Supporting school leavers in areas of deprivation into initial positive leaver destinations

Abstract

The contemporary attempts to tackle poverty and child poverty in the United Kingdom have been seriously hindered by the effects of the economic crisis (Hirsch, 2008a; Mooney, 2011). The prevailing discourses of the recession and intergenerational poverty can lead to a view that the effects of child poverty and the consequent detrimental impact on school education and future prospects for some young people are intractable (Sinclair & McKendrick, 2009). There can be insufficient emphasis on the successful attempts, however fragile, to intervene in the cycle of deprivation. This article reports on research conducted in two contrasting groups of secondary schools in the city of Glasgow, located in areas of deprivation, as they work to secure initial positive school leaver destinations for young people. This small-scale case study highlights the importance of a strong leadership vision committed to initial positive school leaver destinations, but complemented by distributed leadership and support from external partners to enable sustained successes. It also highlights the importance of individual attention to all young people to support and motivate them and the effectiveness of intervention at an early stage.

Keywords

Child poverty poverty and schools school leaver destination

Introduction

This article examines two groups of secondary schools in Glasgow: group (1) includes a number of secondary schools that are located in areas of multiple deprivation but have recorded high success rates of initial positive school leaver destinations. Group (2) also includes a number of secondary schools that are located in similar areas of multiple deprivation but record lower rates of initial positive school leaver destinations. The research sought the views from key informants in group (1) on the factors that they regarded as key to these successes and the views from key informants in group (2) on the challenges and barriers that they faced. We will begin with a very concise examination of poverty, child poverty and the effects of child poverty on education. The article will then focus on: the Glasgow context; the aims and methodology of our research; presentation of findings and conclude with a discussion of the implications of some of these findings. It is important to note that this research is focused on the transition from school to the initial leaver destinations, but is not a longitudinal study into sustained or realigned leaver destination and so we will adopt the qualifier, initial, thus, initial positive school leaver destination.

Poverty, child poverty and the effect of child poverty on school education

Poverty and child poverty are major challenges for the governments of the United Kingdom in the early 21st century. In the United Kingdom, 3.6 million children (27%, more than one in four) are living in poverty (Child Poverty Action Group, 2012). In Scotland one in four children (26%) live in poverty (Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, 2012; Dickie, 2011; McKendrick, 2011a; Scottish Government, 2011a).¹ The British Coalition government (elected 2010) and the Scottish Nationalist Party Government, a partially devolved government (elected 2011) confirm their commitment to the UK-wide Child Poverty Act 2010, and to eradicating child poverty (Child Poverty Act, 2010).

Child poverty is inextricably linked to poverty in families, as children are dependents. Poverty is often associated with lack of resource, especially a low or inadequate household income (McKendrick, 2011b, 2011c).² Families on low income can experience fuel poverty, food poverty and poor health (Department for Work, 2011; Mooney, 2011; Scottish Government, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2011c).³ This is becoming increasingly problematic as the rising cost of fuel and food creates additional pressure for these families (Burnett & McKendrick, 2007; Kelly & McKendrick, 2007; Save the Children, 2011; Tannahill & Whyte, 2011).⁴ Families on low income often live in poor quality housing in areas that experience high crime rates and have inadequate public transport (Department for Work, 2011; Scottish Government, 2010b). Poverty is often intergenerational – passed from one generation to the next in a cycle of deprivation (Dickie, 2011; Goodman & Gregg, 2010; House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, 2008). Many children remain in the same quintile of income as their parents (Barnardos, 2007). As a result, families can become stereotyped and stigmatized as ‘poor’, as the ‘other’, and stripped of their dignity (Burnett & McKendrick, 2007; Sinclair & McKendrick, 2009). Child poverty, therefore, has serious consequences for the socio-economic status and the well-being of future generations.⁵

Child poverty has a detrimental effect on the performance and attainment of children at different levels of school education (McNally & Blanden, 2006; Muir & Gracey, 2007; Smithers & Robinson, 2010; Washbrook & Waldfogel, 2010). Children experiencing child poverty are less likely to be ready for school and their conduct in school can be more unpredictable; they are more likely to be excluded from school (Preston, 2008; Scottish Government, 2010b; Telfer, 2011). Nevertheless, UK governments have targeted intervention in school education as one of the keys to tackling child poverty because it is perceived to be the route to greater social mobility and a means to breaking the cycle of deprivation (Department for Work, 2011; House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, 2008; Scottish Government, 2011b). The Scottish government, as part of its strategy in tackling poverty and recurrent child poverty, has targeted an increase in positive school leaver destinations, as one of the national indicators of government performance (Scottish Government, 2007). Positive school leaver destinations are defined as: Higher Education (university level); Further Education (college level); employment and training opportunities (Scottish Government, 2011b). These are (potentially) the routes into sustainable futures for young people.

This perception that school education is a route to greater social mobility has been challenged on the grounds that disadvantaged young people can lack the necessary cultural capital and contemporary occupational structures may not have the capacity to absorb significant social mobility (Brown & Lauder, 2009). Further, the emphasis on an increase in positive school leaver destinations needs to be contextualized within the contemporary cuts in public funding of Further Education, University Education and a decrease in the number of employment opportunities –consequences of the current economic climate. While the applications for university places in Scotland have risen, the number of places on degree programmes at universities has been cut and some of the universities have raised the entry requirements for degrees (Buie, 2012). There has been significant reduction in the budget for Further Education in Scotland (Denholm, 2011). This has resulted in staff redundancies, fewer courses, larger classes and less contact time with students (Denholm, 2012). Unemployment for young people aged 16 to 24 has risen sharply in the recession – from 13 percent in 2008 to 20 percent in 2010 (The Poverty Site, 2010).

