We know the socio-economic attainment gap widens as learners progress through the education system. According to data from EPI, in 2023, disadvantaged pupils were 18.8 months behind their peers by the end of secondary school, while persistently disadvantaged pupils – those eligible for free school meals for at least 80 per cent of their time at school – were almost two years (22.7 months) behind.
The post-16 stage is our ‘last chance’ to try to boost many young people’s life chances before they leave the education system.
Last year, the government committed £40 million to build evidence-based practice in the post-16 sector. This additional funding will allow the EEF to deepen our existing work on GCSE resits while moving into other academic, technical, and vocational study programmes.
What have we been doing so far?
In our first phase of this new work, we’ve been laying the groundwork for our expanded remit by consulting and collaborating with post-16 settings, academics, and other stakeholders to understand the key challenges facing the sector.
We’re also undertaking a comprehensive mapping exercise of learners and qualifications to identify the most suitable way to measure socio-economic disadvantage and attainment at post-16. Along with some other pieces of research we have lined up, this work will help us determine the scope of our future research in the sector.
What’s next?
As a first step, we’re commissioning post-16 setting choices evaluations to answer some of the key questions that have arisen so far through our consultation and collaboration with the sector, with particular attention to impact on learners from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds:
- Transition from school to post-16 education. How do settings manage this transition and how does this affect attainment?
- Attendance. How do settings incentivise and support attendance, and how does this affect attainment?
- Funding. How do settings spend disadvantage funding and how does this affect attainment?
- GCSE resits. How are GCSE resit outcomes affected by factors including learner enrolment practices, timetabling more hours, and class size?
What are setting choices evaluations?
The EEF has funded over 200 impact evaluations of educational programmes since 2011, to identify what works for improving young people’s attainment and why. These typically involve a package of training and resources that are delivered as whole-setting, whole-class, or targeted interventions. Beyond these programmes, however, setting leaders make many decisions which have the potential to impact learners’ outcomes. These might range from providing incentives for good attendance, to timetabling additional hours for GCSE resit learners. However, for many setting-level practices, we have limited understanding of which approaches are the most effective.
Our setting choices research aims to produce causal evidence about the impact of these setting-level practices and approaches on attainment, particularly for socio-economically disadvantaged learners. The goal is to equip post-16 settings with evidence to inform their decision-making around everyday practices and approaches. To produce robust evidence, setting choices use designs with a comparison, or control, group, such as randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental methods.
We are applying this approach in schools more widely as School Choices, which you can learn more about in our recent blog.
Interested in applying or learning more?
To learn more about the post-16 setting choices we are commissioning, or if you are part of a research team interested in applying, please visit the invitation to tender page. You can also contact Maria Rodrigues (maria.rodrigues@eefoundation.org.uk) with any further questions.