The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER SIX: THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

6.1 This chapter focuses on SfW students - how they were selected for involvement in courses, what their characteristics were, their views of the courses, as well as on retention and impact of the courses. It draws on all the main data sources of the NFER evaluation: comparing the views of schools and colleges interviewed at the start and the end of the pilot and those getting involved in only the second year of the pilot; presenting the views of 41 students interviewed as part of the case-study visits, and data collected by SQA⁸.

STUDENT SELECTION

6.2 There was strong evidence from the final survey that schools and providers had made considerable progress in developing a more robust selection process of students in the second year of the pilot. In particular, there was evidence that many partnerships had developed a more rigorous approach and that more schools were involving colleges in selecting and providing pre-course guidance to students. Most schools and colleges indicated that this had resulted in more suitable students being selected in the second year of the pilot leading to less drop-out and higher predicted completion rates.

6.3 Table 4 provides an overview of the selection approaches adopted by the 29 schools surveyed as part of the evaluation:

Table 4 Overview of selection approaches used by 29 survey schools

6.4 As in the first year of the pilot, the most common selection approach for SfW courses was to offer it to students as a 'free option choice' and then for either schools, colleges, local authorities or a combination of these to select students from all those who put their names

forward. Overall, 17 of the 29 schools surveyed had adopted this approach. Of these, nine selected students themselves, usually involving Guidance staff, parents, and discussion or interviews with the students; eight schools allowed the college to select the students best suited for the courses.

6.5 Only five schools had been able or chosen to adopt a completely free option choice, without any subsequent selection. Two of these were delivering the course on their own; two indicated that they were able to do this only because "so few students put themselves forward, so we didn't really need to select"; and only one school had adopted this approach as a matter of principle. This school was using the in-school college delivery model (see paragraph 3.13 above) and strongly argued against the use of selection. The depute headteacher in the school explained their reasons for opposing this in the following way:

"Skills for Work is just another option on the option sheet. We give colleges as much input to the selection of pupils who choose subjects as we give to principal teachers in charge of the department. They don't get to pick and choose who does and does not do their subject. It's the same with SfW courses."

6.6 It is worth noting that some other schools wanted to adopt such an approach, but were not able to do so because of limited college places available to them. As one interviewee pointed out: "The ethos of the course means it should be offered to everyone, but we are restricted logistically, so there needs to be some".

6.7 Seven of the 29 schools contacted said that they had used a targeted approach to selecting students, offering it only to a subset of their students. This was either done by offering it as a free choice to particular types of students - often those in lower ability sets - or via Guidance staff targeting individual students "who they think will benefit most from this provision" or "based on them showing a clear interest in a linked career". Five of these seven schools allowed colleges to select course participants from this targeted group of students.

6.8 In total, 13 schools had involved a college or provider in selecting students and were generally very positive about the process. Two of these had changed their selection process to involve a college in the second year of the pilot. One school explained what they saw as the advantages of adopting such an approach:

"We find that very successful because the choice is made by the local authority and college and not by the school, so the children didn't feel it was because their teacher wanted them there or that the teacher had more influence with someone else. It was totally done out of their control, so the students felt they had really achieved something by being selected to go to college, so there was a kind of kudos to it."

6.9 Of the remaining 16 schools, two did not work with an external provider, in two the local authority took responsibility for selection, while the remaining schools did not involve any external agencies. Of these 12 schools, three said that they would have liked to have had some college involvement but had not done so for logistical reasons or because of time-constraints. The remaining nine schools said that they were content with the current arrangements and, in most cases, that the college trusted them to select the most appropriate students.

6.10 Overall, more than half of the schools contacted (15) at the end of the second year of the pilot were able to document ways in which the selection process had changed in the second year of the pilot. Six schools said that they had made the process more rigorous, including requiring students to complete application forms or involving guidance staff, other teachers, college or local authority staff in the process. As one interviewee reported:

"We have got a lot better at selection. Now students have to fill in an application form, and each one of them will talk to Guidance staff about why they want to do the course and how it fits in with their future careers. And then the college comes in and does an interview with them, so that way we know that really those most suited will get in and we won't have so many dropping out saying 'It wasn't for me'."

6.11 In Year 2 of the pilot, almost all the schools contacted said that parents and guidance staff had been consulted or actively involved in the selection process - this contrasted with Year 1 of the pilot where this happened far less.

