On Thursday 24 October, the Department for Education (DfE) published an Interim Update to its 16 to 18 accountability measures, which indicated a subtle, yet significant shift in how the Department views and values young people.
What has changed?
The update concerns what are called ‘destination measures’. These measures record, for each individual school and college, the number of students who have been in a sustained study destination for at least 6 consecutive months in the 2 years after taking advanced level qualifications (level 3).
Destinations measures have been in place since 2012, when Michael Gove controversially introduced them as Education Secretary. He argued they were a necessary accountability tool, allowing parents to judge schools in their areas by the paths their pupils had taken after they left.
Now, it makes total sense for all schools and colleges to provide data about pupil destinations, particularly given the worrying rise in the proportion of 16-to-24-year-olds not in education, employment or training (NEET), up 0.9 percentage points (to 12.2%) on the year in the second quarter of 2024.
However, until now the DfE also presented a breakdown of ‘degree destinations’ by the percentage of pupils going to Oxford or Cambridge, to Russell Group institutions or to the ‘top third of higher education institutions’ (determined by ranking average UCAS tariff score of entrants across their best 3 A levels). The other two education destination categories (higher apprenticeships and other study at level 4 or 5) are not segmented.
This segmented data was published in performance tables on gov.uk and has been widely used by schools, sixth forms and FE colleges in their own promotional materials. Those that have recently been through the process of applying for a secondary school place with your children will know it is not uncommon to see and hear references to these particular destinations in flyers, prospectuses, open events, or even on laminated posters plastered along corridors.
At the end of last year, a House of Lords Education for 11 to 16 Year Olds Committee report highlighted how the measures were driving schools to disincentivise young people from taking technical or vocational options, and recommended that they be removed. It’s also a case we have made to DfE officials and previous Ministers, and most recently to the House of Lords inquiry on skills for the future.
The previous government placed the measures under review in February, and the new government has decided to remove Oxbridge and Russell Group institutions from the destination measures.
Why is this change important?
Firstly, it goes without saying that our friends at the Russell Group represent a group of excellent institutions. However, like University Alliance, the Russell Group is a self-selecting mission group that its members pay to be a part of to represent their interests. It’s simply not appropriate to use any grouping of this nature in government accountability measures.
More importantly though, our higher education system – its institutions, students, staff and graduates – is a jewel in the UK’s crown. It’s vital that the public understands that this includes, but is certainly not limited to, those starting a degree at a Russell Group institution (which for context, was just 18% of the 2022 school leaving cohort). There are high-quality institutions of every shape and size, in every part of the UK.
By incentivising a point of comparison between schools and colleges that reinforces a narrow conception of what ‘success’ looks like for young people, our concern has been that in some instances this could influence the advice and guidance provided to pupils, if schools and colleges seek to bolster their measures to gain a competitive edge. From a careers information advice and guidance (CIAG) perspective, this change signals that schools and colleges should encourage their students to explore a wide range of high-quality post-18 options – although there is of course much still to do to beyond this to improve the CIAG young people can access.
The measures were also out of step with what employer’s value. A recent report by CBI Economics, which surveyed employers to better understand their perceptions of UK graduates, found that the type of institution graduates attended was one of the least important factors in recruitment, valued by just 8% of employers. Where there was a preference for a specific type of university, employers placed most importance on institutions with specialisms relevant to their business.
However, feedback gathered by University Alliance Students’ Unions found that some students, having not managed to get into a ‘highly selective’ university, arrive feeling like they have already failed, with considerable worries about their future prospects. This is a myth and perception that we can and should be vigorously dispelling to avoid it adding to the stresses that can lead students to feel overwhelmed and experience mental health problems. Students should feel proud of their achievements no matter which university they go to.
Finally, this move is one way that this government can signal, and avoid undermining, its own ambitions. For a government hoping to bring about a skills revolution, it’s a small, subtle yet significant step towards prioritising a diverse tertiary education approach, where post-18 leavers are backed to thrive and choose the best next step for them.
