Employability and Students Educational Experiences Before Entering Higher Education

Employability and students’ educational experiences before entering higher education

A briefing paper prepared by Rob Ward and David Pierce (Centre for Recording Achievement), with advice from ESECT, LTSN Generic Centre colleagues and guidance practitioners.

© Rob Ward, David Pierce and contributors, January 2003

The Perspectives series of employability briefing papers

This set of five papers examines the relationship between employability and higher education. Together they constitute a ground-clearing exercise, summarising some of the key themes in employability as seen from less-than-common perspectives. They will shortly be followed by the Employability Issues for … series, which will brief seven key audiences ¾ for example, employer groups, students, LTSN subject centres ¾ on ways of enhancing student employability in HE. This set of five is complemented by another five papers published early in 2003 by the UK Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) Generic Centre (GC) in its Learning and Employability series.

Four of the papers in this Perspectives series explore major employability issues as they bear upon different phases in the student life-cycle ¾ one looks at how schooling, further education and other experiences prepare students for higher education; one at the first year or level 1 experience; one at the student experience, particularly at levels 2 And 3; and the fourth at transitions to work. A fifth scans international work on employability the better to inform thinking about what we do in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland[1].

This, the first paper in the Perspectives series, refreshes our thinking about employability in higher education by considering the educational experiences that are likely to affect new entrants’ thinking about graduate employability. The strength of student claims to employability relates, sometimes not too closely, to what it is they bring with them when they enter higher education. This paper is about aspects of those pre-HE experiences. We highlight two of the conclusions that can be built upon Rob Ward’s and David Pierce’s work:

  New entrants to higher education are diverse. An implication is that attempts to enhance student employability need to be diverse and subtle if they are to cater for diversity.

  It would not be prudent to assume that new students have good understandings of what will count as employability, nor that they will necessarily appreciate the importance of building strong claims to achievement in addition to getting good degree results.

Although education is by no means the only factor bearing on student employability, it is a significant one and the focus of Perspectives 1.

Preview: four challenges:

This paper has been produced through a process of structured enquiry, incorporating a review of relevant literature and discussion with representatives of the professional pre-HE Guidance Community.

The process itself has highlighted a range of challenges:

1. The lack of an identifiable cohort. All non-graduate members of the population are potentially part of the pre-HE experience' with entry to HE being possible through a variety of entry routes and pathways, some structured via programmes and courses, some highly individual. This means there is no one ‘pre-HE experience’.
2. Problems of scope. Different formal pathways into HE (via sixth form study, FE immediately after school; FE in later life, including access courses and programmes) are likely to produce not just different direct contributions to employability but different indirect ones as well. Furthermore, there is likely to be an important interplay between the overall curriculum, its elements explicitly concerned with employability, and extra-curricular opportunities bringing employability-related benefits.
3. The challenge of activity. Paradoxically, given 1 and 2 above, the successive overlay of policy initiatives in this area (Ainley, Barnes and Momen, 2002) has provided much descriptive information but limited evaluation evidence (particularly external evaluation). The introduction of Foundation Degrees[2] provides a good example of this. While the strong emphasis upon workplace learning within such programmes may be considered to promote the employability of participants, this is as yet unconfirmed by evaluation evidence. In the field of careers guidance, provision has been re-oriented in support of specific policy initiatives, manifest in the move from Careers Services ― with a remit to support the career thinking of the whole student cohort ― to the Connexions Service. The latter, developed from the 'Bridging the Gap' report of the Social Exclusion Unit (1999), whilst retaining the rhetoric of universality, has simultaneously both a whole person and much more specific focus, upon:

reducing the number of 16-18 year olds who are not in education, employment or training. This is the key area where we need to make a difference. Reducing the proportion of 16-18s who are not in learning or work will be the key measurable outcome for Connexions – and we will be holding you to account, in the way that we will be held to account, for the progress you make. (Twigg, 2002)

