Care-experienced young people [CEYP] are significantly less likely to attend university by the age of 19 than peers who have not been in care (Ellison, 2023). Given the importance of educational outcomes to successful transitions to adulthood and given evidence that CEYP i) hold lower expectations of attending university and ii) this expectation lowers throughout their educational journey compared to their non-care experienced peers (Williams et. al, 2020), research is needed to support the development of practice that can be effective in closing the gap between non-CEYP and CEYP's educational expectations and outcomes. To this end, educational research has a central role in identifying the most influential features of educational systems and practice for one of the most marginalised and disadvantaged cohorts of young people in education (Britton et al., 2016; Evans, 2024).

However, whilst there is demand from policymakers for such evidence, ​what constitutes this ‘research’ is both politicised and scientifically debated. In the case of the present study, both researchers and funders engaged in educational ‘interventions’ with CEYP would like to assess/test the ‘effectiveness’ of such programmes. However, due to the numbers of CEYP in such studies, sample sizes are often smaller than needed for tests of ‘statistical significance’ (Morgan, 2017), while there are difficulties in establishing specified interventions and control groups required for experimental methodologies. Thus, much work relating to CEYP tends to be small scale and qualitative which presents a significant challenge in a political context that demands quick access to a ‘robust evidence base’ (Department for Education, see Hinds 2018), and ‘evidenced-based’ interventions that can be trialled, then scaled” (House of Lords, see Merritt, 2023).

Whether or not, or to what degree and how, one should use EBP in the case of CEYP (and related fields) is an issue with important consequences i.e. how strongly should we support the notion that ‘robust’ (usually in the form of quantitative statistically significant) evidence takes precedence over other forms of ‘evidence’ in the case of EBP for CEYP. Debate over what constitutes an appropriate statistical approach in ‘small n’ studies - such as those involving CEYP - have gone as far as questioning whether statistics should be used at all (Cairney and Oliver, 2017; Cao et al, 2024).

This study is theoretically underpinned by the tenets of QuantCrit, which is a rapidly developing international and interdisciplinary approach developed in the UK that seeks to challenge and improve the use of statistical data in social research (Castillo and Gillborn, 2023) and challenge the (selective) use of ‘evidence’ in the understanding of ‘policy problems’ by the government, media and general public (Author, 2019; Author et. al 2021). More specifically, QuantCrit acknowledges that all data and analysis methods introduce biases and strives to minimize and explicitly discuss these biases. In the context of CEYP, extant scholarship too often creates an impression that CEYP are a homogeneous group with uniform experiences. However, CEYP are not a homogenous group, with many CEYP experiencing additional difficulties in education due to their background or characteristics to include gender, race and ethnicity (Schonwald, 2022).

Given the diversity of CEYP, the use of homogenous (aggregate, often national level) data in pursuit of ‘evidentiary’ bases for change is highly problematic. Therefore, the present study seeks to evaluate the use of ‘statistical evidence’ within studies that attempt to ‘close the gap’ in the educational trajectories of CEYP to higher education through educational intervention programmes in England, paying particular attention to the homogenisation of CEYP in evidentiary claims.

We view ‘QuantCrit’ not only as a theoretical framework, but one that can help take forward a critical-quantitative methodology that takes seriously the potential of numbers to work in the service of greater equity (Author et al. 2018). Therefore, the present study utilises the tenets of Quantcrit to critically engage with the use of quantitative ‘evidences’ within programme evaluations that seek to support CEYP transitions into higher education in England, paying particular attention to i) capacity for ‘statistical significance, ii) use of descriptive statistics, and iii) the use of aggregate (all CEYP) and disaggregated data (CEYP by intersections of gender, race, ethnicity, category of need, status etc.). As such the present study will conduct a systematic review to identify, evaluate, and synthesise relevant studies involving ‘data’ on ‘transitions to higher education’, and associated ‘intervention programmes’ for ‘CEYP’ in ‘England’ between ‘2015 and 2025’ in both Education bibliographic databases (peer-reviewed) and white and grey literature. Grey literature was understood as any publication created outside recognised academic or commercial outlets and difficult to classify (to include policy documents, government reports, unpublished theses, white papers and organisational reports) (UCL, N.D.). The inclusion of grey literature in the present study is due to the possibility that they “may provide… an important forum for disseminating studies with null or negative results that might not otherwise be disseminated” (Paez, 2017:233). Additionally, this study will complement the systematic review findings with data from one current intervention programme involving CEYP in the London borough of Camden [‘Head Start into Higher Education’], that has amongst other aims, the specific commitment to develop a more nuanced understanding of the role of and possibilities for disaggregated quantitative data in small cohort studies (n15-30). Sources including: i) the Department of Education’s ‘Children Looked After’ (DfE, 2023a) and ii) ‘Outcomes for children in need, including children looked after by local authorities in England’ (DfE, 2023b), will be utilised to present a demographic profile of Camden’s CEYP that urges a nuanced quantitative approach to programme evaluation for CEYP that includes disaggregated data, as care experienced young people are not a homogenous group. Failure by policymakers to recognise the diversity of experience, background and characteristics of CEYP in pursuit of ‘evidence-bases’ on educational intervention programmes, could lead to further marginalisation and add to the expectation-reality gap in transitions to higher education for this group.

