rsa education - not enough capital

8/6/2019 RSA Education - Not Enough Capital

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rsa-education-not-enough-capital 1/23



2 NOT ENO UGH CAPITAL? EXPLORING EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROGRESSION IN FURTHER EDUCATION

ABOUT THE RSA

The RSA has been a source o ideas, innovation and civic enterprise or over 250 years. In thelight o new challenges and opportunities or the human race our purpose is to encourage thedevelopment o a principled, prosperous society by identi ying and releasing human potential.This is re ected in the organisation’s recent commitment to the pursuit o what it calls 21stcentury enlightenment.

Through lectures, events, pamphlets and commissions, the RSA provides a ow o rich ideas

and inspiration or what might be realised in a more enlightened world; essential to progress butinsu cient without action. RSA Projects aim to bridge this gap between thinking and action.We put our ideas to work or the common good. By researching, designing and testing newways o living, we hope to oster a more inventive, resource ul and ul lled society. Through ourFellowship o 27,000 people and through the partnerships we orge, the RSA aims to bea source o capacity, commitment and innovation in communities rom the global to the local.Fellows are actively encouraged to engage and to develop local and issue-based initiatives.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Emma Norris is a senior researcher at the RSA and has previously worked at the Institute orPublic Policy Research (ippr) and the O ce or Public Management (OPM).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The RSA would like to thank the Pearson Centre or Policy and Learning and the AimhigherLondon WECAN partnership or generously supporting this project. Thanks in particular toLouis Coi ait and Graeme Atherton or their input and advice.

Thanks to Becky Francis , Adam Lent and Matthew Taylor or comments on earlier dra ts. Thanksalso to Jonathan Eames rom Aimhigher and Debbie Ribchester at the Association o Colleges

or helping us broker contact with the FE colleges that took part in this research.

The author would nally like to thank the sta and students at West London College, UxbridgeCollege, New College Nottingham and Leicester College who took part in this research andshared their thoughts and experiences, on which much o this paper is based.

Any mistakes or errors that remain are the author’s own.




1. EXECUTIVE SU M MARY

The socio-economic gap in educational achievement remains wide and intractable despite numerousattempts to address it. Social class is the strongest predictor o educational attainment. Whetherit is because your parents can pay your rent during an internship, use their contacts to securework experience or simply provide a li estyle that amiliarises you with the predominantly middle-class worlds o higher education and elite progressions, who your parents are will have a bigger

impact on your li e chances than your ability. Young people rom low-income backgroundsneed better ormal and in ormal support to help them traverse this gap, make decisions aboutprogression and ultimately have ul lling careers.

The RSA is exploring how civil society organisations can support disadvantaged young peoplein both educational attainment and progression into the workplace. In order to develop thiswork, in early 2011 the RSA held a series o ocus groups with young people and practitionersin Further Education (FE) colleges. This research supported the development o a mentoringpartnership between the RSA and the FE sector. But the research also provided insight into theperspectives o young people and their teachers about the di culties that young people romlow-income backgrounds ace when making crucial decisions about education and careers.These perspectives, supported by a literature review and desk research, are shared in this paper.

Our research ocuses on the FE sector because this is where a majority o young people rom low-income amilies are concentrated in their post-16 studies. Working well, the FE sector cansupport disadvantaged young people into ul lling careers, perhaps via higher education. But atthe moment the sector is constrained in this role due to its comparative under- unding, lack o policy attention and low status compared to higher education and school sixth orms. This paperdescribes the barriers that the young people we spoke to ace when progressing in education andthe workplace, and supported by existing research provides suggestions or how the FE sector canbetter support them.

FINDINGS

This paper adds to a considerable body o research which shows that cultural, economic and

institutional capital – or lack o it – has a detrimental e ect on young people rom low-incomebackgrounds in the FE sector, and in their progression into education or the workplace. Ourmain ndings are:

• The disadvantage aced by young people rom low-income backgrounds in secondaryeducation continues into FE. Young people rom low-income backgrounds ace cultural,

nancial and institutional barriers compared to young people rom higher-income groups.

• Many o the young people we spoke to were unaware o how important networks and otherorms o cultural capital are or progression. In particular we ound that young people rom

low-income backgrounds o ten have a strong aversion to using cultural capital to urthertheir own ends. They considered this ‘cheating’ and instead drew on ‘rags to riches’ storieso securing independent success.

• Young people rom low-income groups struggle to meet the everyday costs o college andeel priced out o higher education as a result o spiralling ees.

• Whilst doing the best they can or their students, because o the sector’s own lack o capitalFE colleges are not always able to provide the advice, guidance and support that these youngpeople need.

1. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CAPITAL

It has been said elsewhere that young people rom high-income groups are like ‘ sh in water’in higher education and elite careers. Equally, young people rom low-income groups are like

sh out o water. They are pro oundly disadvantaged by their lack o inculcation into theenvironments o education and pro essions. Our research underlined how young people rom low-

income amilies who study in the FE sector were simply unaccustomed to and uncom ortablewith the mechanisms that acilitate progression within education sectors and through topro essional work. They lacked the social networks and contacts to gain work experience andother valuable CV material. Their parents and role models are, on the whole, very supportivebut lack experience and knowledge about which courses will open doors in chosen careers.




Perhaps most signi cantly, our research revealed that many young people rom low-incomeamilies do not eel com ortable using cultural and social capital to urther their own ends.

Drawing on ‘rags to riches’ style success stories, these young people wanted to claim theirachievements without help or support, which whether they know it or not, urther compoundstheir disadvantage. Middle class students have no gap to traverse: they simply have to replicatetheir parents’ achievements.

2. ECONOMIC CAPITAL

Unsurprisingly, nance has a direct and negative impact on disadvantaged young peoplein terms o both their short and longer term progression. A lack o money restricted theirparticipation in FE courses and in uenced their decisions about progression, particularlyamongst those young people considering higher education. Young people and their teacherswere very worried about the impact o withdrawing the Education Maintenance Allowance(EMA) and explained that students were struggling to meet the basic costs o education:transport, books, trips and even sustenance. In some instances FE colleges had to rearrangecourse timetables, cramming a week’s worth o lessons into two days because students couldnot a ord bus ares every day. Financial problems also limit the progression choices o youngpeople. Our research rea rmed existing ndings on the link between social class anddebt aversion: young people rom lower socio-economic backgrounds are disproportionatelydeterred rom higher education due to a ear o its costs and the debts they will incur.

3. INSTITUTIONAL CAPITAL

Finally, FE institutions themselves have a signi cant impact on the progression choices andopportunities o their students. FE colleges have long been regarded as the ‘Cinderella sector’o the education system because o their relative under- unding and poor status. The lacko both social and economic capital in the sector adversely a ects its students in numerousways. Research participants thought there has been under-investment in careers services, likelyto worsen as cuts to Connexions start to take hold. They also elt that the in erior statuso FE colleges amongst employers makes it di cult or colleges to build the institutionalnetworks and contacts necessary to secure work experience and advice or students. This ismost pronounced in cities where FE colleges are in direct competition with universities oropportunities and relationships.

IMPLICATIONS

The FE sector, supported by government, employers and other stakeholders, must nd ways o addressing the cultural, nancial and institutional challenges that compromise the progressiono many disadvantaged young people. The paper outlines a number o approaches, recommendationsand areas or urther work that could support this, including the potential o civil societyorganisations such as the RSA to share cultural capital with young people rom lower socio-economic backgrounds. Our main recommendations and ideas or ways orward include:

• Finding innovative ways to transmit cultural and social capital to young people romdisadvantaged backgrounds. FE colleges must build relationships with organisations thathave high social and cultural capital. The ability o civil society organisations such as theRSA to share their cultural and social capital is currently not utilised. The type o supportcivil society organisations could provide includes mentoring/advocacy schemes or studentsand sta , and/or in-depth work with parents to help them develop their knowledge o progression routes and decisions.

• More work needs to be done on how social and cultural capital rom low-income groupscan be made valuable in progression. At the moment it disadvantages young people romlow-income backgrounds and contributes to eelings o alienation.

• Consistent and accessible nancial support is necessary to ensure disadvantaged studentscan access the FE sector and success ully progress. The government should consider theimplications o this or the removal o the EMA. It is also necessary to provide early andin-depth in ormation about nancial support available or students in higher education.

• Detailed careers advice is sometimes di cult to access or FE students. The all-age careersservice planned or launch in 2012 must provide high-quality, detailed careers advice asper the Wol Report and make provision or speci c careers advice that can be accessed inFE colleges.




• The FE sector needs to urther strengthen its networks and contacts. FE practitioners couldtake some responsibility or maintaining these networks and contacts i they are providedwith Continued Pro essional Development (CPD) opportunities that acilitate this. Buildingrelationships with local employers needs particular attention to ensure FE provision issensitive to their needs. This could be achieved by rejuvenating employer advisory boardsthat are subject-speci c and expanding the role o FE colleges as ‘community hubs’ asproposed in the recent 2020 Public Services Hub report (Kippin et al, 2011).