Such overlays continue: the most recent pre-budget report from the Treasury setting out a new target — that by 2010 90% of all young people will have participated in a full-time programme preparing them for entry into higher education or skilled employment by the age of 22 (HM Treasury 2002).[3] They also bring new potential opportunities, such as the proposal to develop ‘enterprise capability…enhanced advice and guidance…and individual learning plans’ highlighted in the 0bjectives for the new ’14-19 Pathfinders’ (DfES, 2003, Annexe 4)

1. The challenge of limited evidence. The emphasis upon the range of changes noted above has impacted upon research in this area. This is related both to the focus of activity and to the pace of change already noted. Where evaluation work has been undertaken, the focus has not really been on employability but on elements of Governmental policy, particularly aspects of the social exclusion agenda. Such a policy focus is clearly evident in terms of research output (for example, Richie, 2000; Fieldhouse, Kaira. and Alam 2002; and Bynner and Parsons, 200)). In contrast, as Barnes, Donoghue and Sadler (2002: 9) note that:

Little research has been carried out into the career development and guidance needs of gifted and talented students.

The close link between educational innovation and research of itself creates challenges for researchers. As Brown and Ecclestone (2002: 2) said in respect of post-16 learning:

Such a challenge becomes even more complex in a context of increasing political pressure where policy makers hope that research will identify those improvements in learning that will break cycles of social and individual deprivation.

Finally, the pace of innovation and change of itself makes substantive evaluation studies difficult to do.

The school curriculum

Given the quantity of governmental initiatives, this picture is not a static one. The changing nature and shape of the pre-HE curriculum in schools and colleges gives rise to a range of challenges to the delivery of employability within the school curriculum. Recently these have included:

  The Education Reform Act of 1988, which emphasised that an aim of the school curriculum was 'to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life'. The initial focus of the National Curriculum was, however, strongly upon subject areas, with careers education and guidance[4], citizenship and economic and industrial awareness (including work experience and work shadowing) handled as 'cross curricular themes', incorporated within subject schemes of work or within limited time in a heavily prescribed curriculum. In practice these often got rather lost in the pressure of all the other demands on the timetable (see Witty, Rowe and Aggleton, 1994; Robson, Cohen and McGuiness, 1999). Consequently, initiatives such as the 'Mini Enterprise in Schools' Project were often found only at the margins of the curriculum (Shilling, 1989). Although successive revisions to the National Curriculum have introduced a statutory duty to provide a planned programme of careers education for Years 9-11 (within the Education Act, 1997), there is no prescribed programme of study.[5] The initial focus upon 'academic' subjects left careers education and guidance in a structurally weak position, one not necessarily helped by the more recent concerns to raise levels of achievement and improve standards in core subjects, with the result that even the statutory foundation subjects can have quite a restricted presence in the school curriculum.

  The emphasis of the Education Reform Act has been restated ― in terms of ‘promoting the essential practical skills for life and work’ ― in the most recent 14-19 document 'Opportunity and Excellence' (DfES, 2003: 14) Over the last five years there have been moves towards greater flexibility for some students at least. This has been manifest in opportunities to allow the ‘disapplication’[6] of individuals from certain statutory subjects at Key Stage 4 (from 1998) and, from 2002, an ‘Increased Flexibility’ programme facilitating learning for 14-16 year old students within work contexts whether in Colleges of Further Education, with Training Providers or via the new GCSEs in vocational subjects. Most recently, the 14-19 document (DfES, 2003 Annexe 3) identified some 270 local partnerships that are expected to involve over 2,000 schools and 30,000 pupils, with additional funding for the development of further partnerships. However, such moves, in essence offering alternatives to those for whom an academic curriculum is not seen as appropriate, do not yet seem to have made a significant impact on those considering HE, whether they are in pre- or post-16 provision. In addition, while the 14-19 document proposes a reduction in the statutory curriculum at Key Stage 4, it is not anticipated that this will take effect before the 2004/5 academic year at the earliest.