6.12 Nine schools said that they had changed the selection criteria or who the courses were offered to in the second year of the pilot. Of these, five schools indicated that they had moved away from targeting, or offering the courses mainly to, low ability and/or disengaged students. In the words of one interviewee:

"When it first started it was really aimed at youngsters who weren't doing very well in school. That's changed now and we're finding it's a lot more successful now."

6.13 Three of the schools reported that they had moved away from a targeted approach to offering the course as a free option choice to all pupils. A depute described how they had changed their selection process over the two years of the pilot:

"The first year was targeted selection and we decided which area we thought there would be demand for. We then asked heads of departments which pupils they thought would be committed to such-and-such a course. Pupils then went through an interview at college. In the second year, pupils chose themselves. We offered all the courses to them and it turned out that most uptake was in hairdressing. So we decided to run with that. So in the second year it was more pupils seeing the range of subjects first of all rather than us deciding where the demand might have been. So they chose themselves."

6.14 In contrast, two schools said that they had moved the opposite way from an open-choice approach to offering it only to a targeted part of the school population - in both cases, interviewees explained that they had chosen to offer it to lower ability sets as they did not want the SfW courses to "affect students' achievement at Standard Grade".

6.15 The survey of Year 2 partnerships (who only got involved in the second year of the pilot) did not reveal any major differences in the selection procedures adopted, although there was some evidence of less college involvement and a move towards involving them more in the following year - which reflects the trend in the Year 1 partnerships. In fact, as pointed out in Chapter 5 (paragraph 5.33), very few of the delivery centres who only got involved in the second year of the pilot said that they had drawn on the experiences of those involved in the first year of the pilot. Instead, they had adopted the selection processes that they felt most suited their own circumstances and were learning their own lessons from it.

6.16 Interviews with providers as part of the final survey showed a similar trend towards more involvement in the selection process as detected in schools. Overall, ten of the 16 providers working in partnership with schools reported that they had been involved in selecting students for the courses. Two of these had not done so in the first year of the pilot. In one of these, students were previously selected by the schools and the local authority. However, "the real change was that schools recognised and the [local authority] recognised that the college would have an informed and useful part in the selection process". The interviewee felt that this had resulted in more suitable and more motivated students joining the courses in the second year of the pilot.

6.17 Several of the providers also said that they had got a lot more involved in providing pre-course guidance to students. This took various forms, including providing talks at options or parents' evenings, sending out course documentations or DVDs, or via college taster days. A Schools Coordinating Liaison Officer in one college described the systematic approach adopted for pre-course guidance and selection for the second year of the pilot:

"I personally go out to schools. We talk to parents at parents' evenings. I sometimes address whole S3 year groups - I tell them what courses the college has on offer (…). We deliver a letter to schools and pupils will apply to come on a course. (…) We then get back application forms. We process these. We then give those forms to the different college departments involved. They go through them because there are obviously comments from teachers about their educational progress on the form. They will go through a formal interview with me and a member of college staff in that sector."

6.18 Six of the 16 providers working in partnership with schools said that they had not been involved in selecting students so far. However, three of them said they would be next year and the other three were striving for greater involvement. It is also worth noting that even some of those already involved in selecting students expressed the desire for even greater involvement in pre-selection guidance or selection. In particular, three colleges said that they would like to offer their courses to a broader selection of students in schools or even to the whole S2 group (before selecting their S3 options). As one interviewee commented:

"Presentations don't always work because for various reasons you may only be talking to a small number of pre-picked S2s - it should be to the whole cohort, that's what we want access to, and we're working on it to change that."

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

6.19 The changes in the selection processes adopted by both schools and providers can be seen as having had an impact on the characteristics of students selected in Year 2 of the pilot. Overall, there was a fairly strong consensus that this had resulted in more suitable candidates starting on courses, which in turn led to fewer problems and lower drop-out rates. On this note, there was virtually no evidence that SfW courses were seen by schools just for disengaged or problem students - quite the contrary, schools indicated that they generally selected students with good behaviour and attendance records and, for some courses, the necessary academic ability. As many interviewees explained, they were aware that the courses required students to be engaged for two years. Also, they did not want to damage their good, and improving, relationships with providers.

