Progression from vocational to Higher Education

Pallavi Amitava Banerjee, University of Exeter


In addition to HE admissions and progression data, the exploratory phase of the project also considered demographics and destination data shared by the Further education (FE) colleges.

We asked for the full post-16 cohort by prior attainment, qualification routes, the key variables of background indicators such as gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status (SES). We also asked for destinations of students by qualification, looking at the choice of institution and programme, or employment routes. The type of data provided by each FE college varied from the other.

The purpose of this analysis was to explore whether these students come from a similar background. The main research questions addressed were ‘What proportion of BTEC students’ progress to higher education and have these proportion changed over the years?’

In this blog, I take the example of one FE college which had 260 level 3 students during the academic years 2013-16. 19% of students had reported disability either as difficulty or health problem. The largest ethnic group was white (37%) and the smallest ethnic group was of Chinese students (0.4%). 30% of all entrants were females and 70% were males. Aggregated institutional level data for 16-18-year olds filtered on the organisation’s information management system showed the total number of all students eligible for free school meals was 15.4% (40 out of 260 students). All students studied for a certificate (1.5%) or diploma (98.5%).

Some sixth form colleges had A-level and BTEC students. We looked at the progression rates of BTEC entrants to universities across the years and estimated the proportion in relation to students with A-level qualifications. The highest proportion of those who were offered a place at University had A levels. Relatively fewer BTEC students were offered a place by higher education providers.

In one of the FE colleges, across the three academic years 2013-2016 most BTEC students (88%) were placed at a higher education institution to study for an undergraduate degree. Relatively fewer students (12%) were seeking employment elsewhere or took a gap year. A smaller percentage of students considered other destinations for which information was not available.

It is interesting to note that despite being motivated to pursue an undergraduate degree the highest proportion of those who fail their end of first-year examinations at partner Universities have a BTEC prior qualification (see section 1 of HE statistical report or blog).

BTEC students do progress to HE. When it was possible to track the destinations of leavers we saw students with BTEC only qualifications were less likely to be offered a place by highly selective universities such as those from the Russell group. In some institutions, it was possible to check year-wise entry of BTEC students to University.

The inconsistencies in the way data are recorded and held makes analysis very challenging. If data sharing protocols are more accessible and institutions maintain consistent records it will be much easier to conduct a robust analysis of these datasets.

FE colleges often use self-recorded measures of attainment which are calculated by automated systems such as G score, average GCSE score. These are difficult to match when analysing aggregated data. Some colleges use more standard deprivation indicators such as the Index of multiple deprivation (IMD), eligibility for free school meals (FSM) or the disadvantage uplift factor. The use of reliable and valid measures should be encouraged across all colleges.