There are a number of other elements that require recognition. Curriculum structures, the time requirements associated with them, and learning and teaching methodologies are interrelated, both within the curriculum, where demands from particular subjects may act to marginalise provision such as Careers Education, Information and Guidance, and beyond, where curriculum pressures (homework) and other demands (part-time employment) may act to restrict the time school students have for personal development activities which have the potential to contribute to employability.

We elaborate these points about curriculum structures and time demands by looking briefly at Curriculum 2000, a new post-16 curriculum introduced in September 2000. Following the recommendations in the Dearing review of qualifications for 16-19 year olds (SCAA, 1996) and the subsequent Qualifying for Success consultation (DfEE, 1997), Curriculum 2000 provided a range of new and revised qualifications at advanced level. These included:

  The Vocational[7] and General Certificate of Education (VCE/GCE) Advanced Subsidiary (AS) levels

  The GCE A2 leading to a full GCE ‘A’ level.

  The VCE ‘A’ levels and ‘A’ level (Double Awards)

  The new key skills qualification.

In Managing Curriculum 2000 for 16-19 Students, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA, 2001a) indicated that 'curriculum breadth' in this new structure might involve:

  Studying more subjects and/or a wider range of subjects;

  Continuing academic and vocational study;

  Developing key skills;

  Participating in enrichment activities.

Such change in the post-16 curriculum is clearly of major interest to the HE sector. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) conducted a survey in November 2000of the first cohort of students who did Curriculum 2000. Results from this indicated that 59% of students were studying four or more subjects at Advanced Subsidiary (AS) level, excluding General Studies. In the third (and most recent) survey, November 2001, this figure had increased to 70%. In the latter, 85% of second year GCE A2 students were reported as studying three A2 or more qualifications (the equivalent of three ‘A’ levels), with almost 14% studying for an Advanced VCE. This data suggests that the achievement of the first route to curriculum breadth was being achieved. However, UCAS data also revealed that the vast majority of those studying Advanced VCEs were studying for these alone rather than in combination with academic subjects, the implicit conclusion being that moves to break down the so-called academic/vocational divide had not met with early success.

These figures must be approached with some caution. The response rate (29.4%) was described as ‘good for a postal survey, though lower than ideal’, with representation particularly low amongst FE Colleges. While suggesting some increase in curricular breadth in relation to subject study they also indicate that the introduction of Curriculum 2000 has been accompanied by increased required learning time, workload and assessment. The UCAS survey reported an average contact time of 4.5-5.5 hours per week for one AS level, with around double the time for the VCE Double Award. In such a context there may be pressure from both the increasing demands of the curriculum and of part-time employment on pedagogies and extra-curricular initiatives that should promote the characteristics associated with student employability and personal development in general.[8] The QCA review of Phase 1 of Curriculum 2000 (QCA, 2001b: 3) highlighted some of this, saying that,

'any teachers have traditionally viewed years 12 and 13 in a holistic way. There is a change of approach from styles of learning and teaching at GCSE, with less emphasis on acquisition and retention of facts by students and more on the skills of enquiry, evaluation and debate. Over the two years as a whole, students are helped to develop a maturity of judgement. Moreover, students are expected to engage in extra-curricular activities (such as music, drama, sport) to foster their intellectual, cultural and social maturation.

The evidence indicates that the uncertainties experienced by some staff and students this year (the first of Curriculum 2000) have led to the replacement of this holistic two year approach to advanced study with a short term approach. Many report a distinct change in teaching and learning styles in year 12. Some teachers have become more didactic and instructional in style or have engaged in ‘over-teaching’ to ensure that students cover the content. This can produce a climate of ‘cramming’. The load for students has increased considerably, since, in contrast to the three ‘A’ level subjects of past years, over half of them have this year studied at least four subjects, and many have followed courses for the three key skills as well. In comparison with previous year 12 cohorts, students are being required to learn more in less time. Many students resent the loss of private study periods and their contribution to greater independence in learning. Student participation in extra-curricular activities and community service has been reduced in some, but by no means all, institutions.'