RSA ‘FURTHERING OPPORTUNITIES’ INITIATIVEThe RSA is exploring the ability o civil society organisations to support disadvantaged youngpeople in more detail. This includes the design o an intervention to help share cultural andsocial capital with students rom disadvantaged backgrounds, and to in orm those with socialcapital about FE, and the lives o young people within it. This will take the orm o a mentoringinitiative between RSA Fellows and FE colleges. The scheme is intended to bring together youngpeople studying in Further Education colleges with RSA Fellows who are experts in particularsubject areas. In doing so, the project will equip young people rom disadvantaged backgroundswith greater capital in negotiating school-to-work trajectories by accessing the experience,networks, advocacy and skills o RSA Fellows. The project will also provide RSA Fellows withan opportunity to use their skills and experience in the interests o a younger generation, developmeaning ul connections with young people and become advocates or the Further Education sector.

The RSA wanted to involve FE students and their teachers in the design o this initiative in orderto ensure it met their needs. Students and sta who participated in our research were extremelysupportive o the proposed scheme and provided valuable advice about how the role o RSAFellows should be conceived and what they could provide in colleges. On this basis, the ollowingmentoring principles have been ormulated and will guide the design o our own initiative:

• Bring the workplace to the classroom: mentors should provide students with an enhancedunderstanding o what a particular career involves and how classroom learning is relevantto it. This could include mentors working with groups or classes o students rom arelevant discipline, providing an overview o their own career journey and a portrait o their sector as it stands today. Mentors could also advise FE practitioners on the design o course content and projects to ensure they are relevant or industry and employers today.In this latter role they would act as mentors or FE sta rather than students.

• Spread social capital: mentors should use their social capital and networks to helpinstitutions, students and sta establish and rejuvenate education and employer networks.This could include supporting FE colleges and sta in brokering relationships with localemployers and helping students to develop work experience opportunities.

• Work collectively: mentors should work with groups o students as well as individuals topromote social mixing and ensure no students are le t behind, providing them with careersand education advice, helping them consider and evaluate di erent career options andsupporting the development o a deeper understanding o the employment opportunitiesavailable in relevant sectors.

• Build on shared experience: where possible, mentors should be rom similar backgrounds

to the young people they are supporting to ensure there is mutual understanding and thatthey can act as an inspiration to young people, showing them what is possible.




2. INTRODUCTION

Social justice is a key issue or the RSA education programme: our commitment to enablingyoung people to ul l their potential is part o our broader drive or 21st century enlightenment(Taylor, 2010). Clearly there are many interpretations o and routes or achieving social justice,but the ocus o this paper is on tackling the social class 1 gap in education. This is the gap inachievement and resultant li e chances between young people rom low-income backgrounds

and young people rom more afuent amilies. Social class remains the strongest predictoro educational achievement, undermining government claims to meritocracy, and stronglyimpeding both social mobility and social justice. The RSA is exploring how civil societyorganisations can support disadvantaged young people in both educational attainment andprogression into the workplace.

This research has been in ormed by a wide-ranging literature review and a series o expertseminars, which identi ed a need to build interventions that direct attention to vocational aswell as academic routes; and value and enhance the knowledge and social capital o low-incomestudents and amilies. These principles are embedded in the design o our mentoring scheme.Our research ocuses on the FE sector because this is where a majority o young people romlow-income amilies are concentrated in their post-16 studies. Working well, the FE sector can

support disadvantaged young people into ul lling careers, perhaps via higher education. Butat the moment the sector is constrained in this role due to its comparative under- unding, lacko policy attention and low status compared to higher education and school sixth orms.

Our literature review also highlighted the importance o engaging directly with students romlower socio-economic backgrounds and giving them the opportunity to shape interventions. Tothis end, in early 2011 the RSA held a series o ocus groups with young people and practitionersin Further Education (FE) colleges. This research supported the development o a mentoringpartnership between the RSA and the FE sector. But the research also provided insight intothe perspectives o young people and their teachers about the di culties that young people romlow-income backgrounds ace when making crucial decisions about education and careers.These perspectives are shared in this paper.

The report is there ore in two parts: the rst analyses and summarises student and practitionerattitudes and belie s about the challenges young people rom low-income backgrounds ace inFurther Education and progression. The second part summarises student and sta responses toour suggested initiative on the role o civil society organisations in sharing social and culturalcapital; what value it adds and how it could work in practice. The concluding section drawsboth parts together, outlining recommendations or policy and practice in narrowing the socialclass gap through the Further Education sector.

1 ‘Social class’ remains a controversialconcept, with some commentatorsarguing that social class distinctionshave aded or rapidly changed in recentdecades, and others pointing out thatinequalities and distinctions accordingto socio-economic background havegrown greater than ever. Sociologistsargue or a retention o the concept o‘class’, as it incorporates cultural as wellas fnancial actors (see e.g. Reay, 1998;Savage, 2007). For simplicity, we usually

re er to young people rom ‘low-incomebackgrounds’ in this paper.




3. BACKGRO U N D

WHY IS THE SOCIAL CLASS GAP IMPORTANT?

Social mobility — or lack o it — has again caught the imagination o our politicians. A newstudy into class shines a light on the continuing in uence social background has on the courseo all o our lives (Jones, 2011). Indeed, the considerable impact o social class has been well

documented by sociologists (see e.g. Savage, 2007; Sayer, 2005; Walkerdine and Lucey, 2001; Reayet al, 2001), and underlined in the recent debates about internships and university ees, bringingto the ore how di cult it can be or young people with limited social capital and nancial meansto progress in education and employment. A recent LSE study showed that social mobilityhas decreased, rather than increased, over the last our decades (LSE, 2010) and the NationalEquality Panel has shown that British children’s educational attainment and broader li e chancesremain overwhelmingly linked to parental occupation, income, and quali cations (Lupton 2009,Sodha and Margo, 2010). Social class, not ability, remains the strongest predictor o educationalachievement in the UK. 2 Although the class gap is a widespread international phenomenon, theUK has a particularly high degree o social segregation and is one o the nations with the mosthighly di erentiated results among OECD countries (OECD, 2007).

There have been a range o strategies or tackling this problem. The previous government’s targetto achieve 50% o 18-30 year olds participating in higher education aimed to widen access touniversity amongst disadvantaged young people. And the slow move towards paid internshipsre ects concerns that many young people are excluded rom exciting opportunities in expandingindustries such as ashion, politics and media because they do not have the resources to undthemselves (Lawton and Potter, 2010) 3. There have also been wide-ranging interventionstargeting children in the early years to break generational cycles o poverty and disadvantage.Flagship initiatives such as Sure Start and parenting programmes including Play and LearningStrategies (PALS) and Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) aim to provide all young peoplewith the best possible start in li e.

Many o these interventions have had positive impacts. For instance, the most recent evaluationo Sure Start showed that children who participated experienced improved parenting (NESS,

2010), which is in turn likely to result in better li e outcomes or young people. Yet by comparisonto the multiple and wide-ranging interventions in the areas outlined above, this paper argues thatthe potential o Further Education (FE) to help tackle inequality and promote social mobility isbeing neglected.

WHY FOCUS ON FURTHER E DUCATION?

Further education is known as the ‘last chance’ sector because or many o its students it is theirnal opportunity to gain educational quali cations and improve their li e chances. FE colleges

work with more young people than schools and independent sixth orms combined: in 2008/09there were over one million learners aged under-19 participating in government- unded urthereducation. Many o these young people have struggled in education and are rom disadvantagedbackgrounds: 56% o FE learners are rom the bottom three socio-economic groups, comparedwith only 22% in maintained school sixth orms (Buddery, Kippin and Lucas, 2010). Working withthese groups presents challenges in terms o learner support, attendance and attainment. But it alsomeans the sector has a huge opportunity to promote and sustain social mobility and employment.

The hard task o supporting disadvantaged students is compounded by a persistent image problem inthe sector. FE has su ered rom low status and — at least until recently — under unding comparedto school and independent sixth orms. Employers and education pro essionals have littleunderstanding o the sector and o ten perceive it and its students as ‘second division’ (LSC,2007). This can leave colleges struggling to de ne their identity and value. Naturally, this candisadvantage its students in their own progression.

However, ar rom being ‘second division’ the FE sector can and should strengthen its role in

improving the prospects o disadvantaged students and tackling broader social injustices.This report is based on research undertaken with FE students and sta , exploring what holdsthese young people back and how the sector and its students can be better supported.

2 E. Perry and B.Francis,The social classgap for educational achievement: a review of the literature , 20103 Although o course the low payconcerned and high rents in metropolitanareas means that even paid internshipsare o ten beyond the reach odisadvantaged young people beyond theimmediate locality.




4. M ETHODS

Three di erent methods have been employed during this project: a literature review on socialclass and educational achievement, desk research on the FE sector and eight ocus groups withFE practitioners and students. The results o these methods are embedded throughout thispaper and we draw on all methods to in orm our ndings.

LITERATURE REVIEW ON SOCIAL CLASS AND EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

This RSA literature review analysed existing academic and policy literature on social class andeducational achievement. The review begins by establishing the scale and persistence o thesocial class gap or educational achievement, acknowledging how patterns are complicatedby other actors such as gender and ethnicity, and exploring the social class gap rom the earlyyears through to post-16. It then analyses approaches taken to tackle this gap by the previousgovernment, be ore outlining what types o initiative are likely to have most success in addressingworking-class achievement in the context o nancial austerity. The literature review hasin ormed the questions we examined with FE students and sta in our ocus groups, the scopeo supplementary desk research and the policy context o this paper.

