Significant disparities in GCSE resit success require targeted reforms to post-16 system, warns Education Policy Institute report
Disadvantaged students are, on average, one-fifth of a grade behind in English and one-eighth of a grade behind in maths when resitting GCSEs, according to new research from the , funded by app.
Introduced in 2014, the resit requirement aims to boost literacy and numeracy so that young people are better prepared for work and further study. The report, “English and Maths Resits: Drivers of Success” examines what helps – and hinders – the roughly one-third of students in England who must retake English and maths each year.
Commissioned as part of our ongoing commitment to the #ResitRethink campaign, key findings from the report include:
There is a cluster of top-performing institutions in the North-West of England. The English and maths resit results of students in the North-West are 0.1 grades higher than the average for students with similar Key Stage 4 results students across England. Conversely, the South-West is the worst-performing region overall, recording below-average results in both subjects.
There are significant attainment gaps by disadvantaged status, gender and ethnicity. Disadvantaged students fall behind by a fifth of a grade in English and one eighth of a grade in maths compared with their non-disadvantaged peers.
Motivation, engagement, and attendance are critical for resit outcomes. Unauthorised absences in Year 11 strongly predict poorer resit attainment, indicating that the factors driving absences before age 16 persist post-16 and continue to affect academic performance.
Resitting too soon can harm attainment, if not well targeted. While November resits can be beneficial for individual students, providers that enter more students for November achieve lower progress on average. This likely reflects a drop in motivation for those who don’t pass the November exams.
Building on EPI’s for students aged 16–19, and app’s #ResitRethink campaign, it proposes the following key recommendations:
Introduce a 16–19 Student Premium to close the disadvantage gap through targeted funding.
Prioritise strong student-staff relationships at the start of term, particularly for resit students who may have previously struggled with English or maths.
If alternatives to the current GCSEs are to be developed, they should feature grading systems that clearly reflect incremental student progress.
Refine institution performance metrics by accounting for students’ overall Key Stage 4 (GCSE) attainment when measuring 16–19 English and maths progress, providing a fairer assessment of how effectively institutions deliver resits.
“We welcome the curriculum and assessment review’s commitment to ensure that English and maths resits will be a central feature of its final report and recommendations. The importance of improving the effectiveness of this policy is clear from the finding of today’s report. The benefits of securing core numeracy and literacy skills are obvious, but so too is the impact on motivation for students who feel trapped on the resit treadmill.
Re-examining the policy in light of the new evidence we have uncovered should enable policymakers to take more informed, targeted decisions about the future of resits. Our analysis shows there is considerable scope to improve outcomes within the existing framework.”
David Robinson, the Education Policy Institute’s Director for Post 16 and Skills
“It is clear that a one-size-fits-all approach to resits does not work for students. The findings of this important research provide significant food for thought as we work with partners to push for immediate changes that would improve the resit experience for our current learners.
But, while short-term changes within the current GCSE framework could make a significant difference, incremental adjustments can only go so far. In the longer term, we must go further by introducing a post-16 GCSE English and maths route designed with post-16 students in mind, providing an alternative but still rigorous qualification, alongside a more flexible approach to assessment.”
Roberta Thomson, Education Policy and Product Director for app Qualifications