6.20 Evidence from interviews with schools and providers showed that, in most cases, this had resulted in more suitable students being selected for courses. In the words of a school coordinator: "The second cohort was more interested and more focussed than the first cohort - that was because there was a selection process with the second cohort". Interviewees reported that the second cohort of students tended to have better levels of pre-course attendance and behaviour, and be less likely to be disengaged from education (this does not mean that the second cohort of student did not include any students with behavioural or attendance issues). As one teacher explained:

"We've made the assumption that if they don't attend school on a regular basis, they are not likely to be attending college on a regular basis. That was borne out by our experience in Year 1".

6.21 However, a minority of schools and providers voiced some concerns about the impact of a more rigorous selection procedure, involving college staff, on those students who were thereby excluded from such courses. A depute headteacher in a school expressed this concern in the following way:

"The kids that are quite disaffected come across that way in interview and therefore don't get a place. I would argue that these kids are probably best suited to those types of courses and maybe get more out of them. I know that's not generally the feeling here but it's very much the feeling across the local authority; that the kids who you really want to go to college don't get the places because they don't come over well in interview. They would benefit best from going."

6.22 The actual characteristics of students involved in courses was said to differ depending on the courses on offer. Thus, SfW courses at Intermediate 2 were more likely to involve higher ability students at 'general or credit level', while Access 3 and Intermediate 1 courses, and Construction Crafts and Hairdressing courses, usually, but not exclusively, involved lower ability students.

6.23 As regards gender, there was very little evidence of any reverse in the gender bias identified in the first survey with regard to courses such as Construction Crafts, Early Education and Childcare and, now, Hairdressing. Only one college contacted as part of the final survey reported that they had actively tried to address the gender unbalance on such courses by offering a Construction Crafts course for girls only. However, as the college manager commented:

"We've offered this year Construction for girls only and we've got just one person applying. In our full-time apprenticeship courses the best students we have in Construction are girls - they walk away with all the prizes. So we were serious about offering it for Skills for Work but the take-up is disappointing. The schools objected to us suggesting that we offer it only to girls."

6.24 In contrast, an interviewee in another college explained their reasons for not introducing any such attempts at reducing the gender bias:

"Stereotypes in the age groups mean we don't get much of a gender mix from the applicants - and given the oversubscribed nature of applicants for places, it would be very difficult to deny very suitable boys from a place just to try and include a girl, say for a Construction course, although it would be nice to see."

6.25 Interviewees in only three of the 20 delivery centres said that the second cohort of students (starting in the second year of the pilot) was less suited to the SfW courses than the first cohort (joining at the start of the pilot). These were all providers which expanded their partnerships in Year 2 of the pilot from one to more schools.

6.26 Analysis of the survey of Year 2 partnerships again showed a similar trend as revealed in the final survey - several schools, but by no means all of them, had started by selecting more lower ability and disengaged students for SfW courses, but had realised that they needed to change their selection procedures for the following year (mainly to reduce drop-out and/or problems with the behaviour of students in college or travelling to college). Thus, five of the 14 schools contacted said that most of the students selected tended to be in this category in the first year of offering SfW courses. In one partnership, the college had not been involved in selection and schools had selected students who were "deemed not to be academic" and who had some "serious behaviour issues, because it was thought that this would be more suitable for them". However, this had led to a drop-out rate of 50 per cent on a Construction course after 12 of the 24 students were excluded due to serious behavioural issues. College staff said that they had decided to "tighten up the selection process" in the following year by drawing up more explicit selection criteria and being directly involved in interviewing students.

6.27 Almost all of the Year 2 survey partnerships contacted also documented a similar gender bias for most of the courses as detected in the final survey (see paragraph 6.23). One school, however, was planning to address this bias. In the first year, only one girl had been involved in the Construction Craft course being delivered in the school. The teacher delivering the course said that he "would like to include more (…) by giving all the year group taster sessions". He hoped that this might attract more girls to choose to do a SfW course. Another school documented that several girls had put themselves forward for a Construction Crafts course being run by a college, but that none of them had been selected.

VIEWS ON THE COURSES

6.28 Almost all the candidates interviewed as part of the case-study visits said that they really enjoyed the courses they were doing. ⁹ Aspects appreciated by many of the 41 respondents interviewed included:

• Particular activities, such as bricklaying or going out on visits
• Learning new things of interest to them
• Visits to or from employers
• Meeting pupils from other schools and making new friends
• The college environment.