DESK R ESEARCHIn addition to the RSA literature review on social class and educational achievement, supplementarydesk research has been undertaken to in orm this paper. In particular, recent academic andpolicy research papers with a ocus on the Further Education sector have been used to placethe comments o the students and sta who took part in this research in a wider context. A ullbibliography is available in the appendices.

FOCUS GROUPS 4

The ndings in this report are based on views gathered rom a total o eight ocus groups heldwith sta and students in Further Education colleges. A total o 30 sta and a total o 32students took part in the research. These ocus groups were held at our case study collegesin London (×2), Nottingham and Leicester. Each ocus group lasted approximately 1.5 hours.Students and sta were asked about:

• The barriers young people encounter when making decisions about progression

• In ormation, advice and guidance services

• The relationship between the classroom and the workplace

• The easibility o membership-based organisations supporting the FE sector

It is important to note that the case-study institutions were selected according to the socio-economic pro le o their learners, rather than as being a typical or representative cross-sectiono FE educational establishments. Senior management in participating colleges identi ed youngpeople and sta members to take part. Recruitment also happened by ‘snowballing’ (where

students would invite their riends or acquaintances in college). Fieldwork took place betweenMarch and May 2011.

Verbatim comments provide evidence or the qualitative ndings. To protect participants’anonymity, their comments have been attributed simply according to their institutional location.

4 A brie note on the qualitativemethods ( ocus groups) that are themain source o evidence or this paper:qualitative research is sometimesconsidered less weighty than quantitativeresearch. However, there is alreadyample quantitative research attestingto the persistent social class gap in oureducation system (NAO, 2010). Ratherthan rea frm the social class gap, thispaper seeks to understand why thisgap exists, providing an insight into the

views and concerns o students and stalearning and working in the FE sector.Qualitative research provides a depth ounderstanding that cannot be achievedin quantitative research by giving voice tothose whom policy and other interventionstarget. We hope that this will provide muchneeded insight into how students romlower socio-economic backgrounds canbe best supported and how governmentand other actors can better support socialmobility and social justice.




5. FIN DIN GS: THE PERSPECTIVES OFYOUNG PEOPLE AND PRACTITIONERSIN THE FE SECTOR

This section shares the perspectives o young people and their teachers on the di culties that

young people rom low-income backgrounds ace when making crucial decisions about educationand careers. Their contributions demonstrate that the disadvantage aced by young people romlow-income backgrounds in secondary education continues into urther education. In particular,cultural, economic and institutional capital — or lack o it — has a detrimental e ect on youngpeople rom low-income backgrounds in the FE sector, and in their progression into educationand the workplace. Existing research demonstrates that capitals o various kinds signi cantlyimpact li e chances: a ra t o research in education and sociology demonstrates how this works(Bourdieu, 1986; Reay, 2001; Walkerdine et al, 2001; Archer, 2007). We do not wish to imply thatthe young people concerned in this research do not have social capital, or are in de cit in someway. Rather, we are arguing that they lack speci c kinds o cultural, nancial and institutionalcapital that acilitate progress in education and prestigious (especially pro essional) careers.

Key ndings include:

• Many o the young people we spoke too were unaware o how important networks andother orms o cultural capital are or progression. In particular we ound that young people

rom low-income backgrounds o ten have a strong aversion to using cultural capital to urthertheir own ends. They considered this ‘cheating’ and pre erred to ‘make their own way’.

• Disadvantaged young people struggle to meet the everyday costs o college and eel pricedout o higher education as a result o spiralling ees.

• Whilst doing the best they can or their students, FE colleges are not always able to providethe advice, guidance and support that these young people need because o the sector’s ownlack o capital.

CULTURAL AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

‘Parents rom certain backgrounds have a better understanding o how the system works, theyhave an awareness.’ (FE practitioner, Leicester)

One o the most signi cant barriers to success ul progression in the FE sector is the lack o cultural and social capital among students rom lower socio-economic backgrounds. In thiscontext, cultural and social capital re ers to the non- nancial advantages that students haveaccess to, and which many middle-class parents can use to urther their children’s ambitions.These include general inculcation into a middle class ‘habitus’ and set o assumptions; largenetworks o pro essional and social contacts; detailed knowledge o how the education systemworks; and trans erable experience in so t skills such as interview manner. There is a considerablebody o research highlighting the impact o social and cultural capital in education already, thatshows how middle-class parents are better able to ‘play the game’ (Reay, 2001; Reay & Lucey 2003)and ensure that their children experience smooth progression in education and the workplace(Walkerdine et al, 2001). On the other hand, students rom lower socio-economic backgrounds

nd progression more complex and alienating (Walkerdine, et al, 2001; Reay et al, 2001; Archer,2007). This section draws out some examples o how FE students rom low-come backgroundsare disadvantaged by their lack o social and cultural capital and recommendations or how thiscan be addressed.

PARENTAL GUIDANCE AND ROLE MODELS

When making decisions about progression in education and employment, young people o ten relyeither directly or indirectly on their parents or guardians or direction (ippr, 2007). Parents indirectlyin uence their children as role models and directly in uence their children’s decisions by giving themadvice about the uture. Middle-class parents are able to use their experience and knowledge o education and careers (their cultural and social capital) to provide their children with such advice.In contrast, a number o students that participated in our research said they would be unlikely

‘Parents rom certainbackgrounds have abetter understandingo how the systemworks, they havean awareness.’(FE practitioner, Leicester)




to approach their parents or progression advice because o their parents’ limited experience.Others had only very ew amily members who they would con dently approach:

‘I wouldn’t go back to my parents or advice, just because they’re rom di erent backgrounds’(FE student, Nottingham)

‘I mean whoever actually works in your amily is the one you’re actually going to pick [to askor advice]’ (FE student, London)

Parents with limited experience o the education system want the best or their children butlack knowledge about how to help them (Wol , 2011). This nding is reiterated by previousRSA work ocussing on working class sixth orm students in London, which challenges policyassumptions that working class parents lack aspiration or their children. On the contrary,these young people said their parents wanted the very best or their utures, but lacked thein ormation, experiences and networks necessary or help ul advice. In our FE research we have

ound that this high aspiration but lack o in ormation/experience sometimes mani ests itsel byparents having ‘unrealistically’ high expectations o their children, or instance because they donot understand the competition or places in higher education or elite careers. FE sta we spoketo worried that students are not being given realistic notions o how challenging particularprogression routes are, or the level o dedication and nancial commitment that these routes entail.Sta were not necessarily worried about the abilities o young people, but rather that the youngpeople concerned do not have realistic and accurate knowledge about some progression routes.

‘There is more likely to be awareness and an understanding o needs and what can be done and whatis realistic or what is totally unrealistic [amongst middle-class parents] .’ (FE practitioner, Leicester)

‘There is also some [students] that have unrealistic expectations that o ten come rom the parents.These parents have actually got very ew quali cations themselves, but they just have this xedidea that their son or daughter, they’re doing science and there ore they must be able to go touniversity and do medicine and that’s what will happen without much work or e ort. They’re

just totally unrealistic. I think in many cases it’s just that parents don’t know what is availableand they don’t know what the processes are, what grades are needed in what subjects, theydon’t understand education, they don’t understand what sort o routes are best or their kids.’

Clearly we want to avoid an understanding o parents rom low-income groups as ‘inadequate’in this regard: indeed, the our ndings suggest that working class parents want the very best ortheir children, which re utes the image o such parents o ten presented by policymakers. What our

ndings demonstrate, however, is that these parents urgently need to be provided with propersources o in ormation in order to support their children in decision-making (see also Wol , 2011).

Less commonly, a ew young people said their parents’ own negative or limited educationalexperiences prevented them rom providing support and encouragement in relation toeducation. According to research participants, this is because their parents’ negative experiencesalienated them rom their children’s education. This tendency is well documented in existingresearch (e.g. Reay, 1998; ippr, 2000; Lucey & Reay, 2002; DCSF, 2008) and has inspired manyinterventions to better involve parents in their children’s education.

‘My mum just doesn’t get it. Like, she isn’t against me going, although she said ‘why aren’tyou getting a job?’ when I rst went [to FE] ... You know my dad le t school when he was 14.’(FE student, Leicester)

CONFIDENCE AND EXPERIENCEOur research also suggested that FE students rom lower socio-economic backgrounds are lesslikely to eel con dent about their ability to integrate into higher education and elite careers.Educational researchers have shown that young people rom low-income groups quickly eel lesscon dent in education, and experience eelings o alienation and disjuncture as they progress.Middle-class young people, by contrast, adapt more easily, given that the cultural expectationso school are more similar to home (Bernstein, 1971; Reay, 2006). This urther highlights therole o cultural and social capital. Disadvantaged young people are less able to navigate urther

education as they o ten haven’t been exposed to pro essional work settings and are less likelyto have amily experience o higher education; whereas middle-class young people are alreadylikely to possess this cultural capital.




