Learning and Teaching in Action

Editorial
Rob Halsall

Full Circle Widening Participation
Joss West-Burnham

Developing and Sharing Best Practice
Kate Kirk

The Social Construction of the New Student
Liz Marr

WP - Who helps the helpers?
Peter Millen

Aimhigher at MMU
Peter Riley

Aspiration or Attainment - what are we trying to achieve?
Susan McGrath

Raising Achievement and Aspirations Through Football
Karen Duggan

Introducing 'ALIC' at AUT
Lorraine Parker and Alison Kirkness

Faculty Reports

Library News

| View this article as a .pdf file |

Susan McGrath

Aspiration or Attainment
what are we trying to achieve?

Abstract

This paper compares two very different kinds of Widening Participation activity carried out by the Education Liaison Office at Manchester Metropolitan University. The office delivers a programme of Taster days for pupils in years 9 – 11 as part of the schools liaison programme, but during the past two years has piloted a very different kind of university experience through the School2uni project, which provides continuity of experience in years 9 – 11 and beyond. Differences in content and delivery, cost-benefit analysis and evaluation of outcomes, are considered for the two schemes.

Background

The extent and variety of WP activity in the university sector confirms that many HEIs have recognised how much work remains to be done to remove the cultural stereotypes surrounding HE. Programmes that aim to demystify HE can undoubtedly provide some pupils with the aspiration to progress. Over the past decade, many universities have sought to achieve this through ACE or Taster days, which are clearly enjoyed by pupils and do promote the idea that university is a valid option for the pupils who attend. However, there are genuine concerns that the experience of a one-off visit to an HEI may do little to develop understanding of what studying at university is really like. Foskett et al ¹ reported that potential HE students would like ‘opportunities to meet students, tutors and participate in subjects of their choosing’. This would be beyond the scope of most Taster days, which by their very nature rely on inputs from different groups of staff/students to give an overview of university provision. A more realistic view can be achieved by providing continuity of experience, particularly within a chosen subject area.

The DfES ² has often argued that both aspiration and attainment need to be raised during secondary schooling for all pupils to reach their full potential, and HEFCE ³ in Partnerships for Progression invited strategies for collaborative action to raise both attainment and aspiration. Providers of WP activities usually have no difficulty in demonstrating that they have raised aspiration. In the Education Liaison Office at Manchester Metropolitan our event evaluation sheets show that most participants say they are now more likely to progress to university. Raising attainment through WP activities is less straightforward. Since many WP programmes are based on the notion of ‘Tasting’ they inevitably offer a broad-brush introduction to HE that is unlikely to do anything to directly raise attainment. Practitioners sometimes display a touching belief in the efficacy of the ‘brush-off effect’, whereby exposure to HE will somehow lead to increased attainment because of a heightened interest in progressing to university. Evidence that this occurs is difficult to find even amongst students at Advanced level - it would require unusually high levels of self-motivation for pupils in years 9 – 11, the typical target market for Taster days.

Raising attainment is clearly important since aspiration alone will not secure a place at university – grades matter. As HE providers, we can perhaps do most to increase participation by working with teachers to enhance, extend or accelerate the school curriculum in some way. An obvious way of doing this is by offering learning opportunities that go beyond what is usually available in schools, either because we have access to superior facilities or by having specialist knowledge. In Partnerships for Progression ³ it is proposed that ‘offering a wide range of learning opportunities in specialist or shortage subject areas [and] enriching the curriculum by providing support in subjects not traditionally taught in schools’ is a good way of avoiding duplication of effort. This approach also recognises that staff working in schools and HE have different specialisms and need to work in ways that are complementary for best effect.

Thomas ⁴ points out the importance of recognising that schools are rewarded for their GCSE and SATS performance, but not for encouraging their pupils to progress to higher education. Admittedly, some schools will see their HE destination figures as an important marketing tool when dealing with prospective parents, but this is more likely to apply in sectors of the population already very familiar with progression routes. For many schools in areas with lower HE participation rates a more pertinent marketing statistic may be the number of pupils passing GCSEs, and this is most likely to be enhanced by investing time and money directly in the teaching of the curriculum, not in supporting WP initiatives.