This article reports on the findings of qualitative research undertaken in Glasgow secondary schools that experience high levels of deprivation. We have identified two groups of school: 1) schools that are able to record high levels of initial positive leaver destination despite high levels of deprivation; and 2) schools that share the same high levels of deprivation, yet record lower levels of initial positive school leaver destination. We sought the views of those working in key positions in the schools to: explore reasons for the differences in initial positive destinations including successful strategies and other key factors (group (1)) and identify the challenges that made progress in positive destinations difficult (group (2)).

Glasgow

The population of the Glasgow City Council area is 592,830 – 11.4 percent of the overall population of Scotland of 5,254,800 (National Records of Scotland, 2012). There are 29 secondary schools in the City of Glasgow that educate 26,318 young people out of Scottish total of 296,515 (Glasgow City Council, 2012; Scottish Government, 2012).⁶ The schools are managed and funded by Glasgow City Council. The level of child poverty in Glasgow can be mapped using a number of measures. Across Scotland, the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) identifies small area concentrations of multiple deprivation (Scottish Government, 2009). This process involves ranking 6505 data zones in the country with 1 being the most deprived and 6505 being the least deprived. The 2009 SIMD involved seven major domains in its calculations of deprivation. These included measures of income, employment, education, health and crime. In terms of the numbers of most deprived areas Glasgow features prominently. For example, the city included 45 percent (226) of the 5 percent most deprived areas in Scotland.⁷ Another measure is the percentage of children registered for free school meals. Pupils registered for free meals in Glasgow for 2006–2010 has been significantly higher than the Scottish average (Scottish Government, 2010c) (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Pupils registered for free school meals in Glasgow and Scotland, 2006–2010

%	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Glasgow City	31.8	30.9	29.6	26.7	29.8
Scotland	13.5	13.2	12.7	12.3	14.4

In the first phase of the research, the team examined the association between indicators of deprivation and initial positive school leaver destinations over a three-year period (2006–2009) for 28 mainstream, comprehensive secondary schools in Glasgow.⁸ The team constructed a tripartite matrix of indicators of poverty that incorporated entitlement to free school meals, information collated from the 2009 SIMD and information about the level of Staged Intervention in the school (Scottish Government, 2009).⁹ When our tripartite measure of deprivation was compared with all initial positive leaver destinations (Higher Education; Further Education; employment; training destinations), the results were unsurprising – there was a clear association between the level of deprivation and the success rate in initial positive leaver destinations. However, when Higher Education was excluded from initial positive leaver destinations, the results were surprising. There was no association between the level of deprivation and the success rate in initial positive leaver destinations. This suggested that some schools that are located in areas of high deprivation have recorded significant success in initial positive school leaver destinations (excluding Higher Education). Closer examination of individual schools showed this to be the case, but there were other schools that shared the same level of deprivation that recorded lower rates in initial positive school leaver destination.

Aims and methodology of research

This article reports on the second phase of the research that sought a deeper understanding of how some secondary schools in Glasgow in areas of high deprivation achieve a high success rate in initial positive school leaver destinations, while others with a similar profile record a lower success rate. We undertook qualitative research designed to build on the previous quantitative research. We conducted interviews with key informants in five schools located in four different areas of multiple deprivation in the city. These interviews were expected to provide an insight into the strategies and structures in each of these schools that support high levels of initial positive leaver destinations, or the challenges that are encountered. Key informants were carefully selected on the grounds that they are knowledgeable and have ‘expertise relevant to the research’ (Rapley, 2008; Rossman & Rallis, 1998). Access to the schools was facilitated by the close working partnership and collaboration with two researchers within Glasgow City Council. The schools were guaranteed anonymity in research publications and, consequently, are identified as schools A, B, C, D and E (Christians, 2005). Table 2 provides a short profile of each school in relation to level of deprivation, attainment and positive leavers destinations over the period 2006–2009.

Table 2.

Summary profiles of study schools in relation to deprivation and leaver destinations

School	Deprivation^a ranking	Attainment^b	Initial positive leaver destinations^c
School A	1st	Results very close to line of best fit on all measures¹⁰	Results well below expectations for ‘All positive destinations’. Particularly low for ‘employment’ as an initial destination.
School B	4th	Results very close to line of best fit on all measures	Results for ‘All positive destinations’ above expectations. Individually high for ‘Training’ and highest in city for ‘Employment’ destinations.
School C	5th	Results very close to line of best fit on all measures	Results for ‘All positive destinations’ above expectations. Individually high for ‘Employment’ and ‘Further Education’ destinations.
School D	9th	Results very close to line of best fit on all measures	Results below expectations for ‘All positive destinations’.
School E	11th	Results above expectations (line of best fit) on the four Higher grade measures	Results for ‘All positive destinations’ above expectations. Individually high for ‘Training’ and ‘Employment’ destinations.

Ranking of school on tripartite measure of deprivation. 1st is the school with highest deprivation score in the city while 28th is the school with the lowest.

Attainment was measured at three stages and two qualifications. These were: 5 or more Standard Grades at S4, 3 and 5 Higher Grades at S5 and, 3 and 5 Higher Grades at S6. Results for the 28 schools in the study were plotted and a line of best fit established.

Initial positive leaver destinations recorded for five outcomes ‘All positive destinations’, ‘Higher Education’, ‘Further Education’, ‘Training’, ‘Employment’. Results for the 28 schools in the study were plotted and a line of best fit established.