‘It’s completely, you know, they don’t know to turn up in your smart attire... and that is your interview and things like that, but they don’t understand.’ (FE practitioner, Nottingham)

‘[Working-class young people] get to university and lecturers says ‘This what I’m going to say’and they do a big lecture and then you have to leave and there’s no questions, there’s no ‘Canyou repeat that please?’, there’s none o that and [working-class young people] nd that reallydi cult.’ (FE practitioner, Nottingham)

Some FE students that took part in our research also lacked the cultural capital and resultingsel -con dence help ul or navigating ormal progression processes, e.g. interviews. Youngpeople rom afuent backgrounds nd it easier to navigate these processes, having learntrelevant behaviours and knowledge rom parents and wider social networks. In contrast,young people rom lower socio-economic backgrounds are unlikely to be able to draw on suchconnections and amiliarity to help them prepare. A ew research participants elt sel -consciousabout comparisons between themselves and their middle-class counterparts. One young womantalked in detail about afuent neighbours who were riends o her amily. The neighbours hada son who was a similar age to her, and as a result they would o ten ask about exam results.Whilst she liked the neighbours, she elt uncom ortable telling them about her exam results andcareer aspirations because o the inevitable comparison with their son.

‘You know I was saying about my neighbours? They’re really nice and everything, they’re reallynice people. When it was my exams they were saying, you know, how did they go, what are youdoing next? I elt alright about my results but I didn’t want to say, it just elt a bit... their songot all As and he wants to go to Ox ord. So I just elt...’ (FE student, Leicester)

Sta told us that low con dence and a lack o experience can lead to young people becomingextremely risk-averse when making choices about education and employment. It also makesit hard or young people rom low-income backgrounds to compete with their more afuentcounterparts who are naturally at ease in these settings and situations.

‘I they’re exposing themselves and taking the risk, well it is completely out o the question.Like i it’s taking the risk by putting in a UCAS application or something that’s ambitious....we get a small hand ul that are brimming with con dence and will ….but by and large, quite

a lot o our learners, and even on the active courses, are very averse to taking that risk o eelingoolish or ailing at something. I think that this is a well-worn tale, and I have said it manytimes but it always sticks in my mind – the story o a 19 year old lad I was working with,extracurricular activity, this was in Richmond and he got to go to a con erence in Birminghamand he said to me it was the rst time he had ever been on a train. I thought ‘wow’. That’s whatwe take or granted, getting on a train, but he had never been on a train .’ (FE practitioner, London)

NETWORKS

Middle-class parents are able to harness their networks to support the progression o theirchildren (Perry and Francis, 2011). When aced with decisions about progression, middle-class children are able to draw upon their parents’ pro essional and other contacts to mobilisein ormation and expertise (Horvat et al, 2003). Parents also use their contacts to gain valuable

work experience opportunities or their children. This was highlighted in the recent BBCdocumentary, Posh and Posher , which showed wealthy parents arranging work experiencethrough contacts or in some cases buying work experience at ‘internship auctions’ (BBC, 2011).This has also been established by more rigorous academic works. For example, Francis et al’s(2004) analysis o work experience placement practices revealed a laissez- aire institutionalapproach to pupils securing their own work experience placements. This allowed middle classparents to draw on their networks to provide highly stimulating pro essional placements ortheir children, whereas students rom low-income groups were more restricted nancially andin terms o connections. Hence work experience placements were reproducing inequalities,and or disadvantaged pupils o ten narrowing, rather than extending, horizons (see alsoHatcher et al, 2008). Most FE students lack access to the kinds o social networks that acilitatepro essional or managerial work experience and as such are excluded rom experiences that

would help in orm their decisions about progression as well as make them more attractivecandidates in higher education and the workplace. One FE practitioner in our researchcomplained that none o her students studying or a law NVQ were able to access any localplacements with legal rms because they lacked the social capital necessary to secure them.




‘Law students su er signi cantly in [the college] because in Nottingham we have twotremendously wonder ul law schools... so our students don’t stand a chance. Yet these are thestudents that actually need those placements more and they haven’t got the networks, theconnections, parents, have they?’ (FE practitioner, Nottingham)

CULTURAL EXPECTATIONSFE practitioners and students that participated in our research suggested that students romlower socio-economic backgrounds did not eel com ortable using cultural and social capital to

urther their own ends. A number o students talked about ‘making your own way’ or ‘making itby yoursel .’ There appeared to be a strong aversion among students to the idea o using contacts,

amily connections or other networks in order to progress in education or the workplace. Forthese students, their concepts o success seemed to be more located in independence, or mythso ‘sel -made’ men and women. Using anything but your own ability and luck was considered‘cheating.’ This is in stark contrast to young people rom higher socio-economic groups, or whom (asdiscussed) networks and connections are an important eature o their success and progression.

‘I want to be able to hold my head up and say ‘I’ve ound my own way here... and it’s notthrough people that I know.’ (FE student, London)

‘When I’m doing dance and shows, you know I want people to notice me because I’m good atit. Sometimes when we go on trips we get to talk to the dancers and so we do have [contacts] I suppose… but it doesn’t mean as much to bother them does it?’ (FE student, Leicester)

The ‘belts and bootstraps’ and ‘rags to riches’ narratives which appeared to underpin suchassertions evoke both a di erent cultural approach, but also a complete lack o recognitiono the practices adopted by others. As Victor Adebowale recently commented, young people

rom disadvantaged backgrounds ‘do not understand how society works’ (2011). Middle classstudents have no need or such ideals o independent ‘rags to riches’ achievements, as they haveno gap to traverse: they simply have to replicate their parents’ achievements.

Implications:

Students rom low-income backgrounds are pro oundly disadvantaged by their lack o inculcation into middle-class behaviours and experiences that are re ected in all elite educational

and pro essional progression routes. This includes the lack o role models and networks that aidswi t progression. But it extends to undermining the con dence and sel -assurance o youngpeople rom lower socio-economic backgrounds in negotiating these routes. On the basis o ourqualitative and desk research we have identi ed some ways to begin tackling the barrier that socialand cultural capital presents or young people rom low-income backgrounds. • Transmitters o cultural and social capital: the FE sector needs to nd innovative

means o transmitting cultural and social capital to disadvantaged students. Theability o civil society organisations such as the RSA to share their cultural and socialcapital is currently under-utilised. The type o support civil society organisations couldprovide includes mentoring/advocacy schemes or students and sta , and/or in-depthwork with parents to help them develop their knowledge o progression routes and

decisions. Such in ormation and contacts enable agency among low-income amilies.It is worth noting that existing mentoring schemes tend to target small numbers o disadvantaged young people who are likely to be high-achievers: a challenge is to ndways to make mentoring work or larger numbers o students.

• Work with parents: too o ten, working-class parents are portrayed as lacking aspirationor their children. Our research re utes this, suggesting that parents have high expectations

o their children but lack the social and cultural capital to help realise them. Findingways to help parents support their children is crucial to progression. For instance,ensuring parents have access to high-quality, detailed education and careers in ormationas early on as possible.

• Value the ‘capital’ o low-income amilies: in order to increase con dence amongdisadvantaged young people and promote social justice in education, young peopleneed to eel valued and listened to. Finding ways to value and/or use the cultural capitalo low-income amilies could increase con dence and support progression amongdisadvantaged students.

‘Law students su er signi cantly in[the college] becausein Nottingham wehave two tremendouslywonder ul lawschools... so our students don’t standa chance. Yet theseare the students thatctually need thoseplacements more andthey haven’t gotthe networks, theconnections, parents,have they?’(FE practitioner, Nottingham)




ECONOM IC CAPITAL

‘These kids don’t have a nancial back-up.’ (FE practitioner, Nottingham)

Money has a direct impact on disadvantaged young people in both the short and longer-term.It restricts their participation in FE courses and in uences decisions about their uture in highereducation. Given that most FE students are rom low-income amilies it is unsurprising thatmoney is important. Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) take-up gures show that in2010 at least 643,000 16-18 year olds in education came rom amilies with less than £31,000annual income. The EMA sliding scale o nancial support provided these young people withboth an incentive to stay in education and with much-needed money or basic items. Without itthe prospect o moving straight into the workplace – either to contribute to amily income or tolive independently – might well have been a more realistic and attractive option due to very real

nancial constraints. The EMA has now been cut, despite rigorous evidence suggesting that itincreased the number o young people staying on in education (IFS, 2011). This section exploresthe main reasons that lack o money/ nancial constraints/lack o nancial resources represent abarrier or young people in the FE sector.

THE BASICS

‘Nearly hal the students here cannot a ord the uni orm – and the parents can’t either ’(FE practitioner, Leicester)

‘This is another thing they are up against: they just can’t a ord it. They need the [EMA] to sustain themselves. It is not or going out and getting drunk, it really is or the basics.’(FE practitioner, Nottingham)

Many o the students we spoke to struggled to a ord the most basic items necessary or theireducation. This included uni orm, basic supplies such as notepads, and school trips. Strugglingto a ord basic items compromised their enjoyment o study and orced them to miss valuableeducational experiences. In extreme cases, some young people even ound it di cult to a ordenough ood, which meant they were tired and ound it di cult to concentrate. A number o recent research studies have similarly ound that poverty can orce students rom low-income

backgrounds to orgo items that most o us consider essential (ATL, 2011; ESRC, 2008). TheAssociation o Teachers and Lecturers surveyed thousands o education sta , nding thatsome 80% o them said poverty had a direct impact on their students’ ability to per orm, withstudents regularly coming in hungry or tired (ATL, 2011).

