The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER SEVEN: CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNT

7.1 This chapter presents the main challenges identified by respondents across schools and colleges involved in the SfW pilot and the main lessons learned in addressing them, detailing any evidence of good practice.

7.2 The main challenges identified by schools and colleges at the end of the second year of the pilot related to:

• Timetabling of courses
• Selection and parity of esteem
• Partnership working between schools and colleges
• Training and development issues for college staff working with under-16s
• Providing and accessing courses in large, rural areas
• Limited capacity of colleges to respond to increasing demand.

7.3 Even though most of these challenges were identified both at the start and the end of the pilot, it is worth noting that many respondents were able to document ways in which they had either been overcome or that they had strategies in place to address them in the following year. Most progress appears to have been made in particular in addressing the challenges experienced in relation to selecting the most appropriate students for courses, partnership working between schools and colleges and college staff's ability and willingness to teach the younger age group - as discussed below.

TIMETABLING OF COURSES

7.4 Schools and colleges identified the timetabling of SfW courses as a considerable challenge throughout the pilot. In response to an open question of what had been the main challenges associated with the pilot, ten out of 29 schools contacted as part of the final survey identified this as one of the main issues.

7.5 Timetabling approaches adopted included:

• Replacing two Standard Grades to enable students to complete an Intermediate 1 and Intermediate 2 course over two years
• Replacing one Standard Grade with a SfW course at Access 3, Intermediate 1 or Intermediate 2
• Students missing core subjects without replacing a Standard Grade to enable students to also do a SfW course at Access 3, Intermediate 1 or Intermediate 2
• Students missing a mixture of Standard Grade and other subjects to enable students to also do a SfW course at Access 3, Intermediate 1 or Intermediate 2.

7.6 Schools gave different reasons for the adopted approaches. The most frequent explanation for offering the courses without replacing a Standard Grade was that this approach enabled more academic students to opt for them. Others said that it enabled them to overcome timetabling issues, which they would have faced if they had expected students to replace a Standard Grade. One school, for example, explained their reasons for adopting an approach in which students missed core subjects but did not replace a Standard Grade:

"We did consider putting Skills for Work against a Standard Grade, but practically pupils would miss two-thirds of the course each week. We didn't know what we could do with them for the other period - we'd have 50 kids wandering about. We felt it would not work. Also we would be depriving them of an academic qualification. That's why we opted for it against core. Legally they're meant to have core but at least they were not missing a qualification by doing SfW. So we argued for the opportunity of a qualification versus them having access to RE, PE and life skills, and I think we may be criticised for that."

7.7 Those schools offering SfW courses instead of a Standard Grade usually argued that this approach raised the status of the courses and allowed them to offer them to pupils in the same way as any other subjects. As one headteacher argued:

"Skills for Work needs to be seen as a truly optional subject rather than just dropping PE. We need to break the mould of seeing such courses as just being for pupils who are opting out of the curriculum - this needs to also involve persuading parents that it is a valuable option."

7.8 Overall, most of the 41 students interviewed as part of the case-studies did not express any strong opinions relating to the approach adopted, although some individuals complained about having to attend college beyond normal school hours. Furthermore, some students aiming to continue at school or go to university expressed some concerns about missing lessons for Standard Grade subjects and having to catch up in their own time. Interviews with school and college staff confirmed this view - one common reason for dropping out or deciding against doing a SfW course was often said to be students' or their parents' concern of the impact missing lessons would have on the rest of their studies.

7.9 Some schools adopting this approach - not replacing a Standard Grade and requiring students to miss lessons - had developed strategies to ensure that students were able to catch up any work they missed. One school, for example, had initiated a so-called "catch-up period" which was used to formalise the process of teachers working with SfW students to ensure they knew what work they had missed. The depute headteacher explained the school's rationale for adopting this approach:

"The main challenge has been making sure that staff help the youngsters to keep up-to-date with their school work and making sure the kids stay motivated in those subjects. That's why we started the catch-up period so we could say: 'Go and get the work!' If they were left to their own devices they would just sit there. And staff also need a prod to make sure they give the work to students."

7.10 It is worth noting that timetabling problems were most likely to be reported by those schools which were not expecting students to replace a Standard Grade and those adopting the in-college delivery model.