Funding and staffing implications on both sides put obvious limitations upon the amount of collaboration that can occur between HEIs and schools but in all recent documentation from both the HEFCE and the DfES there is a clear message that educational partnerships are to continue to be a key policy driver. This paper reports on two different approaches to collaboration, and comments on their relative effectiveness in relation to attainment and aspiration.

Taster days – awareness, aspiration or attainment?

The Education Liaison Offi ce at Manchester Metropolitan University offers a programme of Taster days for pupils in years 9 – 11 that follows a tried and tested format replicated in most universities across the UK . Typically, a group of 50 or so pupils will attend the university for up to 5 hours, in which time they will meet student ambassadors, visit a hall of residence, take part in one or two mini-lectures, engage in some kind of workshop or laboratory activity, and eat in the student refectory. Evaluations at the end of the session will record that the pupils particularly enjoyed some parts of the day (e.g. meeting students, seeing the Halls) and didn’t really appreciate other parts (usually the food - and anything that involves writing!). Overall, they tend to say that they are more interested in attending university as a result of their visit, and may even admit that they have learned some things about university that they didn’t previously know. If our primary measure of success is awareness raising, then Taster days are quite successful in general terms.

When it comes to raising aspirations, it’s hard to be sure that Taster days are effective, partly because we often find that pupils arrive for Taster days with aspirations that are already very high – it’s not unusual to find that the initial response to the question ‘Does anyone know what they’d like to do for a career?’ includes a fair few doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. along with the inevitable footballers, popstars and actresses. What is sometimes lacking is any real understanding of what might be required for these aims to be achieved. A year 9 pupil who recently told one of the Education Liaison team that she “didn’t need to stay on at school because she was going to be a famous actress” was supported by her teacher with the comment, “that’s right Melissa – you can have anything if you want it enough”. Explaining that most actors have studied acting/drama at university or college before becoming successful was greeted with the comment, “Oh, but I won’t need to - I’m really good!” Providing the further information that we get over 50 applicants per place for our own acting course seemed pointless - nothing that happened in the course of a one-day visit was likely to make her more realistic about her career plans.

When it comes to attainment, the fact that Taster days are designed as ‘one-offs’ means it is probably unrealistic to expect that they could have an impact on attainment in general, though they certainly can have some effect on intentions, as shown by the pupil in year 10 who recently told us that she was going to work incredibly hard in GCSE science now that we’d told her she couldn’t be a primary teacher without it. Within a Greater Manchester context, a limiting factor for many of the pupils is that the schools they attend often have relatively low GCSE success rate, (one of our local feeders had only 7% of its pupils in the ‘5 GCSEs at C or above’ category last year). This means that many of the pupils attending our Taster days are unlikely to achieve the minimum results needed to stay in education post-16, let alone those needed for a degree - unless of course they experience some kind of intervention that raises attainment.

Our experience of offering Taster days to discrete groups over a number of years has convinced us that the value of bringing pupils as young as 13 on to campus for a day or half-day is limited. By the time they reach year 11, some of the pupils we meet have already spent the equivalent of one week in university because they have attended a number of Taster days at different institutions. But this does not necessarily add anything other than quantity to their experience. The format of Taster days is similar in all universities, and a pupil attending more than one event is unlikely to encounter anything new.

A better solution is surely to provide an ongoing experience that is diverse and cumulative – one in which staff can plan for progression because they know what happened on previous visits, and are able to build on things already experienced. Schol2uni aims to do precisely this.

The School2uni project

School2uni is a “virtual” school, which aims to increase both aspiration and attainment. Fifty pupils from three Manchester secondary schools are just about to start the fi nal year of a three year pilot. Pupils may join School2uni in year 9, with the possibility of entry to or exit from the scheme at the start of each year. During October and July each year the pupils take part in generic sessions (delivered by the Education Liaison Office) to provide knowledge and understanding of higher education. During the Spring term the pupils follow one of several subject pathways run by an academic department of the university. Pathways are chosen and developed in the light of what our departments can provide, what schools might find useful and what pupils will find interesting. The pathways aim to be challenging, interesting and offer opportunities beyond those normally available at school. Each pathway has a clear outcome and will provide some tangible evidence of what has been achieved. An exhibition of the work produced by pupils is staged in May and parents are invited to the opening. Pupils attend School2uni in years 9 – 11, but when they progress to local sixth forms or colleges, the university will maintain active involvement with them through the existing activities of the Education Liaison Office. The first cohort of pupils has already completed years 9 and 10 and will soon begin the final year of the pilot. The amount of time spent at the university is greatest during year 9, before the demands of GCSE are felt on the timetable. During year 10 the pilot group had fewer taught sessions, but often carried out tasks between sessions. Final details of the contact during year 11 have yet to be decided, but it is likely that the year will end with an intensive session (possibly residential) once GCSE exams are over. Selection of pupils for School2uni has been done by the schools from within the widening participation cohort. Allocation of pupils to pathways has been done either by school selection or pupil choice – whichever is most appropriate for each school. Pathways operated in the pilot have included: Biology, Computing/IT, Consumer Marketing, Creative Writing, Crime Studies, Dance & Drama, Environment, Food Technology, Sport & Exercise Science, Sociology, Textile Technology.