‘Students that were timetabled or our days – they couldn’t a ord the bus are or that manydays. Now we bring them in on big long days, to save them the bus are. The students want itsquashing into two or three days so they can work alongside it. We’re designing our timetablesaround their money concerns.’ (FE practitioner, London) Transport costs were singled out by the young people we spoke to, especially i they lived araway rom college. According to the ATL study, 66% o education sta said that una ordabletransport costs caused absences rom classes. The problem has become so acute that two o thecolleges we spoke to have redesigned college timetables to limit transport costs or students,squashing a week’s worth o lessons into two days. Whilst this saved students’ money, itdamaged concentration levels as their days were o ten extremely long and ull. It also put a strainon colleges’ teaching resources and classroom acilities as attendance was concentrated onparticular days rather than being evenly spread throughout the week.

DEBT AVERSION

Financial concerns presented a barrier not only in the immediate term but also had implicationsor progression to higher education. The students we spoke to were very concerned about

the recent decision to li t the cap on top-up ees, and said it would cause them to reassess theviability o higher education. There is a considerable body o research to support the assertionthat nancial concerns play a major role in young people’s decisions about higher education(NAO 2002; Forsyth and Furlong, 2003) and that the ‘ overriding negative perception o goingto university, or all the potential entrants, was its cost’ (Connor et al, 2001). Costs are o tenunderstood very broadly to include not only the direct costs o attending university, but alsothe opportunity costs in terms o lost earnings while at university (Connor et al, 2001).

They need the [EMA]to sustain themselves.It is not or going outand getting drunk, itreally is or the basics.’(FE practitioner, Nottingham)




There is also agreement in the literature that students rom lower socio-economic backgroundsare more likely than those rom afuent amilies to be deterred by the costs o HE (Connor etal 2001; Forsyth and Furlong, 2003;), as are mature students in contrast to younger students(Ross et al, 2002). This is pertinent or FE, which caters or a broader age range than school-maintained sixth- orms. In addition, several o these studies cite debt and the prospect o buildingup large debts, particularly student loan debt, as a deterrent to university entrance among quali edstudents rom low-socio-economic groups (Archer et al, 2003; Forsyth and Furlong, 2003). Rather thanrepresenting ignorance or lack o commitment, this aversion commonly re ects rst or second-hand experience o the potentially devastating consequences o debt, and the proportionalimpact o ees on a ar smaller amily resource (in comparison to middle class amilies).

LIMITING CHOICE

Financial expediency also in uences the decisions o students who have decided to attend highereducation. Studying at a local institution was an attractive option amongst the FE students thatparticipated in our research, as it enabled them to continue living at home and limit their outgoings.This is part o a broader trend o students – particularly those rom lower socio-economicbackgrounds - choosing to live at home and is strongly in uenced by debt aversion. A recent surveycarried out by Liverpool University showed that 78% o students who lived at home were doing soin order to save money (Liverpool University, 2009). The same study also showed that students wholived at home were more likely to come rom lower socio-economic backgrounds. Whilst living at

home is not negative in itsel , this research does suggest young people rom low-income groups aremaking decisions about which institutions to attend on the basis o cost rather than suitability.

‘The local kids can’t get into their local universities – Nottingham – not a chance. And yet theycan’t a ord to live away rom home, even more so with the new ee system that’s coming in’(FE practitioner, Nottingham)

It should be noted that students rom lower socio-economic backgrounds were also more likelyto live at home or other reasons. For instance, with no amily experience o higher education todraw on, moving away rom home elt more alienating.

‘Actually I was planning to go to [an HEI] near the house, it’s not ar rom there, like hal anhour rom the bus so I was thinking, you know, I don’t have to move to nowhere which is actuallyvery cheap. And you’re still in contact with your riends and amily.’ (FE student, Leicester)

A small number o FE practitioners worried that students were too easily in uenced by theearning potential o particular careers, as students are keen to secure ample salaries that had beenunavailable at home. Recent survey data supports this, showing that disadvantaged young peopleare strongly motivated by improving their earning potential (NUS, 2011). This means studentscould choose to pursue careers unsuitable or their interests or abilities, or could be discouraged

rom applying to higher education unless they are certain it will increase their earnings.

‘And i they are rom poorer backgrounds the thing about becoming a barrister, you know, youlook and you think that barrister there is earning one million pounds a year, I think I’ll havea bit o that because I’ve had nothing all my li e.’ (FE practitioner, Leicester)

Implications

A lack o nancial capital and limited nancial support rom government compromises theexperiences and achievements o students rom low-income groups in urther education anddisproportionately deters them rom costly progression routes such as higher education. Ourresearch identi ed the ollowing means o tackling nancial disadvantage:

• Financial support: students and FE practitioners that participated in our research wereunequivocal that the withdrawal o the EMA would have a negative impact on the mostdisadvantaged students. Money should not be a barrier to young people ul lling theirpotential, so with this in mind nancial support mechanisms must be provided orstudents rom lower socio-economic backgrounds.

• In ormation on nance: consistent, accurate and early in ormation about nancialsupport must be made available to disadvantaged students to help counter the negativeimpact o debt aversion. In ormation about any schemes to replace the EMA must alsobe made widely available at the earliest opportunity.

‘The local kids can’tget into their localuniversities – Nottingham – not achance. And yet theycan’t a ord to liveaway rom home,even more so with thenew ee system that’scoming in’(FE practitioner, Nottingham)




FE: INSTITUTIONAL LACK OF CAPITAL?

The FE sector has been branded ‘the Cinderella Sector’ due to its comparative under- unding andpoor status in comparison to other sectors such as higher education and – at least until recently

– school sixth orms. This reputational problem is well-established: Andrew Foster called it the‘disadvantaged and neglected middle child’ o the education system (Foster, 2005) and PhillipBlond recently re erred to the persistent ‘image problem’ that FE su ers amongst parents andemployers (2011). The lack o nancial and social capital in the sector has a negative impact onthe prospects o the students studying within it.

FE students, perhaps more than young people studying in higher education and schools, needsupport rom educational institutions in making decisions about their utures. Unable to rely onbroader social networks or draw on the cultural capital o parents, students rom lower socio-economic backgrounds look to FE colleges or ormal and in ormal support. However as thissection will detail, FE students and sta eel that colleges sometimes struggle to provide thissupport. This section highlights three areas in which institutions could improve in order to helpyoung people with progression: i) in ormation, advice and guidance (IAG) and work experience,ii) quali cations, and iii) employer engagement.

INFORMATION, ADVICE AND GUIDANCE

Our conversations with learners and their teachers rein orced how valuable in ormed andimpartial IAG can be or progression. IAG is crucial to the decision-making processes o young people and its e ects can be elt throughout their lives. This was underlined by the thengovernment when it devolved IAG services to local authorities in 2008, ormalising the need orlocal authorities to provide ‘the in ormation [young people] need to make well-in ormed andrealistic decisions about learning and career options ’ (DCSF, 2008) and again recently in theWol Report which describes the need or high-quality and honest careers advice in order tosupport young people to make decisions (Wol , 2011).

ACCURATE ADVICE

Despite its importance, the students who participated in our research had encountered di cultieswith careers advice in FE colleges. In FE, more even than schools, learners are looking orspeci c and detailed advice and in ormation. Alison Wol touches on this in her recent report onvocational education, emphasising that students need detailed data about entry quali cationsand destinations to help them understand what quali cations are needed to success ully enrol onparticular courses and pursue particular careers (Wol , 2011). The students we spoke to did not

eel that such detailed advice was always available, and observed that one-stop careers services incolleges can be too generic.

‘Really a big challenge all the time to make sure that there’s a good purpose to send a careersadvisor in to a curriculum area, and talk about a pathway or a route way, and I don’t think thatwe’ve got enough resources. I mean one o the things that I’ve asked the careers advisors to doat the moment, literally as we speak, is to be making contact with particular employers in theworkplace in Leicestershire and go and see them, go and talk to them, and nd out what is it,what is going on now.’ (FE practitioner, Leicester)

Sta said that instead o approaching careers services students would o ten look to theirsubject teachers or advice. FE sta thought this was problematic because they elt too distant

rom industry and the workplace to provide high-quality and accurate advice. The sta thatparticipated in our research had o ten been out o industry or long periods, and did not havetime to keep their knowledge and contacts current. Sta thought that links to employers couldhelp students receive much-needed advice and guidance (as well as work experience). Butsuch links are not su ciently utilised, partly because pressures on sta own time preclude thenetworking necessary to establish such links and partly because local employers o ten orge linkswith local higher education institutions instead o FE colleges.

REALISTIC ADVICEThe need or realistic advice eatured strongly in our conversations with practitioners. Sta saw it as their role to guide students onto appropriate and ul lling education and employmenttrajectories. But their ability to provide realistic advice is compromised in two ways.