6.29 When asked what students liked best about their courses, many interviewees identified specific activities or events as being particularly enjoyable. One girl said she had

liked: "the virtual babies that we got to take home - that was really good even though they kept you up all night". One student, who described his experience of school generally as 'boring' and said that he struggled at Maths and English, described the Construction Crafts course he was undertaking as "inspiring". He reported that:

"I liked the bricklaying best. You felt dead good when you had built your first wall. It was quite hard to do and it looked really good so I was really pleased with myself when I had done that."

6.30 A girl, also on a Construction Crafts course, similarly highlighted the enjoyment of "making things that are useful, like now we are making a bench".

6.31 Many interviewees, especially those on the Financial Services and Early Education and Childcare courses, said that they particularly liked learning new things of interest to them and which they thought might benefit them in the future. As one respondent explained:

"I've liked learning new things - like the child development which I know really well now. Also we have done stuff on play which is really helpful. If I get a job in a nursery then I will be able to take on what I have been told."

6.32 Others emphasised the practical nature of the courses and how they were learning useful skills for the future. A boy completing a Construction Crafts course commented:

"I think it is much more useful than other courses [done in school]. You can actually get prepared for working and it is first hand - they are actually teaching things you can use."

6.33 Very few deliverers within the six case-study partnerships had so far developed strong links with employers. The importance of such links was highlighted by the positive remarks made by those students who had either visited employers or had benefited from employer talks or visits. An interviewee, who had recently started on a Hairdressing course, described the benefits of a visit by a local salon owner in the following way:

"A lady who owns a salon came in recently and we had to ask her questions and write down the answers. It was really useful - she told us things even our teacher didn't know, that only a real person that owns a salon knows."

6.34 Students on Early Education and Childcare and Financial Services courses, in particular, were very appreciative of the way visits to nurseries helped them to "put theory into practice", as one respondent explained:

"I really like them. The first couple of visits were mainly observing but after them we were told to mix with the children and ask them questions to test their language skills and to see how they interact with each other. When you talk about things in the classroom it is hard sometimes to imagine, but when you actually go in to the nurseries you can see it happening."

6.35 Several interviewees attending college courses also said that they had liked the social side of meeting pupils from other schools and making friends with them. One interviewee, for example, said that: "There are about 20 in my class and they come from different schools and I have made friends with everyone".

6.36 Even though several students said that they really appreciated the college environment, there was no obvious indication that students attending college were more positive about their experiences than those doing their courses in their own schools. Analysis of the data gathered from the discussions with the 41 students involved in the case-studies suggests that what was more important to them was how rather than where they were taught. As one student being taught by college lecturers in his own school, for example, pointed out: "Sometimes you forget you are actually at school. It feels like you are somewhere else".

6.37 Almost all candidates expressed positive views on the qualities of the lecturers teaching the courses. Students particularly appreciated lecturers with direct experience of working in the vocational area, who could give them an insight into "the reality of working". As one Construction Crafts student explained:

"I think learning how you would work in the proper site and not as a student but as a work man and learning it from teachers who have worked there themselves has been good. They've done it by making it fun but also helping us by showing a lot of patience towards us - they are always helping us to get faster and more accurate at what we do."

6.38 Students often said that they were treated differently - "more like an adult" was the phrase used again and again. There seemed to be a different dynamic to the staff-learner relationship which was not dependant on the teaching environment, as it was also present when courses were delivered in schools. Students seemed to view the relationship that they had with their lecturers as more of an adult relationship - they had respect for their lecturer and in turn felt more respected by them. A Financial Services student, for example, commended her lecturer: "She's great - because she treats us like adults, we behave like adults". Another student characterised this more positive relationship in the following way:

"She is not like a normal teacher she is almost more like a friend. She does have deadlines and everything but she is not too hard on us. She treats us like young adults because that is who she works with normally."

6.39 Slightly more than half of those interviewed (21) said that there was nothing about the courses that they were doing that they did not like and could not think of any way of improving them. Critical comments related most frequently to doing too much, or simply doing any, writing, as one student explained: "I'm not a fan of writing - I get bored and so I end up not doing it". While most Construction Crafts students commended the practical nature of their course, those on the Early Education and Child course quite often stated that they "thought it would be more practical than what it is".HMIe identified similar issues with regard to these courses in the first year of the pilot, but noted that " SQA and SFEU addressed this issue for the second year of the pilot by modifying assessment arrangements and teaching materials to deliver an increased practical component" ( HMIE, 2007, p.19).