How does the experience of pupils attending a Taster Day compare with School2uni?

Whilst there is certainly some overlap in content and delivery, particularly in some of the generic School2uni sessions delivered by Education Liaison staff, there are also important differences in the experience of pupils attending these two types of programme. Some of the key elements are summarised in Table 1.

(*based on typical Taster Day for years 9 - 11 and the year 9 School2Uni programme)

When the pupils progress through years 10 and 11 of School2uni, the differences between the two groups become increasingly obvious. Whilst pupils attending Taster days will continue to have a similar experience between years 9 – 11, School2uni pupils are expected to take increasing responsibility for their own learning. This increased responsibility occurs alongside a reduction of time spent at the university. Once the demands of GCSE are felt on the school timetable it is unrealistic to expect that pupils can visit the university 6 or 7 time per year, and so the focus of the year 10 pilot has been on a limited number of subject sessions with tasks completed between meetings. During this time the sense of involvement with the university continues to grow. It’s noticeable that pupils begin to refer to ‘my’ university, ‘our’ computer lab, etc. in the same way that they would describe facilities at their own school. The year 11 pilot is about to begin, and will probably incorporate student mentors to increase the emphasis on work completed between sessions. A number of pupils and parents have asked if the year 11 pilot could end with a residential element, and the feasibility of this is being investigated.

Do the two schemes differ in terms of pupil evaluation?

Given the nature of the two schemes described above, it’s reasonable to expect a difference in the evaluation ratings of pupils attending each type, but how quickly does this become apparent? The early generic sessions of School2uni are in many ways similar to Taster days, so School2uni might not make a difference until the pupils have started the subject pathways –unless a change in attitude is engendered simply by being told you are beginning a three year relationship with the university. To date, there is little discernible difference in the comments made by pupils at the start of School2uni (i.e. start of year 9) and those of pupils attending a single Taster Day (years 9 - 11). However, by the end of year 9 there are noticeable differences, with considerably more depth coming from the School2uni year 9s than we would expect from pupils at Taster days, even those in years 10 or 11.

The switch in emphasis from getting a good job to getting a degree is particularly interesting and probably owes a great deal to the increased opportunity to develop relationships with our student ambassadors. For example, one of the students involved in the year 9 pilot had just returned from a placement year in which he had earned a high salary, but discovered that he didn’t really enjoy (or entirely approve of ) the ethos of the commercial environment in which he had worked. His explanation to the pupils of how this had shaped his career plans towards something lower paid, but more intrinsically rewarding, had a strong impact on many of the pupils.

Further evidence of increasing realism can be seen in TES interviews given by some of the year 9s. Speaking about the computing pathway one pupil said “it’s much harder than I’d expected”, but when asked by the interviewer ‘‘so don’t you enjoy it?’’, the response was “it being hard has made me enjoy it more – I’ve had to work for it” Evaluation at the end of the subject pathways revealed that one of the most exciting aspects of the pathways for the pupils had been the sense of ownership and responsibility for their own work. “I could put down my own ideas….. we were allowed to make our own decisions…. we could voice our own opinions … I was happy being given the choice of what to work on” were typical comments from year 9s. An additional and very rewarding example of the impact of School2uni on the pupils came when a group of them met a senior member of staff from the DfES. In response to his question “What would you tell your friends to encourage them to come on the scheme?”, one of the boys immediately replied “It’s not what we say it’s how we feel – they can see it when we get back from a day at the Uni – I’m really happy” Teachers involved in the pilot have been highly positive. One of them described School2uni as “quite simply the best WP project I’ve been involved in”. Another said her pupils were really enthused by School2uni, “they have sought me out to say how good it is”. And yet another said that School2uni was “more child-centred than anything else we do at Uni’s – they talk about it on the bus all the way back”.