Firstly, by the approach to IAG that Alison Wol has described as ‘well-meaning attempts topretend that everything is worth the same as everything else’ (Wol 2011). Meaning that there isnot always a culture o honesty about which courses and decisions are likely to help you becomea lawyer or an IT specialist, and which are not. This is a real problem or young people romlower socio-economic backgrounds who — as discussed — are not always able to all back onthe experiences o their parents to provide them with realistic guidance about which courses arewell-regarded and which are not.

Secondly, some FE practitioners said that students are not ully aware o the diversity o jobsavailable in di erent sectors. This leads them to develop aspirations that are neither determinedby their ability nor based on a comprehensive understanding o the types o jobs available.As discussed earlier in this report, FE learners do not nd it easy to access people who haveexperience o the careers or education they would like to pursue. As a result, their understandingo particular sectors is o ten restricted to only the most visible roles and jobs, or instancein law — a barrister; in television — an actor. FE learners who decide to pursue law, orbroadcasting consequently direct their energies into attaining the most desirable, competitiveand visible jobs in these disciplines as they are the only jobs they know o . O course, havinghigh aspirations should be encouraged. But practitioners were clear that ability and realismshould also guide progression. Sta said they wanted students to understand just how diversethe employment market is, and to realise that there are many routes into the arts, law and otherdisciplines i the most exclusive jobs are out o reach.

‘They’re seeing people on television with limited talent and it is aspirational or them, butit’s kind o broadening that horizon and seeing there’s a whole career in the arts that doesn’tnecessarily involve being on telly.’ (FE practitioner, London)

‘Okay, this is what it’s like, this is reality, this is how much you get’ and just somebody to beable to say — bring us back down a little bit and say — ‘this is real li e now’, and what areasthere is to go into rather than just ‘I’ll be a dance teacher or I’ll go and work or somebody’.There’s so many more opportunities in there that you just don’t get to know about.’(FE practitioner, Nottingham)

FE students need careers advice that does not constrain or dampen their ambitions, but rather

enhances their understanding o options that are available. Without this, sta said the FE sectorlets students down.

‘The oundation degree is a standalone quali cation; they don’t actually have to go on to Trent todo the ull LLB, so what we were trying to think is, you know, working on looking at other thingsthat they can do i they don’t want to go to university. Some o them really shouldn’t go, youknow, they might get in because o the oundation degree that they’ve managed to squeeze past.But they will ail once they get to university and I think that in a sense we have ailed our studentsby giving them... instead o saying ‘Oh well you know what, you could look at going down thispath’ we just went ‘Oh yeah that’s the natural progression’.’ (FE practitioner, Nottingham)

WORK EXPERIENCE

As discussed, afuent young people are o ten able to secure placements and experience thoughparents or other social networks. Young people rom low income amilies are less likely to havethis advantage, and are more reliant on FE colleges to provide these opportunities or them. Thesta we spoke to acknowledged how important their role in acilitating work experience is, butsaid there are di culties in delivering this.

Most colleges have ormal work experience programmes organised, administered and deliveredby in-house careers advisers. However, both sta and students said that these placements tendto be generic and can bear little relation to the quali cations and careers that learners areworking towards. This results in students relying on practitioners as their source or relevantopportunities. As with careers advice, sta said they nd it very di cult to maintain thecontacts necessary or more bespoke work placements. Busy in the classroom, they simply donot have the time to nurture pro essional networks. The di culty learners experience in gainingrelevant work experience can compromise their progression.

‘The industry changes so quickly that some contacts get out o date because we run progressionsairs as well and we built up contacts there and again you tend to maintain contacts when you

know people don’t you but it always needs to be re reshed in act.’ (FE practitioner, London)

‘...I think that in asense we have ailedour students by givingthem... instead o saying ‘Oh well youknow what, you couldlook at going downthis path’ we just went‘Oh yeah that’s thenatural progression’.(FE practitioner, Nottingham)




QUALIFICATIONS

Research participants suggested that the FE sector could support the progression o youngpeople by providing more exible quali cations. O students working towards the mostcommon FE quali cations (NVQs and BTECs), non-completion rates have stabilised around15% (Simm et al, 2007). But some sta were concerned that non-completion is more commonamongst vulnerable students and said changes to quali cations could better support theirprogression in FE and beyond. A great deal o robust and detailed research has already beenundertaken to explore the actors driving non-completion, including the National Learner

Satis action Survey (2011) and the Youth Cohort Study (2010). Our conversations with FE sta and students endorsed their ndings; that students are most likely to leave or reasons speci c tothe course (wrong choice or perceived poor teaching) or or external reasons (unable to combineit with amily or work commitments, or ill health).

Sta and students suggested thought that more young people would complete quali cationsi courses had greater exibility. As observed by one practitioner, the FE system is dominatedby long-term quali cations. Whilst this suits most learners, or a minority having exible orshorter, modular quali cations would suit their learning style. It would also provide valuableand realistic options or disadvantaged young people who have nancial or amily di cultieswhich make ull-time and longer-term study di cult. Courses that incorporate standalonequali cations i they are not completed could increase retention by giving learners a senseo achievement early on. Such courses could also support progression as they would providestudents with evidence o study, even i they have not completed a ull course.

As one practitioner asserted,

‘We need to develop the curriculum so we are giving people a sense o achievement really earlyon. Having a more modular curriculum so there is something they can take with them i theydo drop out. We need to give them more fexible quali cations that are achievable in a shorter space o time.’ (FE practitioner, Leicester)

Arguments or increasing exibility in the education system have been gaining currency underthe Coalition government, but have tended to ocus on higher education, e.g. mainstreamingtwo year degrees and making part-time study easier (Cable, 2011). These suggestions have been

unpopular amongst some high pro le educationalists who suggested this would devalue Britishgraduates in the international market. However this thinking could have more traction in the FEsector which is historically more open and exible. Such ideas certainly resonate with the 2020Public Services Hub (Kippin et al, 2011) which has said the sector should position itsel as alearning hub or the local community, into which people can dip in and out as they wish or need.

EMPLOYER ENGAGEMENT

The nal area in which FE colleges could have a positive institutional impact on the progressiono disadvantaged students is by improving employer engagement in the sector. By workingclosely with employers, the FE sector can ensure its provision is meeting the needs o localand national economies and making its students competitive. Employer engagement alsoextends the in uence o colleges outside o their buildings by giving teachers and assessorsthe opportunity to work directly with the local community. As the Foster Review o FE (D ES,2005), the National Employers Skills Survey (LSC, 2005), the FE White Paper, (D ES, 2006) andthe Leitch Review (HMT, 2006) have all suggested, the employer engagement agenda is vital orproviding urther education with a clearer mission: addressing the educational needs o localpeople and businesses whilst also addressing the wider economic and social challenge o up-skilling learners or what industry will require o them.

Research participants said FE could still do more in this area. Sta said that NVQ quali cationstended to trail behind what is required in the workplace, with provision sometimes ailingto anticipate what is attractive to industry or to provide a real taste o the types o projectslearners will encounter in the workplace. Ensuring that FE keeps pace with industry at a local,national and even international level is crucial to meeting wider economic challenges and

ensuring FE learners are competitive in the employment market.




Implications

In order to support the progression o learners rom lower socio-economic backgrounds,FE colleges need to prioritise the development o advice, employability skills and experienceamongst learners. This can be delivered in a number o ways: high-quality and accurateIAG, employer engagement, work experience and exible quali cations. Evidently, the FEsector alone cannot address the social inequalities that underpin di erent levels o socialand cultural capital in relation to high status learning and career routes, or indeed remedythe very real nancial barriers that preclude equality o opportunity. However, some o theconstraints experienced by disadvantaged students are possible to tackle, and doing so isimperative to support social mobility and con rm the value o the sector.

Our research identi ed a number o routes orward: • Better in ormation: accurate and high-quality IAG should be provided throughout the

FE system. With cuts to existing IAG provision including Connexions, this is morecrucial than ever. The government aims to launch an all-age careers service in 2012 andthis report recommends that this service is integrated with the FE sector and responsiveto the needs o its students.

• In-house work experience: the sector needs to nd innovative ways o providingrealistic and relevant work experience environments or students. In part this willrely on rejuvenating relationships with employers but colleges could also explorethe possibilities o providing some experience in-house. For instance, West LondonCollege provides its catering students with work experience in college-owned ca es tosupplement external work experience opportunities.

• Continued Pro essional Development (CPD) amongst FE sta : the FE sector needsto remain alert to developments in local and national economies both to ensureprovision is matched to employer needs, and to ensure that course content preparesstudents or what they will encounter in the workplace. Partly this will be achievedby developing stronger relationships with employers. But the Continued Pro essionalDevelopment (CPD) o FE sta is another route or making FE provision as relevant andcontemporary as possible. Colleges should explore means o keeping their sta ‘ resh’and abreast o industry standards. This could be achieved by sta spending away-days inindustry and/or having industry mentors or coaches.

• Employer boards: the importance o employers in shaping FE provision cannot beunderestimated. To ensure FE providers and employers are working together as closelyas possible, employers should be ormally invited to take part in course design andconsulted on provision where this is not already taking place.