From Table 2 it can be seen that four of the five schools are among the 10 secondary schools in Glasgow with the highest levels of deprivation (as measured on our tripartite measure). School E falls just outside the top 10. Schools B, C and E were chosen for the study because they exhibited consistently high success rates in initial school leaver destinations despite high levels of deprivation – these schools constitute group (1). On a number of individual destination measures these schools did particularly well: School B had the highest ‘Employment’ destinations of any school in the city while School E did comparatively well in relation to ‘Training’ and school C was well above the other four schools in relation to ‘Further Education’ as an initial destination. Schools A and D were chosen because they also had high levels of deprivation but appeared less successful with initial school leaver destinations – these schools constitute group (2).

Schools C and D are denominational schools (Catholic) and Schools A, B and E are non-denominational schools (both denominational and non-denominational schools are fully state-funded in Scotland). The five schools were not, however, chosen as a representative sample of denominational and non-denominational schooling. The evidence from the quantitative research demonstrated that there was no significant difference in attainment or leaver destination between the two sectors when level of deprivation was accounted for over this specific three-year period. School B and School C are located in the same geographical area and have a close working partnership in addressing positive school leaver destinations.

Initial contact with each school established that there was a member of the school leadership team who was key in promoting positive school leaver destinations. Consequently, we interviewed the Head (HT) or Deputy Head teacher (DHT) in each school. In some schools there was also a member of the teaching staff who had a specific remit for positive school leaver destination. In School B we interviewed the Principal Teacher of Pastoral Care (and Careers Coordinator) and in School E, the Principal Teacher of Enterprise, Employability and Partnership. In School D we interviewed a member of staff who was a former Employability Officer. Finally, in School B we interviewed a Careers Advisor who worked closely with the school and was funded for an extra day per week by the school. Overall, we interviewed nine key informants. This provided a combination of expert administrators (school leadership teams) and advanced practitioners (those working with the young people) (Gillham, 2005). Table 3 details the list of interviewees by their position in the schools.

Table 3.

Interviewee details by school

School	Interviewees
A	Deputy Headteacher
B	Headteacher, Principal Teacher of Pastoral Care and Careers Coordinator, Careers Advisor.
C	Deputy Headteacher
D	Headteacher, Former Employability Officer
E	Deputy Headteacher, Principal Teacher of Enterprise, Employability and Partnership

The interviews were semi-structured and conducted by two members of the research team in June and July 2011. All of the interviews were recorded with the permission of the interviewees and fully transcribed to enable close analysis (Legard et al., 2004; Robson, 2002). Interview questions focused on:

the key informants understanding of the school attainment results and initial positive school leaver destination;

their explanations of the results; identification of the major influences on the data and the major challenges;

the role of the school in promoting initial positive destinations;

identification of any major factors and any potential influence of external partners which promote initial positive school leaver destinations;

how they could sustain or improve the initial positive destinations.

At the beginning of each interview, we described and explained the data we had produced from school attainment and initial positive leaver destination data for their school, 2006 to 2009. Every interviewee validated the data for their school, and accepted the accuracy of the figures that we presented. A number of the interviewees also described how the figures for their school had changed in the period after 2009. Using this data as a starting point for the interview allowed interviewees to comprehend the nature of the research and the relevant areas for discussion. This process also helped to verify interviewer credentials by demonstrating that the researchers had a ‘thorough knowledge of the topic’, enabling them to engage in meaningful discussion with the key informants (Keats, 2000; Rossman & Rallis, 1998). Interviewees quickly moved on to ‘explanations’ for the data. Much of this discussion involved interviewees’ descriptions of what they saw as the key interventions in the school associated with attempts to maintain and/or improve their positive leaver destinations.

A thematic analysis of the data contained in the transcripts was conducted. Our approach to analysis closely followed the procedure exemplified by Braun and Clarke (2006) in their six-stage guide to thematic analysis:

Become familiar with the data (e.g. through transcription).

Produce initial codes – systematically organize data into meaningful groups.

Search for themes – sort codes into possible themes; these will be broader than initial codes.

Review themes – return to coded data extracts and consider validity of individual themes.

Refine themes as required.

Produce report – provide evidence of themes (e.g. illustrative quotes) within data and interpret the patterns in relation to the research questions.

Three main thematic areas emerged from this stage of the analysis. These were:

The consequences of the socio-economic context of the school;

Personnel involved in promoting initial positive school leaver destinations;

Nature of intervention.

Presentation of findings

The consequences of the socio-economic context of the school

All of the schools commented on the levels of deprivation in their social context and discussed the concrete effects of the current financial climate. We have categorized this section as follows: socially challenged families and areas; cuts in school budgets and external staffing allocated to schools; employability opportunities and sustained futures; apprenticeships; rise in university tariffs and possibility of university fees and cuts in college provision.

Socially challenged families and areas

Young people who belong to socially challenged families in areas of multiple deprivation require considerable motivation to achieve their potential (Preston, 2008). Interviewees in all schools pointed out that they had considerable numbers of intelligent, academically able and talented young people. However, the young person often has to be particularly single-minded and self-motivated to succeed as they can struggle without family support and encouragement (DHT in School A). This is exacerbated by family crises and a history of long-term unemployment in the family trapped in the cycle of deprivation (House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, 2008). Some young people are young carers (caring for siblings or parents) or, as the consequence of family breakdown, are in the care of Social Services (DHT in School C). Some schools suggested that territorialism in the city meant that their pupils would not attend college, training or even employment in certain areas of the city since this would entail crossing the territorial boundaries of gangs.

