Abstract
Where computing provision did exist in mixed schools, girls were often absent. At GCSE 26.9% of mixed providers had no female students, at A-level the figure was 65.3%.
Boys and mixed schools were more likely to offer computing than girls schools. At GCSE 19.6% of girls-only providers offered computing compared to 31.6% of boys-only and 29.1% of mixed providers. 9.3% of girls-only providers offered computing at A-level compared to 43.7% of boys-only and 24.5% of mixed providers.
Grammar schools were much more likely to offer computing than non-selective state schools: 53.1% compared to 31.7% of schools at GCSE, and 46% compared to 24.7% at A Level.
Pupil premium students were under-represented in GCSE computing (19%, compared to 26.6% across GCSE entries); entrants had a lower IDACI index than the average (0.194 vs 0.218). Pupil premium students, on average, scored worse than their peers.
Asian and Chinese students were a higher proportion of GCSE computing students than across the national cohort; black students somewhat lower. At A-level, white and Chinese students made up a higher proportion of the computing cohort, other ethnic groups rather lower.
Whilst pupil premium students were less likely to sit GCSE computing than their peers, the propensity of girls to sit computing was not as reduced by pupil premium as it was for their male counterparts. Amongst all pupil premium groupings, white British girls were proportionally underrepresented.
Computing and ICT seem rather different qualifications in terms of intake.
Boys and mixed schools were more likely to offer computing than girls schools. At GCSE 19.6% of girls-only providers offered computing compared to 31.6% of boys-only and 29.1% of mixed providers. 9.3% of girls-only providers offered computing at A-level compared to 43.7% of boys-only and 24.5% of mixed providers.
Grammar schools were much more likely to offer computing than non-selective state schools: 53.1% compared to 31.7% of schools at GCSE, and 46% compared to 24.7% at A Level.
Pupil premium students were under-represented in GCSE computing (19%, compared to 26.6% across GCSE entries); entrants had a lower IDACI index than the average (0.194 vs 0.218). Pupil premium students, on average, scored worse than their peers.
Asian and Chinese students were a higher proportion of GCSE computing students than across the national cohort; black students somewhat lower. At A-level, white and Chinese students made up a higher proportion of the computing cohort, other ethnic groups rather lower.
Whilst pupil premium students were less likely to sit GCSE computing than their peers, the propensity of girls to sit computing was not as reduced by pupil premium as it was for their male counterparts. Amongst all pupil premium groupings, white British girls were proportionally underrepresented.
Computing and ICT seem rather different qualifications in terms of intake.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publisher | University of Roehampton |
| Number of pages | 74 |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2016 |