The findings of the present study support broader scholarship that there is a lack of ‘robust’ evidence in relation to CEYP (Author et al., 2024). Based on the systematic review we were able to problematise and challenge the use of data within existing programme evaluations for CEYP that report success against all students nationally/averages for all children in care. In addition, drawing upon Department of Education data (Children Looked After, 2023) for one London Borough (Camden), we are also able to present a demographic profile of CEYP that demands a nuanced approach to programme evaluation that includes disaggregated data, challenging the presentation of CEYP as a homogenous group. Amongst other findings, Camden’s CEYP are significantly more likely to be ‘Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British’ [Odds Ratio (OR) 8.1] and 2.6 times more likely to be Asian or Asian British [OR 2.6] compared to national averages. The group are also more likely to be ‘male’ [OR 1.2], ‘over the age of 16’ [OR 1.6], and more likely to be ‘unaccompanied asylum-seeking children’ [OR 3.2]. Therefore, extant programme evaluations that do not consider the demography of CEYP in a holistic way have the potential to under/over-state their claims, as there is clear evidence that a child’s race/gender/ethnicity/age/legal status already impact upon their experiences, outcomes and transitions, within education (Schonwald, 2022). Finally, in this study we critique the demand for ‘robust’ evidentiary bases that too often take the form of ‘statistically significant’ quantitative data, which we argue not only leads to representations of CEYP as a homogeneous group, but actively work against the needs of providers for flexibility and responsiveness in meeting the diverse needs of CEYP transitioning to higher education.

Author et al. (2018) Author (2019) Author et al. (2021) Author et al. (2024) Cairney, P. and Oliver, K. (2017) Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Research Policy Systems 15(1): 35 Britton, J., Dearden, L., Shephard, N., & Vignoles, A. (2016). How English domiciled graduate earnings vary with gender, institution attended, subject and socio-economic background. Institute for Fiscal Studies working paper. Available at https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-english-domiciled-graduate-earnings-vary-gender-institution-attended-subject-and Cao, Y., Chen, R.C. and Katz, A.J. (2024) Why is a small sample size not enough? The Oncologist, 29(9): 761-763 Castillo, W. and Gillborn, D. (2023) How to “QuantCrit:” Practices and Questions for Education Data Researchers and Users. (EdWorkingPaper: 22 -546), Available at https://doi.org/10.26300/v5kh-dd65 Department for Education (2023a) Collection - Statistics: looked-after children. Department for Education. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-looked-after-children Department for Education (2023b) Reporting year 2023 - Outcomes for children in need, including children looked after by local authorities in England. Department for Education. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/outcomes-for-children-in-need-including-children-looked-after-by-local-authorities-in-england Ellison, F. (2023) Breaking new ground – understanding care-experienced students, Higher Education Policy Institute, available online https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/07/21/breaking-new-ground-understanding-care-experienced-students/ Evans, C. (2024) Transitions to, through and beyond higher education: An exploration of care experienced students in Wales and England, Society for Research into Higher Education. Available at https://srhe.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/EvansCerynReport.pdf Hinds, D. (2018) Education Secretary vows to boost vulnerable children's outcomes, Department for Education. Available online https://www.gov.uk/government/news/education-secretary-vows-to-boost-vulnerable-childrens-outcomes Merritt, E. (2023) Reforming children’s social care: Public Services Committee inquiry, House of Lords Library. Available online https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/reforming-childrens-social-care-public-services-committee-inquiry/ Morgan, C.J. (2017) Use of proper statistical techniques for research studies with small samples. American Journal of Physiology, 313(5): 873-877. Paez, A. (2017) Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews, Journal of Evidence Based Medicine 10(3):233-240 Schoenwald, E., O'Higgins, A., Collyer, O., Ahmed, F., Whelan, E., Curtis, B., Ghedia, N., Clancy, C., and Alam, A., (2022) Outcomes For Black Children In Care A Rapid Evidence Review Synthesis, What Works for Children’s Social Care. Available at https://whatworks-csc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WWCSC_Outcomes_Black_Children_in_Care_Rapid_Review_Jan22.pdf University College London [UCL] (No Date) Grey literature - an overview. A subject guide for the Department of Political Science / School of Public Policy. Available at https://library-guides.ucl.ac.uk/c.php?g=683690&p=4972523 Williams, A., Edwards, V., Doherty, E., Allnatt, G., Bayfield, H., Lyttleton-Smith, J. and Warner, N. Care-experienced young people and higher education: What Works for Children’s Social Care. Available at https://whatworks-csc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WWCSC_Care-experienced-Young-People-and-Higher-Education_report_May_2020_3.pdf