‘New jobs we need to identi y and this is one o the issues really in the curriculum or howdo we keep up with new skills, you know, a simple working example: soon 25% o Europeancar sales will be hybrids. Well, who is teaching hybrid technology? It should be FE.’(FE practitioner, Leicester)

‘NVQs can be a little bit long in the tooth – employers accept them, but they do need updating’(FE practitioner, Nottingham)




6. M ENTORI NG SCHE M E FEASIB ILITY

As outlined in earlier sections o this report, one means o supporting the progression o low-income students is through nding innovative ways to share cultural and social capital. Webelieve the ability o civil society organisations such as the RSA to share their cultural andsocial capital is currently under-utilised. This section o the report explores one possible means

or activating the cultural and social capital o the RSA or the bene t o FE colleges.

An RSA literature review on the social class gap in educational achievement supported theneed or social and cultural capital trans er, and in particular identi ed the need or educationalinterventions that: a) ocus on vocational as well as academic quali cations and b) acilitate socialand cultural capital exchange (Perry and Francis, 2010). On the basis o this research, the RSAis designing a mentoring scheme that will be located in FE colleges. The scheme will provideRSA Fellows with the opportunity to share and exchange social and cultural capital with youngpeople rom low-income backgrounds. But be ore developing the scheme, we wanted to test theseideas, and the easibility o the proposed initiative, with students and teachers rom the FE sector.

The scheme is intended to bring together young people studying in Further Education collegeswith RSA Fellows who are experts in particular subject areas. In doing so, the project will equip

young people rom disadvantaged backgrounds with greater capital in negotiating school-to-work trajectories by accessing the experience, networks, advocacy and skills o RSA Fellows.The project will also provide RSA Fellows with an opportunity to use their valuable skills andexperience in the interests o a younger generation and develop a greater understanding o theFurther Education sector in general.

In keeping with the ndings o the RSA literature review on the social class gap, we wanted todirectly involve students in designing the mentoring initiative (see also Colley, 2003). On thisbasis, we asked FE students and sta to comment on our plans. First, we asked participantswhat the challenges are in education and employment progression, and whether a mentoringscheme could help meet some o these challenges. Second, assuming participants supported theinitiative, we sought their advice on the details o design including which subjects areas mentorsshould work on and how mentors should spend their time. Our main ndings are outlined below.

OVERALL REFLECTIONS ON FURTHERING OPPORTUNITY MENTORING SCHEMEAll the FE colleges that participated in our research were positive about the prospect o an RSAmentoring initiative located in the FE sector. As a sector that is in need o resources, sta welcomedany cost- ree support being o ered. Alongside the desire or general support, there are attributeso a mentoring scheme that both students and sta thought would suit the FE sector. These includedthe possibility o social and cultural capital trans er and the strengthening o FE college networks.

PRINCIPLES FOR A MENTORING SCHEM EThe ollowing mentoring principles have been ormulated on the basis o our research and willguide the design o our own initiative:

• Bring the workplace to the classroom: mentors should enhance students’ understandingo particular careers and how classroom learning is relevant to it. This could includementors working with groups or classes o students rom a relevant discipline, providingan overview o their own career journey and a portrait o their sector as it stands today.Mentors could also advise FE practitioners on the design o course content to ensure it isrelevant or industry and employers today.

• Spread social capital: mentors should use their social capital and networks to helpinstitutions, students and sta establish and rejuvenate education and employer networks.This could include helping FE colleges broker relationships with local employers andhelping students nd work experience opportunities.

• Work collectively: mentors should work with groups o students as well as individuals,providing them with independent advice and guidance.

• Build on shared experience: where practical, mentors should be rom similar backgroundsto the young people they are supporting to ensure there is mutual understanding and thatthey be an inspiration to young people by showing them what is possible.

The remainder o this section will identi y how these principles can be realised in practice.




WHICH SUBJECTS SHOULD A MENTORING SCHEM E TARGET?

Whilst the FE sector would happily receive support in all disciplines, both students and sta expressed a pre erence or mentoring initiatives to target vocational subjects. Many o the reasons

or this have been outlined in our broader analysis o the challenges acing young people rom lowersocio-economic backgrounds, including a lack o social and cultural capital and the relativelyweak links between FE colleges and employers. Students studying vocational subjects require workexperience, a broader understanding o the diversity o jobs available in vocational sectors andadvice about any urther or higher education choices that might be on their horizons.

There was consensus amongst FE sta that even within the vocational arena, there are speci c subjectsthat would disproportionately bene t rom the input o RSA Fellows. These were: art and design,IT, business, law, health and social care and per orming arts. Although these were not the only subjectareas suggested, they were the subjects that were most requently nominated. RSA Fellow supportwould be particularly use ul in these subject areas because some (IT, business and art and design) are‘ all-back’ subjects that are chosen by young people who have no rm path or their uture. As such,students o these subjects would bene t rom bespoke advice and guidance. Per orming arts and lawwere identi ed as subjects that young people with high aspirations choose, but o ten lack the social,cultural and institutional capital crucial to realising their ambitions in such competitive pro essions.

HOW SHOULD MENTORS USE THEI R TIME IN FE COLLEGES?

Understandably there were a very broad range o suggestions or how a mentoring initiativecould work in practice. It is worth noting that many research participants – both sta and students — suggested that any initiative should be college-speci c, and de ned by the needs o individualcolleges and RSA Fellows. In this scenario, the RSA would play only a brokering role in establishingcontact between Fellows and colleges. This would allow initiatives to be responsive to local needs.For instance, one college might bene t most rom an enhanced o er around careers advice, whereasanother would be most use ully supported in developing relationships with local employers.

This aside, the roles most requently suggested or Fellows were as ollows:• Master-classes and li e stories: RSA Fellows work with groups or classes o students rom

a relevant discipline, providing an overview o their career journey and a portrait o theirsector as it stands today.

• Curriculum design: RSA Fellows work with FE practitioners to advise on the design o coursecontent and projects to ensure they are relevant or industry and employers today. In this rolethey would act as mentors or FE sta rather than students.

• Network enhancement: RSA Fellows use their considerable social capital and networks to helpinstitutions, students and sta establish and rejuvenate education and employer networks.

• Group work: RSA Fellows provide more traditional mentoring, spending time with smallgroups o students, providing them with careers and education advice, helping themconsider and evaluate di erent career options and supporting the development o a deeperunderstanding o the employment opportunities available in relevant sectors.

These are not distinct options which must be chosen between. RSA Fellows could play a multitudeo roles within a college and combine di erent approaches depending on the inclination, need and

skills o those involved. These options merely represent the ideas o ered by colleges and students orhow best RSA Fellows could contribute to tackling some o the challenges aced by young people romlower socio-economic backgrounds.

WHO SHOULD THE FELLOWS BE?

There was some limited but interesting discussion amongst research participants about who thementors should be. By this, participants meant what ‘type’ o Fellow would be most suited toproviding a supportive role or students. Whilst research participants were clear that studentswould bene t rom the support o all RSA Fellows, a ew sta members and students emphasisedthe particular value o identi ying RSA Fellows who come rom a similar background to thestudents they would be working with. It was suggested that students would nd it easier to relateto and take seriously the advice o RSA Fellows rom lower socio-economic backgrounds. Bymeeting with someone rom a similar background who had gone on to distinguish themselves intheir eld, students might also bene t rom the sense o possibility that ollows.

‘I think or our students it would be really nice i the people rom the RSA who came rom poor backgrounds’ (FE practitioner, Nottingham)

‘The idea that itmight be particularlyinspirational to havesomebody rom, yeah,perhaps who has come

rom a disadvantagedor deprived back-ground themselves buthas gone on to achievewell in their chosensector, so I think thatis absolutely right’(FE practitioner, Leicester)




7. CONCLUSIO N: IMPLICATIONS FORPOLICY AND PRACTICE

Our research with FE students and sta has highlighted the numerous barriers aced by youngpeople, particularly young people rom lower socio-economic backgrounds, when consideringeducation and employment progression. The barriers can be roughly organised into three main

areas: barriers relating to cultural and social capital, barriers relating to economic capital andbarriers relating to FE colleges on an institutional level. Our ndings and their implications orpolicy and practice have been summarised throughout the report, this section merely draws outthe most pertinent ndings, recommendations or routes orward and areas in which the RSAwill pursue urther research.

As had been ound in previous education research, young people rom disadvantaged backgroundso ten lack the middle-class ‘habitus’ and other orms o social and cultural capital thatdominate higher education and elite career paths. This challenge eatured strongly in our ownconversations with young people and their teachers, who talked about their lack o role modelsand social networks. This disadvantage was rein orced a broader sense o alienation and uneaseabout replicating middle-class modes o behaviour that are bene cial and even necessary orcertain types o progression. We suggest a number o ways to limit the disadvantage this creates

or young people rom low-income backgrounds:

• Find innovative ways to trans er cultural and social capital to young people romdisadvantaged backgrounds. FE colleges must build relationships with organisations thathave high social and cultural capital. The ability o civil society organisations such as theRSA to share their cultural and social capital is currently not utilised. This is an area inwhich the RSA will be developing uture work.

• More work needs to be done on how the ‘capital’ o low-income amilies can be madevaluable in progression . At the moment it disadvantages young people rom lower socio-economic backgrounds and contributes to eelings o alienation.