6.40 Several interviewees identified particular activities or parts of the course that they had not enjoyed or not enjoyed as much as the rest of the course. One Construction Craft student, for example, said that he "didn't really enjoy the plumbing. It was quite hard and I couldn't really do it. It ended up being a bit boring - it isn't really my thing".

6.41 Other critical comments made by just a few respondents related to the behaviour of others on the course: "when we first went and everyone was noisy and we hardly got anything done. They were just telling us to be quiet and taking minutes off our break"; two students complained about "finishing later than you do at school because it means I have to try and get transport from here back to my house" and one Financial Service student was dissatisfied with the content of the course:

"I'm not sure. There is quite a lot about banking and it is too much for me. I'm not really interested in that so maybe some more normal things - different aspects, not just banking."

6.42 Just under half of the students interviewed missed other lessons when doing their SfW courses. However, very few of those we spoke to identified this as a major issue. The extent to which this was seen as an issue depended on what subjects they were missing and the pupils' attitude towards school and their expectations of doing well at school. A student doing a Hairdressing course, for example, pointed out that she did not mind missing subjects as long as they were not Standard Grade subjects:

"It was good because I knew I'd only be missing PE and Modern Studies so it wasn't really important - it might have been different if I'd be[en] missing some Standard Grade subjects."

6.43 Only five students identified missing timetabled lessons as something that bothered them. One interviewee said that they "were originally told we'd miss some of our easier subjects but they've not managed it with the timetable they've got, so that's not been so good". Another boy pointed out that he was concerned about the effect missing a Chemistry lesson each week would have on his exam results:

"I've got quite high hopes in Chemistry and it's quite hard doing it without having the teacher explaining it -- she does offer help at lunch-time and she goes over it with you at her base."

STUDENT RETENTION AND COURSE COMPLETION

6.44 Levels of student drop-out varied across the 29 schools contacted as part of the final survey. While very few or no students left the SfW courses in 20 schools, in nine retention levels were below 80 per cent over the two years (for those students starting in Year 1 of the pilot). However, this included some schools with very small numbers of students - in one case, for example, one out of three students had dropped out. It also included two delivery centres offering the course to S5s only - this included many, so called, Christmas leavers, who left school to start working as soon as they had completed their compulsory education.

6.45 There appeared to be many different and often personal reasons for individuals dropping out of courses. In some cases, students were said to have left the school altogether or were suffering from severe personal problems which affected all parts of their schooling. In other cases, candidates had been excluded from courses due to behavioural issues or attendance problems. Interviewees in three schools said that some students had left courses because they were missing other subjects and were afraid of "the impact this would have on their Standard Grade results". It is worth noting, that six of the nine schools with higher drop-out rates had not replaced a Standard Grade with a SfW course but were expecting students to miss lessons and catch up in their own time.

6.46 Interviewees in schools were asked whether the college environment or different teaching styles of college lecturers had been an issue or contributing factor for any students dropping out of courses. Even though several respondents agreed that this had been an issue for some students, very few saw this as the main reason for students not completing their courses. Furthermore, many emphasised that colleges had been very responsive to comments by schools on this issue and had changed their approaches over the two years of the pilot. In response to the question of whether the teaching style of lecturers had been an issue for students, one depute, for example, replied:

"Yes, a little. Not only the different atmosphere but in particular the pace and level the course was pitched at. But as soon as that awareness was raised it was addressed. College staff turned to the school for some advice in terms of the level at which some of the stuff should be presented. The tutor delivering the course came into school and met with us and discussed the issues. I've no criticism of the college personnel - they realised they needed some advice and they were prepared to take it."

6.47 Interviewees in three schools also said that there had been fewer students dropping out of courses in the second year of the pilot. This was linked to various factors, including better selection and pre-course advice and guidance. This was reflected in interviews with college and provider staff. Overall, seven of the 20 delivery centres said that student drop out had been lower in the second year of the pilot. One college, which had improved its retention rate from 70 per cent in Year 1 to 90 per cent in Year 2 put this down to the following factors:

• Improved communication between the college and schools
• Improved information to students about the courses to allow more informed choices
• Staff confidence in delivering the course and better overall management of the SfW programme.