7.11 Timetabling was reported to be less of an issue in schools adopting the in-school delivery model, which saved on travel time and allowed schools to integrate courses in their timetable more easily. As a teacher delivering the Financial Services Intermediate 2 course explained:

"We have had daily sessions for one hour a week and that has worked really well because you can deliver it in bits and keep them engaged. We were able to cater for that because we were offering the course in school. The colleges can't really offer the course in that way. I think timetabling is very important."

7.12 Interviews with school staff revealed that several schools were hoping to overcome timetabling issues (as well as transport problems) by moving towards more in-school delivery by college staff (as reported in Chapter 3 - paragraph 3.34). One school, for example, said that "timetabling may be better next year because the Engineering course may be accommodated in the school".

SELECTION AND PARITY OF ESTEEM

7.13 As reported in Chapter 6, the final survey revealed that schools and providers had made considerable progress in developing a more robust selection process of students by the end of the second year of the pilot. This was reflected in the fact that far fewer respondents identified selection as a key challenge at this stage of the evaluation than in the first survey at the beginning of the pilot. In fact, while some schools did mention selection as an issue, they often also said that they had improved their practice through experience of the course and working more closely with providers. As a Principal Teacher in a school reported:

"When I think back to our first year it was an absolute shambles and nobody knew what anybody was doing. But it's really quite tight now and that's because we have the [college] coordinators so that we know who to get involved with, we know who to contact and it's much better. Again I think you have to be really careful about the sorts of youngsters that you send, because in the past we've thought of vocational as being for the disengaged and that isn't the right approach."

7.14 Still, some providers still complained that they were not satisfied with the selection process adopted. Even though most were involved in selecting students for courses by the second year of the pilot, several complained that many schools were not offering SfW courses as an equivalent option to other courses. This was particularly the case in those schools which expected students to complete courses in addition to eight Standard Grades. This meant that SfW courses were seen as a useful addition but not as an equivalent qualification. One college manager was of the opinion that: "if you're doing it as well as your Standard Grades, if you get a bad report card your mummy says drop your additionality".

7.15 Colleges also complained that some schools persisted to view SfW courses as only suited for low-ability and 'vocationally-minded' students. One college course coordinator, for example, related his experience of attending information sessions for S2 pupils:

"I've been at parents' information sessions where people have stood up and said things like: 'Well it's a choice, you either have an academic child who does eight Standard Grades or if your child doesn't do too well they can go to college and do a Skills for Work course'."

7.16 It is important to note though that several of the 29 schools contacted as part of the final survey did not hold this view and, instead, emphasised the importance of viewing SfW courses as equivalent options. This was most likely the case in those schools which expected students to replace a Standard Grade in order to complete a SfW course.

7.17 There was also evidence that several local authorities and colleges were taking active steps to challenge the view that "it's only a certain kind of young person who comes to do Construction"'. Adopted approaches included working with schools to view SfW courses as part of a local authority-wide 'curriculum pathway' and presenting information to schools and parents. As one college coordinator emphasised, he felt the need for parity of esteem being given to these courses by making it clear to parents and teachers that "if I employed an architect, for example, I'd want one that could lay a brick".

PARTNERSHIP WORKING BETWEEN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

7.18 Even though several respondents in schools and colleges reported that "partnership working has not always been easy", there was very strong evidence that relationships had improved over the two years of the pilot and that schools and colleges were adopting more effective ways of working together. As reported in Chapter 5, all 15 colleges contacted as part of the final survey agreed that the pilot had led to more effective partnerships with schools. Similarly, almost all the schools interviewed felt that the pilot had strengthened their partnerships with other organisations - mostly with colleges, but, in some cases, with other schools, training providers, or employers.

7.19 The main issues reported related to:

• Cultural barriers - that schools did not understand how colleges worked and vice versa
• Lack of effective reporting procedures in relation to student absences and progress on the course
• Insufficient links being made between what students were doing in college and the rest of the curriculum

7.20 Several respondents commented on the cultural barriers between schools and colleges. As one college manager reported:

"I think the main challenge has been the constant getting people to understand the college system. People don't necessarily understand that young people can't just be taken out for one session because there's something else on at school; or they don't necessarily understand that actually we don't need those two days because we've got all these young people on work experience. These need to be addressed in the future."