Young people rom low-income backgrounds continue to be negatively a ected by their lacko nancial capital and were very concerned about the withdrawal o the EMA. During theirstudies in urther education, poverty meant some young people struggled to pay or transportto college, could not a ord educational trips and in extreme circumstances even went hungry,which a ected their ability to concentrate in class. Sta reiterated this, with practitioners romtwo colleges explaining they had had to organise two-day timetables or some subjects, sostudents did not have to pay transport costs throughout the week. As has been established inprevious research, nancial concerns directly a ect the progression choices o students, withresearch participants telling us they might reconsider higher education on the basis o its cost.We outline some broad routes orward:

• Consistent and accessible nancial support is necessary to ensure disadvantaged studentscan access the FE sector and success ully progress. The government should consider the

implications o this or EMA. It is also necessary to provide early and in-depth in ormationabout nancial support available or students in higher education.

Our research also suggested that FE students are at an institutional disadvantage when itcomes to progression because o careers advice and institutional networks, and di culties withinsu ciently exible quali cations. These issues had disproportionately negative consequences

or students rom lower socio-economic backgrounds, because they rely on the networks o their colleges or advice and opportunities in the absence o amily connections. They arealso more likely to require exible learning to accommodate work and amily commitments.Suggested routes orward include:

• Detailed careers advice is sometimes di cult to access or FE students. The all-age careers

service planned or launch in 2012 must providehigh-quality, realistic c areers advice

as perthe Wol Report and it must make provision or speci c careers advice or 16-24 year oldsthat can be accessed in FE colleges.

• Continue to expand the fexibility o FE institutions , allowing them to award shorter quali cationsand develop their role as a ‘community hub’ that re ects and responds to local needs.




• The FE sector needs to urther strengthen its networks and contacts . FE practitioners couldtake some responsibility or maintaining these networks and contacts i they are providedwith CPD opportunities that acilitate this. Building relationships with local employersneeds particular attention in order to ensure FE provision is sensitive to their needs. Thiscould be achieved by rejuvenating employer advisory boards that are subject-speci c.

Evidently, the FE sector alone cannot address the social inequalities that underpin di erentlevels o social, cultural and economic capital, or indeed remedy the very real structural barriers

that preclude equality o opportunity. However, some o the constraints that disadvantagedstudents experience are possible to tackle. By better aligning FE provision to economic needs,by providing new means o trans erring social capital and through the timely provision o in ormation and support on nancial hardship, young people rom low-income backgroundscan be better supported in education and eventual progression into the workplace. Far rombeing ‘second division’, the FE sector should urther develop its role in improving the prospectso disadvantaged students and tackling broader social injustices.



8. BI BLIO G RAPHY

Archer, L. and B. Francis (2007)

Understanding minority Ethnicachievement , London: Routledge.

Archer, L., M. Hutchings and A.Ross (eds.) (2003) Higher Educationand Social Class: Issues o exclusionand inclusion, London: RoutledgeFalmer

ATL (2011) 80% o education sta work with students who live inpoverty in the UK , ATL press release:11 April 2011

Blanden, J., P. Gregg and S. Machi.

(2005) Intergenerational Mobility inEurope and North America . London:London School o Economics

Bourdieu, P. (1986) The orms o capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.)Handbook o Theory and Research

or the Sociology o Education , NewYork: Greenwood, 241-258

Buddery, P., H. Kippin and B.Lucas (2011) The urther educationand skills sector in 2020: a socialproductivity approach, London: 2020Public Services Hub

Chowdry, H. and C. Emmerson(2010) An e cient maintenanceallowance?, London: IFS

Colley, H. (2003) Engagementmentoring or ‘disa ected’ youth:a new model o mentoring orsocial inclusion, British EducationalResearch Journal , 29: 521-42

Connor, H., S. Dawson, C. Tyers, J.Eccles, J. Regan and J. Aston (2001)Social Class and Higher education:Issues A ecting Decisions onParticipation by Lower Social ClassGroups. Research Report RR 267,London: Department or Educationand Employment

Crozier, G. (2000) Parents andschools: Partners or Protagonists? Stoke-on-Trent and USA, VA: StylusPublishing: Trentham Books

DCSF (2007) Quality Standards or Young People’s In ormation, Adviceand Guidance (IAG) , London: DCSF

DCSF (2008) The Impact o ParentalEngagement o Children’s Education ,London: DCSF

DFE (2010) Youth Cohort Study

and Longitudinal Study o YoungPeople in England: The activities andexperiences o 18 year olds 2009 ,London: D ES

Forsyth. A and A. Furlong (2003)Losing out? Socioeconomicdisadvantage and experience in

urther and higher education, PolicyPress/JRF, Bristol

Foster, A. (2005) Realising thePotential: A review o the role o

urther education colleges, London:DFES

Francis, B., J. Osgood, J. Dalgety andL. Archer. (2005) “Gender equalityin work experience placements

or young people” . OccupationalSegregation: Working Paper Series No. 27. Manchester: EqualOpportunities Commission

Hallgarten, J. (2000) Parents Exist,OK?!, London: ippr

Hatcher, R. & Le Gallais, T. A.(2008) The Work ExperiencePlacements o secondary school

students: widening horizons or reproducing social inequality?

Horvat, Erin McNamara, ElliotWeininger & Annette Lareau(2003) From Social Ties to SocialCapital: Class Di erences in theRelation Between School and ParentNetworks. American EducationalResearch Journal 40:2

Jones, O. (2011) Chavs: TheDemonization o the Working Class .London: Verso

Lawton, K. and D. Potter (2010) WhyInterns Need a Fair Wage , London:ippr

Leitch (2006) Prosperity or all in theGlobal Economy: World Class Skills ,London: D ES

LSC (2007) The Status andReputation o the Further EducationSystem, Coventry: Learning andSkills Council

LSC (2005) National Employer SkillsSurvey 2005: Key Findings , Coventry:LSC

Lucey, H. & Reay, D. (2002 ) A

market in waste: psychic andstructural dimensions o school-choice policy in the UK andchildren’s narratives on ‘demonised’schools, Discourse , 23: 23-40

Lupton, R., N. Heath and E. Salter(2009) Education: New Labour’s toppriority, in Hills, J., Se ton, T., andStewart, K. (eds) Towards a moreequal society? Poverty, inequalityand policy since 1997, Bristol: PolicyPress

NAO (2008) Widening participation

in higher education, London: NAO

National Audit O ce (2010)Department or Education: TheAcademies Programme , London: TheStationery O ce

The National Evaluation o SureStart (NESS) Research Team(including Leyland A.H.) The impacto Sure Start Local Programmeson ve year olds and their amilies, London: Department o Families andEducation, 2010

OECD (2007) PISA 2006: Sciencecompetencies or tomorrow’s worldexecutive summary, www.pisa.oecd.org (accessed 14th October, 2010)

Patiniotis, J. and C. Holdsworth(2009) The choices and experienceo HE students living in theparental home , Liverpool: LiverpoolUniversity

Perry, E. and B. Francis (2011) TheSocial Class Gap For EducationalAttainment: a review o theliterature , London: RSAReay, D. (2001) “Finding orlosing yoursel ?’: working-classrelationships to education’, Journalo Education Policy 16(4): 333-346

Reay, D. (1998) Class Work , London:UCL Press

Reay, D. & Ball, S. (1998) Makingtheir minds up: amily dynamics o school choice, British EducationalResearch Journal , 24:431-48

Reay, D., Davies, J, David M. &Ball, S. (2001) Choices o degree orDegrees o choice? Class, ‘race’ andthe higher education choice process,Sociology , 35, 855-74

Reay, D. & Lucey, H. (2003) The

limits o choice: children and innercity schooling, Sociology , 37, 121-43

Ross, A., L. Archer, D. Thomson,M. Hutchings, R. Gilchrist, C. Johand Akantziliou (2002) PotentialMature Student Recruitment in HE,D ES Research Report RR 385, D ES,Nottingham

Savage, M. (2007) Changing SocialClass Identities in Post-War Britain:Perspectives rom Mass-Observation,Sociological Research Online , 12(3) 6

Sayer, A. (2005) The MoralSigni cance o Class, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press

Simm, C., R. Page and L. Miller(2007) Reasons or Early Leaving

rom FE and Work-Based LearningCourses , London: Institute o Education

Sodha, S. and J. Margo (2010) “ageneration o disengaged childrenis waiting in the wings...”, London:DEMOS

Tough, S. and R. Brooks (2007)School Admissions: Fair choice or parents and pupils , London: ippr

Tu, Trinh and Lambert, Clai re andTaylor, Billie Lever and Lister, Claireand Klein, Angela, Department

or Business, Innovation and Skil ls(BIS), corp creator. (2011) NationalLearner Satis action Survey: Pre-employment Training. [Document

rom Web]

Walkerdine, V., Lucey, H. & Melody, J. (2001) Growing Up Girl , London:Macmillan

Wol , A. (2011) Review o vocationaleducation: The Wol Report,London: Department or Education

http://www.educationandemployers.org/media/8424/gender%20equality%20in%20work%20experience%20placements%20-%20lmu.pdf



http://www.pisa.oecd.org/







rsa education - not enough capital

Documents