Cuts in school budgets and external staffing allocated to schools

School budgets, as part of wider cuts, have been cut. Glasgow City Council announced a budget cut of £90 million in 2010 over a two-year period. Cuts in education account for 24 percent of the overall cuts (Braiden, 2010). This has serious implications for the capacity of schools to finance extra resources and support. The schools stated that the current financial climate demands a response that is flexible, creative and innovative. Taking children to careers fairs, for example, becomes problematic, as the cost of transport is a drain on school resources. In response to this challenge, some schools have created their own career fairs within the school. Recent cuts in external staffing allocated to schools have had serious consequences. In School D, the former full-time Employability Officer now has a teaching post in the school and the school now shares an Employability Officer. This is replicated in the other schools. Also schools expressed serious concerns that if external staff connected with the school were reduced, this would have significant impact on their effort to sustain and improve initial positive school leaver destination.

Employability opportunities and sustained futures

There are no major employers in the locale of the five schools. Furthermore, few schools could identify any large major employers out with the local area that have a sustained relationship with the school. Most schools appeared to focus on contacts with small employers and securing a place, or small number of places, whenever possible. Schools A and E identified Glasgow City Builders and Glasgow City Council as useful and sustained sources of employment for their school leavers. A number of interviewees also commented that retailing (shops), supermarket work and catering are common destinations. Similar to research findings in Australia, there are concerns about the low socio-economic status and poor career prospects of some of these initial employment destinations (Collins, Kenway, & McLeod, 2000).

Apprenticeships

Interviewees expressed anxiety over the lack of apprenticeships available – apprenticeships are perceived by both the schools and the young people as a route to more financially secure employment and a sustainable future. Glasgow is host to the Commonwealth Games in 2014 and the City Council announced an extensive scheme to recruit young people as apprentices in 2008 (Chatterjee, 2008). All schools, apart from School E, expressed disappointment with the Commonwealth Games apprenticeship scheme. School E appeared to have been successful in securing some apprenticeships, but this was a result of perseverance and staff committed full time to pursuing such initiatives. The other schools felt that they had had a very poor return for their efforts. All schools voiced criticisms of the time-consuming process of applying for these apprenticeships and the disappointment that the scale of the promised apprenticeship opportunities failed to materialize.

Rise in university tariffs and possibility of university fees

Schools B, D and E identified the competition for university places and the rise in university tariffs as highly problematic for their schools (Buie, 2012). This adds extra pressure on their young people (often in difficult family circumstances) as they aim for certain sets of examination grades for specific degree programmes. They further commented that when the grades are securely attained for degree courses for high profile professions, the young people in these schools might be disadvantaged by the interview and selection process that enables entry onto these courses. Currently, young people in Scotland do not have to pay fees to attend university, but the possibility, or threat, of fees being introduced (as economic expediency) would have serious implications for the young people in the sample schools. In School B, the HT stated that the vast majority of those eligible would not be able to proceed to university.

Cuts in college provision

The interviewees confirmed that colleges are now less likely to offer vocational or pre-vocational outreach courses within Glasgow secondary schools (Denholm, 2011, 2012). In the past these were free of charge; now colleges, if they have the staffing to offer the courses, are seeking payment for these courses. These courses offered an alternative curriculum for many young people and could lead to progression to a place at college. The schools are trying to address these cuts in college–school provision, cuts in overall college places, and increased competition for these places by preparing earlier in the school year for college applications, by focusing on a variety of choices and developing interview skills.

Personnel involved in promoting initial positive school leaver destinations

Importance of leadership committed to improving positive school leaver destinations and operational work by one or two designated staff

In all of the five schools the commitment of the school leadership to maintaining and/or improving initial positive school leaver destinations was regarded as being of vital importance. In the case of the schools in group (1) (B, C and E) this is the commitment of the HT but with essential support from other members of the school leadership and members of the teaching team. The leaders from group (1) articulated (what we will describe as) a vision of expectation of all pupils. This vision of expectation was expressed in an ethos of success that was shared with staff:

The staff in the school. . . definitely do their utmost and they are rigorous in terms of providing quality education, in setting high standards for the children, high standards as soon as they come in the door – in terms of their learning, in terms of their conduct, in terms of their expectations about quality, about presentation, about working with others, about respect, about basically only the best will do. (DHT School C)

Allied to this is a vision of inclusivity, ensuring that the school was focused on destinations of all pupils, not only those who were predicted to attain in school examinations (to the exclusion of non-academic pupils). Interviewees in all of the schools do highlight the academic successes of the school and underline their pride in the young people who had achieved academically. However, there are also some significant successes in obtaining employment and training opportunities for young people in each of the schools. The HT in School B provided a good articulation of this vision of inclusivity:

I am absolutely committed one hundred percent to positive leavers destinations. . . all I want is young people to achieve their potential and if that’s university then that’s the focus, if that’s going into a training position, that’s the focus.