7.21 Similarly, a school teacher likened the process of establishing better communication and understanding between her school and the college to "painting the Forth Road Bridge - it's something that will never be finished".

7.22 However, when comparing interviewees' responses in the first survey (and the Year 2 survey) with the final survey, it was evident that such conflicts were reported by far fewer respondents towards the end of the second year of the pilot. Such an improvement was often related to stronger strategic links and school-college visits ( see Chapter 3), many of which had been initiated in the second year of the pilot.

7.23 A lack of effective reporting procedures was also more likely to be reported in the first year than at the end of the second year of the pilot. Indeed, there was evidence that several partnerships had developed good practice in this area, although some issues continued to persist. As one school, for example, commented:

"Although we work well together and we can pick up the phone at any time and we know each other well, we probably need to formalise certain aspects of the reporting procedures - we would like more feedback on progress".

Similarly, the depute in another school argued that:

"I would like to see the regularity of reports coming back from college improve. It's not regular enough. They do the reports at the same time they do their own reports. We tend to get them in bits and pieces and not all at the same time. For one course they're sent to the local authority and then we get them. I would rather get them for all the children at the same time but that's not happening."

7.24 However, some colleges reported that they had adopted more systematic reporting procedures on student progress. A Sport and Recreation lecturer interviewed in one of the case-study partnerships said, for example, that in Year 2 of the pilot they now had:

"School report cards, where we have to write down what we've covered and not covered yet and also a personalised part for each one on general behaviour and attainment. A copy goes to the school and a copy goes to the parents, which means that the parents know exactly what we're doing but the school knows too. Because I think sometimes the school put them out to these courses and they don't know what we're doing."

7.25 Similarly, although some schools and colleges still commented on some difficulties in reporting student absences, others were able to document ways in which the pilot had been used to develop good practice approaches. One school, for example, reported that in the second year of the pilot:

"Pupils at this end are getting checked on to the bus, and then within half an hour of the pupils attending college we get a fax into school saying what the attendance is".

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES FOR COLLEGE STAFF WORKING WITH UNDER-16 YEAR OLDS

7.26 Many of the colleges reported that teaching the younger age group of S3 and S4 students was one of the main challenges of delivering the SfW courses ( see Chapter 5). Still, most respondents in schools and colleges felt that this had largely been successfully overcome via staff development, careful selection of staff to teach on the courses, and close consultation with schools.

7.27 However, issues continued to exist in some partnerships towards the end of the second year of the pilot in relation to persuading some college staff:

• To teach SfW courses
• To deliver SfW courses in schools - this had become more of a concern in the second year of the pilot given the increased numbers of colleges adopting, or planning to adopt, this delivery model.

7.28 Interviewees in five of the 15 colleges contacted as part of the final survey reported that even though most staff were very happy to teach SfW courses once they had received support and guidance on how to deal with the particular challenges associated with the younger age group, there were others who were more resistant. As one respondent explained:

"It has been a challenge getting used to a different way of teaching. It's meant we've had to adjust our teaching methods and it's been a challenge, but an enjoyable one at times. But there is a challenge convincing some members of staff in FE that there is a place for school students in colleges and that we won't be overrun with lots of kids who don't want to be there."

7.29 Another college manager made a similar point, commenting that one of the main challenges of the pilot so far had been winning college staff over to having school pupils on site:

"Many lecturers chose to teach in further education rather than in schools and some feel slightly resentful that, having made that choice, they are now becoming involved in delivery to school children. But there are other staff who have welcomed the change and driven the programme forward enthusiastically."

7.30 Most of those interviewed, though, suggested that this process had been largely successful. Improved partnerships with schools and better selection of students for courses was said to have "won over" many college staff who had initially been afraid of "being dumped on by schools" - only getting students who were disengaged and were not sufficiently interested in learning. Although as one interviewee concluded: "Winning hearts and minds is certainly an ongoing challenge with these vocational programmes to schools because there are still people for it and against it".