6.48 Many of the schools who had had students dropping out of a SfW course said that integrating them back into the normal school timetable had been problematic. It was more likely to be difficult where students left the course later on in the year and in those schools where the SfW course replaced a Standard Grade subject. It was less of an issue in those schools where students missed other lessons to attend college or where students were on a reduced curriculum. A teacher in a school which required students choosing a SfW course to replace a Standard Grade subject explained the difficulties of reintegrating drop-outs into the timetable:

"It doesn't help when they come back to school after six months or whatever where they have no timetabled classes and we have to provide some sort of timetable for them. If a kid starts at college in August and really doesn't enjoy it, then they probably have until October in S3 to organise coming out and getting into other subjects. But once you get past Christmas in S3 it's really difficult to relocate them into something meaningful when they come back into school."

6.49 Drop-out levels seemed to be quite similar in the Year 2 partnerships contacted. In particular, retention rates were lower in four of the 14 schools, linked to similar reasons as given by those interviewed as part of the final survey. There was again some evidence of higher drop out rates in schools which had not replaced a Standard Grade with a SfW course and were expecting students to miss lessons and catch up in their own time.

6.50 As regards course completion, at the time of the interviews carried out as part of the final survey, 15 of the 20 delivery centres expected all or almost all of those candidates still involved to complete their courses on time. Those expecting lower completion rates said that this was mainly due to non-attendance issues, the difficulty of the course, or students taking time out to prepare for Standard Grade exams. Most providers, even those who expected 100 per cent to complete, were able to suggest strategies for dealing with non-completion. This included informing schools early on that students on study leave still needed to come to college and arranging an opportunity for S4 students to attend college after their exams. As one college manager said: "once the exams and everything are over at school, we will arrange to bring them in for a week, even 2 weeks on a block basis to mop up any outstanding things".

PASS RATES

6.51 Analysis of SQA data showed that overall 85.6 per cent of the SfW candidates who had been entered to complete their courses in July 2007 had achieved a full SfW qualification. ¹⁰ As can be seen from Table 5, pass rates varied for the different courses - with pass rates being over 80 per cent for most courses and the highest rates being recorded for Financial Services (Intermediate 2) and Hairdressing (Intermediate 1). Pass rates were lowest for Construction Crafts (Intermediate 1 and 2) and Sports and Recreation (Intermediate 2). However, for some of these courses only very few young people were expected to complete in July 2007 and the overall pass rates were affected by very few individuals not passing these courses. It is possible that some of these may, for example, have been incorrectly entered for completion in July 2007 and this may have adversely affected the overall pass rate for these courses. The SQA data also showed that more than four-fifths (85.4 per cent) of those 211 candidates who completed the course without achieving a full award had achieved at least one unit or more (which they could carry forward to gain a full award in the future).

Table 5 SfW candidate pass rates for pilot courses (candidates expected to complete in July 2007)

6.52 Analysis by gender showed that girls were more likely to pass their courses than boys - with 88.2 per cent of the former having passed their courses compared to 82.7 per cent of the latter.

STUDENT IMPACT AND ACHIEVEMENT

6.53 As part of the final survey, all interviewees in schools and colleges were asked a series of closed questions on what impact the SfW course had had on students. Their responses are presented in Table 6 below.

Table 6 The impact of SfW courses on students - perceptions of college, providers and school staff

*This question was not answered by six schools with no links with a college.

6.54 Table 6 shows that interviewees in both schools and colleges were particularly positive about the impact of the courses on students' vocational skills and knowledge. Thus, 44 respondents agreed - and 23 strongly - that the course had had an impact on students' specific vocational skills and knowledge. A slightly lower, but still high, proportion of respondents detected a similar impact on students' employability skills and their ability to work with, and relate to, adults.

6.55 In response to an open question on the impact of the course on students' skills and knowledge relevant to employment, many respondents commented on the way the courses had significantly improved students' employability skills. One interviewee in a college said that:

"Their communication has improved, their social skills have improved, their willingness to tidy up, to be aware of health and safety issues has also improved - because of the constant employability skills approach."

6.56 Similarly, a teacher in a school said that travelling to college itself had taught the students a valuable lesson:

"Things like turning up for a bus or taxi on time. It leads to the idea that work is a much more formal thing. They're well aware that if they don't get that bus or that taxi then they don't get the course."