In two of the schools in group (1) this commitment led to the allocation of financial resource (within severe budgetary constraints) to maintain a school-based post. Schools B and E had teachers with delegated responsibility for positive school leaver destination (School C benefited from joint initiatives such as the winter leavers project organized in School B; and School C organizes a shared senior timetable with School B). School B employed a Principal Teacher of Pastoral Care (and Careers Coordinator) and also employs a full-time teacher of ‘skills for life, skills for work and skills for learning’ (former Employability Officer in the school). School E had a Principal Teacher of Enterprise, Employability and Partnership who had established strong links with the young people and their families and has an overview of the needs of the young people:

A lot of parents will phone [the Principal Teacher of Enterprise, Employability and Partnership] by name, ask to look for particular things for their child whilst that child is maybe in second or third year. . . from a very early age the Principal Teacher has identified the pupils, what their needs are and therefore can start processing, if you like, information and informing them of places, courses, apprenticeships, possibilities for the pupils. (DHT in School E)

In the schools in group (2), the DHT in School A and the HT in school D shared the vision and commitment to expectation and inclusivity with members of their leadership teams. There were a number of marked contrasts in the operation of this vision when compared with group (1). The operational work in School A seems to be more distributed among a wider group of staff and in collaboration with external partners. In School A this is led by the DHT who has extensive experience (as the former Principal Teacher of Inclusion) and has established strong links with external partners. School A has developed a mentoring programme: teaching staff mentor an allocated number of young people and track their progress through the fourth year of secondary school. School D also used a wider group of teaching staff and had a similar mentoring programme. Importantly, the HT in School D commented that the inconsistencies in the initial positive school leaver destinations for his school occurred when he/she was on a secondment and the vision stalled during a temporary change of leadership.

I think one of the interesting factors is the expectations and aspirations are set by the head teacher of the school for the attainment of the young people and the calendar year that I was away, those two academic sessions fell radically in [School D] to the point that I didn’t recognize it when I came back.

When the HT had been present the school positive school leaver destinations had been emphasized, but this does not seem to have continued in their absence.

Collaboration with external partners

All of the schools in both groups (1) and (2) have strong links and collaborate with key external partners, in particular, Skills Development Scotland (Careers Advisors) AAC staff (Activity Agreement Coaches), Employability Officers and local regeneration groups. There were some significant differences in the emphases in the collaborative process between group (1) and group (2) in relation to Careers Advisors and other external staff.

Careers Advisors are employed by Skills Development Scotland (2012). All schools are entitled to the support of a Careers Advisor, but this would generally be for a few days a week (time allocation is based on the school roll). The Careers Advisors interview the young people, help them with application processes, prepare them for interviews for employment, training or college and support them in their choices. In group (1), Schools B and E funded extra time from Careers Advisors: School E for an extra two days per week; School B for an extra day a week. The extra day of careers advice in School B allows the Careers Advisor to broaden the scope of his activities and engage more intensively in one-to-one work with young people. In practical terms every child is interviewed twice, which is perceived to be invaluable in a school where young people suffer from low self-esteem and may lack confidence, motivation and resilience:

. . . a lot of them aren’t that confident and they are not that forthcoming when I see them initially. . . but I’m in a position where I can see them on numerous occasions, so I build up a positive working relationship where I build trust, get a better picture of where they’re coming from and what their aspirations are. . .

Similarly, School E uses the extra two days of careers advice to coordinate a concerted effort to support young people:

. . . we have the additional Careers Advisor and the Careers Advisors meet with mw every day before they start and that’s where we caseload the priorities. (Principal Teacher of Enterprise, Employability and Partnership)

The Careers Advisors are able to work with all of key year groups, including younger groups, and to prepare the young people thoroughly for interviews and college applications.

In group (2), School A and School D did not fund any additional school based posts or any external partners. The DHT in School A commented that external sources in the past had funded some extra time for a Careers Advisor and the Council had allotted funding for a Principal Teacher of Inclusion. The school did not have the resources to continue funding a designated Principal Teacher post that would support inclusivity nor extra time from an external partner, though there is some enhanced provision from Skills Development Scotland. School D had funded two extra days of careers input but this had ceased; the school funds were restricted and the HT questioned the effectiveness of the extra days. Schools A and D, like all schools, had had school-based Employability Officers but the number of officers had been reduced and they are now shared between schools. The former Employability Officer in School D and the DHT in School A both voiced serious anxiety about this change and the potential effects on positive school leaver destinations. The DHT in School A expressed concern that the new role for the Employability Officer appeared to be more strategic rather than operational.

The DHT in School A discussed the role of Positive Partnerships Plus, a group with external partners:

. . . it’s ourselves, Skills Development Scotland, the local regeneration agency and Glasgow City Council 16 plus transitions group and we meet once a month to discuss youngsters who are most likely to go into negative destinations. . . so it’s rigorous tracking.

This has helped School A raise the positive destinations by 10 percent. School D had a similar forum that met once a month, involving Careers Scotland, AAC staff and North Glasgow Regeneration Agency. They had also re-focused the activity of the Careers Scotland staff working with the school. School D organized a Positive Futures Fair where young people could meet employers, training providers and college and university representatives.

Schools A and D in group (2) placed emphasis on the work of the AAC staff (Schools B and E discussed their importance as part of a wide concerted strategy with external partners). They explained that AAC staff tend to come from the locale of the school and have very close links and relationships with local families. They understand the pressures these families face and the tensions that this can create for young people. In School A, for example, the AAC had worked with the young people in the transition programme (STEPS) from primary school to secondary school and:

. . . got to know families, knows the area inside out, working with the same families as. . . when they were doing the transition from primary to secondary. (DHT School A)

Both Schools A and D stated that this intense AAC staff relationship with families and young people enabled them, at times, to physically collect young people from their home and take them to a job interview or to college.

The AA Coach was brought up in this area, he knows a lot of the families that live in the area and everything else, but he would go to people’s doors and chap [knock] the door and say, ‘right I need your boy out here now, I’m going to take him to meet somebody’. (Former Employability Officer, School D)

Although this direct intervention was not always successful, interviewees valued such levels of support, which they felt attempted to address the problems exhibited by young people experiencing socially challenged families or families facing collapse. Some young people can struggle to negotiate the demands of the different social spheres of home and school.