(source: typical written responses to ‘3 things I know about Uni’ task)

Is there any evidence of an effect on attainment?

One of the staff involved in the year 9 pilot reported at the end of the subject pathway she had attended that the pupils were doing work equivalent to AS level standard. Other staff echoed this, feeling that both the standard and the type of work being carried out often went beyond anything that could have been achieved in the school classroom. At times this was simply due to the provision of facilities not available in a typical secondary school, but other explanations were unusual or unexpected. For example, teachers were surprised that male pupils had so readily engaged in dance activities on the dance/drama pathway. The explanation given by the students leading the pathway was that they had introduced dance in a session called ‘movement’ and only revealed at the end of the workshop that it had actually been about dance! A similar situation arose in textile technology, where the pupils themselves reported at the end of the pathway that they had finally realised the fabric testing they were doing was actually science - not something they would have chosen, though they certainly enjoyed the pathway. At the start of the pilot university staff found it difficult to estimate what could be expected of pupils at this stage, and recognised that they might need to adjust the level of their delivery. In practice this adjustment was nearly always to make the work more challenging, because pupils responded so well to the sessions and were willing to take on more.

As the group moved in to year 10 there was increasing evidence of a willingness to take responsibility for their own learning and to engage with the project between sessions. For example, pupils have emailed and texted lecturers and each other with project-related queries in preparation for the next session. At the start of the pilot a deliberate decision was taken that the pupils would not be ‘tested’ in any way. The temptation to do so was strong as it would have provided clear statistical evidence for comparison with a control group, but consideration of a range of issues by schools and the university informed a decision to focus in the pilot project on getting the delivery methods right and achieving the stated outcomes for each pathway. As yet we have not sought direct evidence of an improvement in achievement at school, however, the group will remain in the project through their GCSE year and those who stay in education will be followed right through to university entry.

Comparison of costs of the Schemes

Both of the schemes described here form part of the core business of the Education Liaison Office at the university, so funding is allocated from within the office budget to cover consumables such as refreshments, materials, etc. Much of the delivery is also covered by the Education Liaison team, which includes two staff who are teacher-trained. Subject specific sessions are generally offered by academic departments. Comparison of costs based on staff time, use of student ambassadors, and consumables for the two schemes show that on an annual basis the costs of the two schemes are comparable. However, on a cost per pupil basis, School2uni is currently five times as expensive as Taster days (£20.35 per pupil for tasters compared with £103 per pupil attending School2uni). Any analysis of costs and benefits should obviously consider whether an intensive intervention for 50 pupils is of more benefit than providing a limited experience for 500. We believe it is, though we admit that we don’t at the moment have any strong quantitative evidence to support this.

Is the School2uni model practical on a broader scale?

There should in principle be nothing to prevent us extending this provision and in time replacing our Taster Day programme entirely with a large cohort of School2uni pupils drawn from schools across Greater Manchester. However, extending the programme to an additional 11 Manchester secondary schools during 04/05 was not entirely successful. Poor attendance from both individual pupils and participating schools, combined with a few unexpectedly challenging behavioural issues, caused some disappointment and dissatisfaction both in schools and at the university. A post-mortem has shown that staff at the university would welcome support in developing appropriate lesson content and delivery styles, whilst some schools need to more fully appreciate the high degree of commitment needed by schools and pupils if School2uni is to work on a large scale. Plans for the 05/06 cohort to include all Manchester secondary schools are well underway and take account of these issues. We remain confi dent that the model is robust and can be made to work on a large scale with positive effects on awareness, aspiration and attainment.

References

¹ Foskett, N. Dyke, M. Maringe, F. (2003). The influence of the school on the decision to participate in learning post-16. Leeds : Education Line.

² Department for Education and Skills (2001). Schools: achieving success. DfES publications.

³ Higher Education Funding Council for England (2001). Partnerships for Progression. HEFCE publications.

⁴ Thomas, L. (2002) Back to school for Universities? Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, Vol 4. no 2.

Susan McGrath
e-mail: s.mcgrath@mmu.ac.uk
telephone: 0161 247 2189

Winter 2006
ISSN 1477-1241