6.57 Several interviewees also commented on the way the SfW course and, in particular, the college environment had helped students to mature and to develop more positive relationships with adults. As one depute in a school observed:

"It also helps maturity, it helps relationships with teachers. I think kids become more mature, they get more responsibility at college than at school - they're on first-name terms with lecturers. It's a lot less formal, the situation is looser."

6.58 These views were reflected in students' own comments, interviewed as part of the case-studies in six partnerships. Of the 41 interviewees, about three-quarters (31) said that the course had helped them develop useful skills or knowledge related to the vocational field. A girl on an Early Education and Childcare course, for example, thought that both the lectures and the practical experience of visiting nurseries had helped her

"Become more aware of what is going on with younger people - like what they are thinking and everything. I think I know what they need when they are crying and stuff like that."

A student on the Financial Service course said that as a result of the course, he now knew "more about the cards like debit cards and credit cards and I understand payslips and I know how easy it is to get into debt".

6.59 Some students also reported that the courses had helped them become more aware of the world of work and its requirements. These tended to be those who had been on workplace visits (most often Early Education and Childcare courses) and those on courses which had integrated the employability skills element into their course delivery most successfully (most often Construction Crafts courses). One respondent, for example, explained:

"My mind has changed about how it would be out working - it's helped to know how to get the job done, working out a schedule and then getting it done. I've learnt to run on time and to get myself organised before and make sure you keep your work tidy and safe as well."

6.60 Table 6 also shows that almost all interviewees in schools and colleges agreed with the statement that the course had helped students to make decisions about their post-school transitions. In response to an open question, many respondents emphasised the way the courses had enabled students to make more informed decisions. While in some cases it was said to have confirmed their choices, in others it was said to have challenged them, as one college lecturer explained:

"It's made them more aware of what they want to do or even don't want to do. So someone might end up saying: 'I know why I'm definitely not going to be a plumber and I don't want to be a plumber - but that's good because I'm better informed and I'm not making a bad choice'."

6.61 Similarly, an interviewee in a school said that the courses had not only helped some students to move on in that particular vocational field, but had helped others to make more informed choices:

"It's certainly given them a good grounding and understanding of the particular industry they've picked. It allows them to make probably better choices at the end of fourth year about what they want to do. A number of youngsters have gone on to take up the line of work they did in the vocational course through college courses. So that's a benefit to them."

6.62 Interviews with students conducted as part of the case-studies identified a similar impact of the courses. Thus, more than half of those interviewed said that doing the course had helped clarify their career objectives. This included:

• Confirming their choices: "I knew I wanted to work in childcare but it made me realise that is definitely what I want to do"
• Disconfirming their choices : "I thought I was definitely going to be a childcare assistant or a nursery teacher but it hasn't been what I thought it would be and I want to try beauty now"
• Refining their choices: "I used to really want to be a joiner but now I have got to do different things as part of the course and it has opened up a wider variety of different things. I could go into a different area if I want to"
• Raising their awareness of alternative options: "It's just helped me to see there are a lot more jobs out there and to think a little bit more about what would suit me".

6.63 Students were also asked whether they thought that the course had made them more likely to find work in the future, and almost three-quarters said that they thought it had. Interviewees gave different reasons on how they thought it had done so, including:

• Achieving a relevant qualification
• Developing skills and knowledge
• Having relevant experience
• Improving confidence in their own abilities.

6.64 A very high proportion of interviewees across schools and colleges also agreed with the two statements relating to students' improved motivation and behaviour (see Table 6). While very few strongly agreed with either of these statements, only four disagreed that the course had had an impact on students' behaviour and none did so in relation to students' motivation. It is also worth noting that schools were slightly more likely to report that they were not sure about whether there had been a change in students' motivation and behaviour - possibly as a result of the fact that this impact was most highly visible in the college environment.

6.65 In response to the open question on the impact of the course, several respondents commented on the way going to college and "learning about things they are really interested in' had given students ' more motivation to learn". While in some cases this impact was said to be restricted to the SfW course, other interviewees in both schools and colleges were able to detect a wider effect. One college SfW course manager, for example, said that most of their partner schools had told them about the positive impact of the course on students' behaviour in school. However, this was not the case in all of the partner schools, as he reported:

"It's rather anecdotal - through what the schools tell us - they talk about the enthusiasm that the pupils have got: they turn up at school better; they talk enthusiastically about college; they appear to be more highly motivated. On the downside, in one school they found the student behaviour was worse. The students complained - why couldn't the school teachers teach them like they did at college?"