He [AA Coach] worked with some of our hard to reach candidates if you like, folk who just did not engage in the educational process. They may have been non-attenders or they just came here and school wasn’t for them for whatever reason and he got some of them, not all of them, but he got some of them on track. (Former Employability Officer, School D)

As has been stated, there are significant anxieties in the schools that the time allocated to AA Coaches and their functions may be reduced as a result of recent local government cutbacks.

Nature of intervention

Intervention at an early age

There was consensus among the interviewees in groups (1) and (2) that intervention is crucial in the process of maintaining positive school leaver destinations. Intervention at an early age means young people should be encouraged to engage in deliberation about their future at an early stage of their school career. The importance of intervention at an early age has been highlighted in educational research findings though no specific age or stage in school has been identified (Menter, Hulme, Lowden, & Hall, 2010). Most of the schools believed that the work should commence at the primary school and intensify on arrival at the secondary school. Schools B and E (group 1) are able to implement this. The Careers Advisor for School B engages with children in the primary school level in preparation for secondary level. This is the Careers Advisor who is funded by the school for an extra day per week and is able to extend the scope of activity with the young people. Similarly the Principal Teacher of Enterprise, Employability and Partnership in School E delivers employability courses and mock interviews at the primary seven level.

Targeted intervention

Targeted intervention supports young people who are deemed to be at risk of not progressing to a positive destination. This strategy can be understood as having two targets: individuals and groups. In group (1), in Schools B and E, the Principal Teachers monitor the progress of the pupils very carefully. In School C, the DHT has the same role. In group (2), the DHT (School A) has this role, and in School D, a wider group of staff are involved and the HT asks staff to constantly brief him on pupil progress and will personally interview pupils who are identified as not fulfilling their potential. The absence of a designated member of staff in Schools A and D (and C) devolves some of the operational tasks to a member of the leadership team.

In groups (1) and (2), informants suggested that successful intervention with groups can take the form of constructed, bespoke programmes aimed at particular young people with identified needs – designed to attract pupils considered to be disengaging and disengaged. In group (1), the Principal Teacher of Pastoral Care (and Careers Coordinator) in School B has constructed a school leavers’ programme, shared with School C. In group (2), the DHT in School A has a similar initiative although the details of the programme vary. In both cases (Schools B/C and D) the programme is designed to incorporate life skills and employability skills (e.g. School A collaborates with the community police officer to prepare young people for the written part of the driving test). School B incorporates young people with mild learning difficulties in its programme.

Discussion

Our findings have identified a number of strategies that have been implemented to maintain and improve initial positive school leaver destinations in the selected schools and we have identified challenges. In this section we have selected three inter-connected themes for discussion: the role of leaders and extended team; the role and relationship with external partners and the effects of budget cuts.

We have identified the importance of the commitment of the school leader to initial positive school leaver destinations. Thomson (2010) describes these types of leaders in schools located in areas of deprivation as having a ‘socially just approach’: eschewing a deficit view of the disadvantaged school population and promoting the school as an ‘important site for building social capital within the community’. The schools voiced concern about the impact of widespread unemployment in their areas but were all committed to improving the prospects for the young people, and this was manifested in the dual vision of expectation and inclusivity and in the extension of the care and guidance for young people in some schools once they have left school (Schools A, B and E). It became apparent that the leaders and leadership teams in group (1), especially Schools B and E, worked co-operatively with designated members of school staff who had devolved responsibility for operational matters and they also worked with external partners.

The leaders in the schools in group (2) were equally committed to a ‘socially just approach’ and a vision of expectation and inclusivity, but because these schools were unable to fund a designated school post with devolved responsibility or extra time from an external partner, some of the responsibility for the operation resides with the HT and the DHT. This was problematic for the DHT in School A as they have a range of commitments. It was also problematic for the HT in School D where the strategies for initial positive school leaver destination stalled as a result of a temporary change of leadership. This may have been partly the result of an over-reliance on the charismatic leadership of one person who inspires and motivates others, including the other members of the leadership team which is exacerbated by a temporary leader who did not prioritize these strategies (Griffiths, 2008). This is less likely to occur where there is more formalized distributed leadership including structural commitment to a designated post (and possible funding of an external partner) because some continuity could have been maintained (Thomson, 2010).

All of the schools acknowledged the importance of the collaboration with external partners but this collaboration takes a number of forms. The schools in group (1) work with external partners as part of their overall operational work, but they have extended the collaboration by funding extra time from Careers Advisors. These schools work closely with Careers Advisors and coordinate and use this extra time strategically: they are able to prioritize engagement with young people in the early stages of their secondary school career (and even younger) and work with them as individuals and help them in their decision-making. This means they can identify and target disengaging and disengaged young people at an early stage. Within the time period being researched it can be argued that this strategy has been successful as School B has recorded high results for the number of young people entering training and has the highest results for young people entering employment. Similarly School E has recorded high results for young people entering training and employment destinations. School C, which shared strategy and operation with School B, recorded high employment and Further Education destinations.

The schools in group (2) also worked with external partners as part of their overall operational work, but are unable to fund extra time for external partners (though the HT in School D questioned the efficacy of this strategy for their school), nor any internal posts. This limits internal resources and means that these schools may be unable to spend as much time with individual young people – they seem to be more dependent on the autonomous work of some of the external partners (at times, undertaken externally to the school) such as AAC staff. One of the reasons they have given for valuing the work of the AAC staff is the attention that is given to individual young people to motivate and encourage them.

