as it coincided with the removal of the £100m 16-19 tuition fund).

Could you dig out some of these and send them my way? Keen to have a read of the international ones in particular.

getfurther.org.uk/curriculum-a...

This is the policy proposal @getfurther.bsky.social developed, which we hope would improve things without detracting from the ultimate ambition of supporting as many young people as possible to progress.

That is terrible. I think many in the wider education / policy world don’t realise things like this are happening and are partly why results are so low.

I’m pretty sure it’s because of the whopping increase in student numbers overall. It’s driving an increase in NEETs because funding/places isn’t keeping up.

Just sharing an anecdote I saw on LinkedIn:
“whether you're pro or anti-resit policy, it's impossible to deny the incredible impact it can have in FE. Case in point: resits have allowed two of my EHCP learners the time to build confidence, develop autonomy and ultimately achieve their grade 4s.“

Isn’t this because of the demographic boom at 16-19? Colleges are becoming more selective because more young people and not enough places available

I think the reasons are tbh… the policy came about because of research into outcomes for those missing these qualifications at 16.

Nearly every other OECD country has English and maths to 18 for all students, regardless of their level at 16. Why is the idea of studying these subjects alongside a main course such a big deal here?

I don’t think I agree with this, sorry! There’s a study from over a decade ago showing that missing out on GCSE grade C in English by just one mark increased a young person’s chances of being NEET by a third. Pretty much purely because of the signalling power of the qualification.