6.66 Interviews with students (conducted as part of the case-study visits) also provided examples of a similar impact on students' behaviour and attitudes towards learning. In response to an open-ended question of how the course had benefited them, seven of the 41 interviewees said that the course had made them more mature and they now behaved better at school or in college. One girl on the Hairdressing course, for example, explained how mixing with pupils from other schools had helped her grow up and affected her behaviour even in school:

"Yes, I've become more mature because I've been making new friends and seeing the way they act. I never used to wear school uniform and I used to be bad and I know I'm not bad anymore and I wear a school uniform. My teachers say I'm a changed girl!"

6.67 Another interviewee completing a Financial Services course reported that the teaching style adopted had encouraged him to take more responsibility for his own learning and had changed his attitude towards school:

"I've become a wee bit more grown up (…). I'm a bit more responsible at study and doing my work myself, because of the way the teacher gives us a task and lets us get on with it ourselves - she only helps us if we get stuck and trusts you that you'll do it. I think it's also had an effect on how I behave at school."

6.68 Table 6 shows that a much smaller proportion of respondents believed that the SfW courses had had an impact on students' attendance. It is also worth noting that schools were less likely to identify such an effect than colleges. Thus, only nine of the 23 schools working in partnership with a college believed that the SfW courses had improved students' attendance at school, and only seven agreed with the statement that it had led to higher attendance rates at college than at school.

6.69 As a result, it is not surprising that far fewer interviewees made comments in relation to improved attendance in relation to the open question on the impact of the course. However, there were some exceptions. A depute in one school, for example, said that the positive experience of college had also impacted on attendance in school:

"We have found that on the whole attendance has improved at school, behaviour has improved at school - so it's definitely had a positive effect on pupils' motivation in school."

6.70 Several interviewees in both schools and colleges said, though, that there had been no such impact because they had specifically selected students with good attendance records for the courses.

KEY FINDINGS

• Schools and colleges had made considerable progress in developing a more robust selection process by the end of the pilot, which in several delivery centres was seen as having resulted in less student drop-out in the second year of the pilot.
• The most common selection approach was for schools to offer the courses to students as a free option choice and then for either schools, colleges or a combination of the two to select the most suitable candidates to participate in the courses. There was evidence that colleges were increasingly being involved in this process.
• There was virtually no evidence that schools were using SfW courses just for disengaged or problem students especially in the second year of the pilot. However, some colleges felt that higher ability students were often dissuaded from participating in course, whilst some respondents were concerned that more disaffected learners were often excluded from participating where college selection processes existed for SfW courses.
• Students' course choices continued to conform largely to traditional gender stereotypes in the second year of the pilot, with only a minority of schools and providers making specific efforts to address this issue.
• Retention levels of students were quite high in most of the 29 schools contacted at the end of the pilot, although in nine schools it was below 80 per cent. The most common reasons for students leaving courses included personal issues, moving to another school, and being excluded by the provider due to behavioural or attendance problems. Drop-out rates also appeared to be higher in those schools which expected students to do a SfW course without replacing a Standard Grade.
• Analysis of SQA data showed that overall 85.6 per cent of the SfW candidates who had been entered to complete their courses in July 2007 had achieved a full SfW qualification. Of those not achieving a full award, more than four-fifths had completed at least one course unit.
• Respondents in almost all schools and colleges agreed that the SfW courses had had a positive impact on students' vocational skills and knowledge, motivation and behaviour. Most also thought that they had helped students to make better and more informed decisions about their post-school transitions.
• Similarly, all of the 41 students interviewed were able to identify positive impacts of participating in SfW courses, including increasing their skills, knowledge, confidence and awareness of the world of work. Almost three-quarters said that they thought that participating in the courses had improved their chances of finding work in the future.
• Almost all candidates interviewed said that they really enjoyed the courses they were doing, and more than half of them were not able to identify any way in their courses could have been improved. Interviewees particularly appreciated learning new things and participating in activities and events that were relevant to their own interests or career aspirations.

« Previous | Contents | Next »