New NFER blog: More teaching hours alone won’t solve the GCSE resit challenge

By Matt Walker, Senior Research Manager

Improving GCSE English and maths resit outcomes remains one of further education's most stubborn challenges. Despite more than a decade of the condition of funding policy, only around 15 to 20 per cent of GCSE English and maths resit candidates achieve a grade 4 or above. 

In response, the Government has strengthened expectations around teaching time. In 2024/25, providers were expected to make best efforts' to offer a minimum of three hours per week in English and four hours per week in maths. Since September 2025, eligible full-time students must be offered at least 100 hours of in-person, whole-class, stand-alone teaching in each relevant subject.

But new NFER research, commissioned by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) suggests the picture is very complex, both in terms of existing practice around how many hours are currently delivered, and in terms of the levers to improving practice.

Our research examined how post-16 settings responded to the new expectations in 2024/25 and how they organise GCSE resit provision more broadly. It included a survey of 53 standalone post-16 settings and case studies with six colleges.

Although the survey's small, non-random sample means its findings should be interpreted cautiously, the research offers valuable new insights into how settings organise resit provision and the challenges they face.

Extra hours can come with costs

Only a small number of surveyed settings increased teaching hours from below the minimum teaching hours to above them in 2023/24 and 2024/25. Most settings reported they were already offering 100+ hours in English and/or maths, while others planned to increase hours in 2025/26, when they expected compliance against these measures to be monitored.

Among the settings who increased English and/or maths resit teaching hours, most reported recruiting additional staff to support the increase. This included settings that were already delivering more than the minimum required number of teaching hours and decided to increase further. Some were able to do so without incurring additional staff costs, some reported diverting staff from elective vocational subjects, whereas others indicated median spend of £80,000.

Leaders' views on increasing teaching hours were also mixed. Some colleges felt additional teaching time could benefit learners when it was used effectively, while others highlighted challenges such as learner fatigue, attendance, motivation, staffing capacity, and pressures on curriculum time.

What happens within those hours matters

The stronger message from our research is that teaching time cannot be separated from the wider design of resit provision.

Colleges repeatedly highlighted the quality of teaching, curriculum design, timetabling, attendance and engagement, and access to additional support. Around six in ten responding settings offered one-to-one or small-group tutoring to at least some resit students, but around a quarter reported being unable to offer it at all.

Several settings emphasised that how teaching is timetabled could be more important than the overall number of hours. Attendance and engagement were also repeatedly identified as critical to whether learners benefited from the provision available, but were shaped by a wider set of organisational, pedagogical, and learner factors.

A more differentiated approach?

There is another important question: should every learner be following the same route?

Our findings showed considerable variation in what colleges offer students with very low prior attainment (below a grade 3 in Year 11). Some enrol them directly onto GCSE resits; others use Functional Skills or mixed pathways according to prior attainment. Some settings also described tensions between choosing the qualification they considered most appropriate for individual learners and responding to funding and accountability pressures.

A small minority felt these pressures incentivised them to enrol students with very low prior attainment in GCSE resits, despite concerns about their likelihood of success.

That makes the direction set out in the Government's Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper especially important. Alongside the 100-hour requirement, it emphasises readiness for resitting exams and says students with a low grade 3 or below will typically need more time to consolidate their learning and make progress. It also commits the Government to continuing to build the evidence base about what improves post-16 English and maths outcomes.

Our findings reinforce the need for that evidence-building

The lesson is not that teaching time does not matter it is that hours are only one part of the equation. We simply do not yet have robust evidence to help inform this.  

The next phase of policy needs to focus just as closely on what happens within those hours, how provision reflects learners' different starting points, and whether colleges have the staff, resources and flexibility to turn additional time into better learning.

Ultimately, the findings suggest there is no single lever for improving GCSE resit outcomes. Practices vary considerably across colleges, and outcomes are likely to be shaped by a combination of teaching time, instructional quality, curriculum approaches, support provision, and the needs of individual learners.