The effect of budget cuts across all levels of Scottish education (schools, colleges and universities) and for external partners creates fragility in strategic plans and operations in all of these schools. The key informants in our sample schools stated that they work hard to overcome these challenges, but this has generated anxieties about the sustainability of school-based initiatives and effective links with external partners. The rationalization of Employability Officers from full-time posts in schools to schools sharing Employability Officers is a good example of the impact of cuts and will limit the potential effectiveness of their role. The schools are worried that further cuts in school budgets and external partner budgets may impact detrimentally on the funding of designated internal posts in schools and lead to reduction in the role of the other external partners, such as AAC staff. In other words, some of the identified key supports that support the strategy for initial positive school leaver destination may be compromised. This is compounded by the significant reduction in college and university provision and training and employment opportunities, which will affect many young people in these schools as they plan their futures. The erosion of support mechanisms and opportunities for young people as a result of public spending cuts will have long-term effects for their future and the good of society, continuing the cycle of deprivation that traps people in poverty (Dickie, 2011; Goodman & Gregg, 2010; Hirsch, 2008b). Arguably, targeted and consolidated investment in the support mechanisms for young people in schools, as they work towards an initial positive leaver destination, is urgently required in the current economic climate. Our findings, albeit limited, suggest that designated posts in schools make a qualitative difference and are key to increasing the initial positive school leaver destinations – especially in conjunction with an increase in the support from Careers Advisors. This collaboration provides individual support to young people (that has been offered in Schools B, C and E) to: engender self-confidence; promote resilience; assist them in the decision-making process; guide them through application processes and prepare them for interviews.

Concluding remarks

This small case study presents a very limited sample but does provide some insightful and useful data for policy and strategy for the promotion of initial positive school leaver destinations. Further research is required to deepen the findings on: the relationship between leadership vision and distributed leadership and operation in the work to sustain and improve initial school leaver destinations; a wider study of the roles and effect of Careers Advisors in schools; the most effective way to engage with young people on an individual basis and the value of engaging with young people in the lower secondary and primary school level. The research could be extended to other schools with similar profiles in the Glasgow area and other comparable cities in the UK, as they strive to maintain a high success rate in initial positive school leaver destination or improve their success rate. There is also a need for more longitudinal research to track the progress of young people in the transition into an initial positive school leaver destination and the potential social mobility of their subsequent longer-term outcomes.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Barnardos. (2007). Child poverty in Scotland. Retrieved September 2012, from: www.barnardos.org.uk/westminster_poverty_consultation.pdf.

Braiden

(2010). Schools bear brunt of Glasgow Council’s £90m budget cuts. The Herald, 23 November. Retrieved September 2012 from: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/schools-bear-brunt-of-glasgow-council-s-90m-budget-cuts-1.1070145.

Brown

Lauder

(2009). Social class and education: Changes and challenges. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/social-class-and-education-changes-and-challenges/.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Retrieved September 2012, from: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Buie

(2012). Task force investigates university entry. Times Educational Supplement Scotland, 13 January.

Burnett

McKendrick

(2007). Living in poverty. In McKendrick

Mooney

Dickie

Kelly

(Eds.), Poverty in Scotland 2007 (pp. 81–96). London: Child Poverty Action Group.

Chatterjee

(2008). Glasgow to offer apprenticeship to every school leaver. Further Education News. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://fenews.co.uk/fe-news/glasgow-to-offer-apprenticeship-to-every-school-leaver.

Child Poverty Act 2010. (2010). Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/9/contents.

Child Poverty Action Group. (2012). Child poverty facts and figures. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures.

10.

Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland. (2012). Child poverty facts and figures. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.cpag.org.uk/scotland/child-poverty-facts-and-figures.

11.

Christians

(2005). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 139–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

12.

Collins

Kenway

McLeod

(2000). Factors influencing the educational performance of males and females in school and their initial destinations after leaving school. Geelong, Vic., Australia: Deakin University.

13.

Denholm

(2011). Colleges claim £74m funding hit will reduce student places. The Herald, 22 September. Retrieved September 2012, from: www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/colleges-claim-74m-funding-hit-will-reduce-student-places.15206718.

14.

Denholm

(2012). Funding cuts ‘risks quality of colleges’. The Herald, 7 February. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/education/funding-cuts-risks-quality-of-colleges.16684011.

15.

Department for Work and Department for Pensions, Department for Education. (2011). A new approach to child poverty: Tackling the causes of disadvantage and transforming families’ lives. Retrieved September 2012, from: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/CM%208061.

16.

Dickie

(2011). Child poverty. In McKendrick

Mooney

Dickie

Kelly

(Eds.), Poverty in Scotland 2011 (pp. 167–172). London: Child Poverty Action Group.

17.

Dunne

Humphreys

Sebba

Dyson

Gallannaugh

Muijs

(2007). Effective teaching and learning for pupils in low attaining groups. Research Report No DCSF-RR011, Department for Children, Schools and Families.

18.

Energy Action Scotland. (2011). Statistics and trends. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.eas.org.uk/key_issues_statistics_and_trends.php.

19.

Gillham

(2005). Research interviewing. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

20.

Glasgow City Council. (2012). Secondary education in Glasgow. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/GoingtoSchool/Secondary/.

21.

Goodman

Gregg

(2010). Poorer children’s educational attainment: How important are attitudes and behaviour? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/educational-attainment-poor-children.

22.

Griffiths

(2008). What kind of research evidence should our leaders use? Scottish Educational Review, 40(1), 12–21.