7.31 Two colleges which had recently moved to, or were planning to move to, offering delivery of SfW courses in schools also reported that some staff were resistant to this. One respondent, for example, said:

"The trouble is I've got to persuade my staff to do it. The Early Education and Childcare staff are not keen to go out to schools; they worry about going out and being isolated and left on their own and the students running riot."

7.32 However, most respondents felt that improved partnerships with schools, staff development and the mainly positive experience of delivering SfW courses in college were persuading most staff. In the words of one respondent: "What we're hoping is that the experience they've had with the children [in college] has made them confident that they can handle those situations".

PROVIDING AND ACCESSING COURSES IN RURAL AREAS

7.33 There was evidence from the final survey that some schools in rural areas were more likely to face barriers to accessing SfW courses than those in more urban settings. The main reason, in most cases, was the physical distance from colleges and the time it took for students to travel to and from providers. Indeed, one college reported that many of its rural schools had not sent pupils to college in the first year of the pilot for this reason. They had changed their approach in the second year to accommodate their needs. However, it still meant that these schools were only able to access one of the SfW courses on offer, as the interviewee explained:

"This year particularly we were trying to be fair because it's very easy to open your doors and say 'here's a course, come along' and we have all the town schools coming in. But you've got to think about those that are further away and what you can do for them. So, this year we're delivering the Rural [Skills] course only in two satellite schools, because of that distance."

7.34 It is worth noting that several rural schools involved in the pilot had accessed a variety of SfW college courses, but almost all of them identified transport as a major issue. As discussed in Chapter 3, the final survey suggested that colleges were increasingly moving towards delivering more courses in schools or in vocational centres accessed by several schools in an area. Other solutions adopted in some areas included working with private training providers or using school staff to deliver courses.

7.35 One school in the final survey and two of the schools contacted as part of the Year 2 partnerships survey (which only got involved in the second year of the pilot) had chosen to deliver courses on their own because of their distance from the nearest college. Respondents identified various challenges to delivering courses in such a way, including teachers' skills and knowledge, lack of in-school facilities and lack of additional funding to resource the programme. As noted in Chapter 3 (paragraph 3.23), schools delivering SfW courses do continue to receive mainstream funding for those pupils participating in these courses. However, several schools felt that this was not enough to cover the additional costs incurred for setting up and resourcing these courses. One school, for example, which was delivering the Construction Crafts course complained about the lack of additional funding to support the delivery of SfW courses for schools like his own which made it unsustainable in the long term and which he saw as disadvantaging students living in rural or island communities:

"If the kids went out to a college - that is funded via central government. But we have to fund it ourselves, so rural kids are at a disadvantage. The money should go with the kid, not the establishment. We should have the same opportunities to get the finances for the course."

7.36 One rural school contacted as part of the final survey had decided to stop sending students to college to access a broad set of SfW courses next year and to use school staff instead to deliver just a Rural Skills course only in the school. The depute explained her school's decision in the following way:

"It's lots to do with our locality, that I think our children are rural children and it's quite a psychological and emotional trauma for them to be involved in travelling off to be educated somewhere else, in a big building. We're a good 30-35 minutes on the bus from college - from October to March when it's dark, these kids are being dropped off in pitch black and there are issues to do with that. There are some things we're not going to be able to offer them, including Early Education and Childcare and Construction, so there will be a few pupils who will not have the same opportunity as their predecessors had, but it just was not viable to continue."

7.37 The teacher concluded by saying that they we're really looking forward to in-house delivery because "our biggest challenge will be eliminated because there won't be transport issues". However, as noted in Chapter 3, there are various pros and cons associated with the school-only delivery of SfW courses, as well as for the in-school delivery by college staff.

LIMITED CAPACITY OF COLLEGES TO RESPOND TO INCREASING DEMAND

7.38 Almost all of the colleges contacted as part of the final survey reported that they were increasing the number of students involved in SfW courses in the following year. However, the schools liaison coordinators or sector managers in five out of 15 colleges said that they would soon reach capacity and would not be able to expand provision much further even if increased funding was made available. Capacity issues were mainly related to lack of physical space in colleges rather than staffing for courses, although some providers did identify the latter as an issue for particular SfW courses:

"There will be capacity issues on two fronts - it is both staff and space. In [one area] it is accommodation that is the main issue - we've built a new campus, but it has already reached capacity. But there is also a staffing problem - in Construction this year, the demand, because of the perception of opportunities in construction, is so great that we've had problems identifying staff especially at the S5 and S6 level. I think that we will probably reach our plateau next year."