23.

Hirsch

(2008a). What is needed to end child poverty in 2020? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/what-needed-end-child-poverty-2020.

24.

Hirsch

(2008b). Estimating the cost of child poverty in Scotland – Approaches and evidence. Scottish Government Social Research. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/01/28111819/5.

25.

House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee. (2008). Child poverty in Scotland. Third report of session 2007–2008. London: The Stationery Office.

26.

Keats

D. M.

(2000). Interviewing. Buckingham: Open University Press.

27.

Kelly

McKendrick

(2007). Definitions, measurements and incidence of poverty. In McKendrick

Mooney

Dickie

Kelly

(Eds.), Poverty in Scotland 2007 (pp. 13–36). London: Child Poverty Action Group.

28.

Kounali

Robinson

Goldstein

Lauder

(2008). The probity of free school meals as a proxy measure for disadvantage. Retrieved September 2012, from: www.bristol.ac.uk/cmm/publications/fsm.pdf.

29.

Legard

Keegan

Ward

(2004). In-depth interviews. In Ritchie

Lewis

(Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 138–169). London: SAGE.

30.

McKendrick

J. H.

(2011a). Who lives in poverty? In McKendrick

Mooney

Dickie

Kelly

(Eds.), Poverty in Scotland 2011 (pp. 91–110). London: Child Poverty Action Group.

31.

McKendrick

J. H.

(2011b). What is poverty? In McKendrick

Mooney

Dickie

Kelly

(Eds.), Poverty in Scotland 2011 (pp. 17–29). London: Child Poverty Action Group.

32.

McKendrick

J. H.

(2011c). Is poverty falling? In McKendrick

Mooney

Dickie

Kelly

(Eds.), Poverty in Scotland 2011 (pp. 65–75). London: Child Poverty Action Group.

33.

McNally

Blanden

(2006). Mind the gap: Child poverty and educational attainment. Poverty, 123, 10–13.

34.

Menter

Hulme

Lowden

Hall

(2010). Learning and innovation and change management in Glasgow secondary schools. Glasgow: University of Glasgow/Scottish Government.

35.

Mooney

(2011). Poverty and anti-poverty policy in Scotland: Themes and issues. In McKendrick

Mooney

Dickie

Kelly

(Eds.), Poverty in Scotland 2011 (pp. 3–13). London: Child Poverty Action Group.

36.

Muir

Gracey

(2007). Poverty and health. In McKendrick

Mooney

Dickie

Kelly

(Eds.), Poverty in Scotland 2007 (pp. 116–121). London: Child Poverty Action Group.

37.

National Records of Scotland. (2012). Glasgow City Council area demographic factsheet. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/council-area-data-sheets/glasgow-city-factsheet.pdf.

38.

Preston

(2008). 2 skint 4 school. London: Child Poverty Action Group.

39.

Rapley

(2008). Interviews. In Seale

Giampietro

Gubrium

J. F.

Silverman

(Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 15–33). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

40.

Robson

(2002). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell.

41.

Rossman

Rallis

(1998). Learning in the field. London: SAGE.

42.

Save the Children. (2011). Severe child poverty in Scotland. Retrieved September 2012, from: www.savethechildren.org.uk/.

43.

Scottish Government. (2007). National indicators. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Performance/scotPerforms/indicators.

44.

Scottish Government. (2009). Scottish index of multiple deprivation. Edinburgh: Scottish Government National Statistics Publication.

45.

Scottish Government. (2010a). Scottish house condition survey key findings 2009. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/11/23125350/9.

46.

Scottish Government. (2010b). Tackling child poverty in Scotland: A discussion paper. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/11/15103604/0.

47.

Scottish Government. (2010c). School meals in Scotland, 2010. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/07/06095048/0.

48.

Scottish Government. (2010d). Progress report on the Scottish fuel poverty statement 2002. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/11/23134646/1.

49.

Scottish Government. (2011a). Child poverty strategy for Scotland. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/14094421/0.

50.

Scottish Government. (2011b). National indicators (school leavers). Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/scotPerforms/indicators/schoolLeavers.

51.

Scottish Government. (2011c). Updated fuel poverty estimates 2011. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SHCS/shcsdatadevelopment/UFPES2011.

52.

Scottish Government. (2012). Pupils in Scotland 2011 supplementary. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/supppupils2011.

53.

Sinclair

McKendrick

J. H.

(2009). Child poverty in Scotland: Taking the next steps. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

54.

Skills Development Scotland. (2012). Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/.

55.

Smithers

Robinson

(2010). Worlds apart. Social variation among schools. The Sutton Trust. Retrieved September 2012, from: www.suttontrust.com/research/worlds-apart/.

56.

Tannahill

Whyte

(2011). Inequalities in health. In McKendrick

Mooney

Dickie

Kelly

(Eds.), Poverty in Scotland 2011 (pp. 155–160). London: Child Poverty Action Group.

57.

Telfer

(2011). Education: Closing the achievement gap. In McKendrick

Mooney

Dickie

Kelly

(Eds.), Poverty in Scotland 2011 (pp. 173–178). London: Child Poverty Action Group.

58.

The Poverty Site. (2010). Scotland – Young adult unemployment. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.poverty.org.uk/s35/index.shtml.

59.

Thomson

(2010). Leading/managing schools in communities made poor. In Peterson

Baker

McGaw

(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.

60.

Washbrook

Waldfogel

(2010). Cognitive gaps in the early years. The Sutton Trust. Retrieved September 2012, from: http://www.suttontrust.com/research/cognitive-gaps-in-the-early-years/.