7.39 Many of those colleges expanding provision in the third year of SfW courses said that they were only able to do this by adopting different delivery models, including delivering directly in schools or in purpose-built skills or vocational centres.

7.40 As regards schools, 16 of the 29 schools contacted as part of the final survey said that they had excluded some students from participating in SfW courses in the second year of the pilot. In most cases, this was due to restricted numbers of places being made available to them by providers, although in others it was said to be due to students not meeting the criteria (related to interest, behaviour or attendance) set out by the college. In some cases, the lack of available places was said to have got worse in the second year of the pilot due to increased popularity of courses and more schools getting involved. A depute in one school commented, for example, that previously:

"All our kids that wanted to go on the course got in. But now names go in a hat with names from other schools. The only thing I'm miffed about is that the programme has been so successful that we have fewer places than we did in the past because it's widely publicised and other schools are involved."

7.41 The discrepancy between available places and students interested in pursuing a SfW course was found only to be high in seven of the 29 schools contacted. In one of these, for example, in "each year we've had 50, 60 or 70 that don't get in". Another school documented the difference between available places and student demand, as follows:

"We're hugely oversubscribed. For Hairdressing, it was roughly 30 pupils interested and eight places on offer. Construction - roughly 14 pupils interested and three places on offer. Sport and Recreation roughly 20 to 30 pupils interested and eight places on offer."

7.42 As noted above, many schools felt a need for in-school delivery of SfW courses. This was particularly the case in those schools in which colleges were not able to meet the high, and frequently growing, demand for such courses. A teacher in one such establishment felt that:

"I think we could get many more kids through it if we had a purpose-built facility on-site and people delivering it - I think we could have it as an option and we could have loads of kids going through in every year group."

7.43 Similarly, a depute in a rural school argued for the need to invest more heavily in building schools with vocational facilities on site:

"In the long term the Scottish Executive have got to think about the layout of schools and especially the way education is going, (…). And I think we should offer [ SfW] to everyone and we need to look at how we build schools in the future."

7.44 However, it is not clear whether schools would currently have staff with the necessary skills and knowledge to deliver SfW courses to the same standards as colleges; furthermore, there may be insufficient demand for courses in some schools for the same range of courses on offer in most colleges.

KEY FINDINGS

• Timetabling was reported to be a key issue in several schools throughout the pilot, but particularly in those in which the students did not replace a Standard Grade and in schools adopting the in-college delivery model. As a consequence, several schools were moving towards more in-school delivery by college staff.
• Student selection was far less likely to be identified as a major challenge towards the end of the pilot, although some providers still complained that some schools did not give SfW courses the same status as Standard Grades and viewed them as mainly suited to low-ability students. Several colleges and local authorities were taking active steps to challenges such perceptions.
• Even though partnership working between schools and colleges had clearly improved over the two years of the pilots some issues still remained. In particular, challenges continued to be identified in some cases in relation to college reporting procedures and insufficient links being made between what students were learning in college and the rest of the curriculum.
• Many of the colleges reported that teaching the younger age group had been a challenge, but that this had been largely overcome via staff development, choice of staff to teach these courses and close consultation with schools. However, some college staff were still said to be reluctant to teach on SfW courses, particularly in those cases in which they were increasingly asked to do so in schools.
• Schools in rural areas were more likely to face barriers to accessing SfW courses than those in more urban areas because of the physical distance from colleges. As a result, several such colleges were delivering courses in schools or in vocational centres and schools were working with private training providers or using school staff to deliver courses. The main issues associated with such alternative approaches included teachers' skills and knowledge, lack of in-school facilities and funding consumables needed to deliver such courses.
• Even though almost all colleges contacted said that they were increasing student numbers in the following year, several said that they were reaching capacity and would not be able to expand provision much further. The main issue related to physical space in colleges, and several providers saw expanding in-school provision as the only way to meet the increasing demands of schools for more students to participate in courses.

« Previous | Contents | Next »