BERA PAPER London West Post 16 Project

Pathways and progression at 16+ – ‘fashion’, peer influence and college choice

Nick Foskett (University of Southampton), Jacky Lumby (University of Lincoln) and Felix Maringe (University of Southampton)

Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11-13 September 2003

Abstract

This paper draws on data from a qualitative study of attitudes to post-16 choices amongst Year 11 pupils in six West London Boroughs. The complexity of choice and decision-making at 16+ has been highlighted by many previous studies, which identify that the choice of young people to stay-on in education or training is strongly linked to an individual’s socio-economic and ethnic background. Furthermore, choices are made only in part on the basis of receiving and evaluating formal information about options, but also through emotional processes framed by the psychological mechanisms adopted by young people to preserve their self-esteem, hence ensuring approval from family and peer-group and avoiding perceived risks of failure. The study, undertaken in 2003, worked with pupils representing a wide range of post-16 aspirations, and explored through focus groups a range of influences on the emergence of their post-16 ‘choices’. The results identify the changing popularity of particular pathways and colleges as post-16 choices in the context of their perceived status within the peer culture of 16 year olds. The ephemeral notions of ‘fashionability’ and ‘acceptability’ that this engenders are considered as important elements of that status and hence of peer pressure in ‘choice’. The paper explores the contrasts in what is perceived as ‘fashionable’ amongst education, training or job pathways, and also of individual colleges and courses, amongst different sub-groups in West London. These differences are then explored in relation to their links to gender, ethnicity, socio-economic background and local labour market characteristics. In particular the research identifies the components of ‘fashion’ in education, training or job choice, and in college choice, and how these result in changing notions of what is and is not ‘fashionable’. The paper then develops a model of the connection between ‘fashion’ and college choice at 16.

Introduction

This research study was commissioned by London West Learning and Skills Council (LWLSC) to identify the range of factors which are influential in the education, training and careers ‘choice’ processes of 16 year olds in West London. Its primary purpose was to provide a local analysis to support the LWLSC’s responsibilities in relation to the funding of post-16 education and training and the encouragement of lifelong learning. The research was undertaken by a team from the International Institute of Educational Leadership at the University of Lincoln and the School of Education at the University of Southampton during January to April 2003. The study focuses on the choices of young people in Year 11 of secondary education about their destinations post-GCSE as they move out of the compulsory phase of education. In particular, it draws out the ways in which a range of influences shape young people’s choice, and considers the inter-relationships between factors such as gender, ethnicity, achievement and socio-economic background.

The Study Context – Choice at 16

A key context for the study was the existing evidence about choice at 16 that has emerged from research at a larger scale of study or in other localities (e.g.taylor, 1992; Hodkinson and Sparkes, 1993; Hodkinson and Sparkes, 1997;Foskett and Hesketh, 1996; MacRae et el, 1996; Ferguson and Unwin, 1996; Foskett and Hesketh, 1997; Foskett and Hemsley Brown, 2001) It is recognised within the study of choice processes, though, that local contexts are an important element in shaping patterns at individual and aggregate levels. Hence there is always the need to understand the local ‘micro markets’ within which choice occurs, and such an understanding informs both local policy and practice and the generic understanding of choice.

The complexity of the process of choice has been highlighted by many previous studies (e.g.Foskett and Hemsley Brown, 2001), which have identified the relative influence of different sources and pathways of choice information, the influence of different groups (e.g. parents, careers advisors, peers etc), the variations between groups of different ethnic and socio-economic background, and the timing of choice decisions. Research suggests that the process of decision-making starts early, with many of the influences on choice identifiable even amongst primary age children. The choice itself by each individual is not based on a full rational analysis of influencing factors, but is a response to information received through various filters (e.g. teachers, parents) and then subjected to a range of psychological mechanisms adopted by young people to preserve their self-esteem and seek approval from peers. In summary, young people’s choice is the outcome of four interacting contexts – their family context (parents, siblings, cultural values), their social context (for example dominant ethnic/cultural values, and the values of their peer culture), the context of their school or college (the institutional context, which shows itself through the attitudes and actions of teachers, college marketing activities, careers guidance systems etc)), and the context of their daily ‘lived’ experiences which involves short-term responses to the immediacy of their situation. Choice for young people, therefore, is a process not an event, framed strongly by implicit and explicit environmental constraints, in which many adopt a line of least resistance by either staying on at school or following one of the pathways that is the norm for their socio-economic group. In this way inequalities are inevitably replicated – hence raising aspirations, increasing participation and widening participation require a clear understanding of the constraints and norms in the local context.

The Study Context – the London West region

The London West region covers six boroughs in West London (Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, and Hounslow) with a total population of 1.4 million. Secondary education in the region is provided by 131 secondary schools, 92 of which have their own sixth forms, which provide post-16 education alongside seven Learning and Skills Sector colleges. Educational achievement at 16 is in line with national averages (49% of pupils obtain 5 or more GCSE passes A*-C), and slightly higher than the average for the whole of London (45%), and in 2001 79% of Year 11 school leavers continued into full time education. Within this context, though, a number of specific local factors impact upon progression and choice in the region:

a) A high proportion of pupils (25%) are educated in independent schools

b) A high proportion of young people (43%) are from non-white ethnic groups

c) The region has higher rates of pupil exclusion than most of England and Wales

d) The region has significant concentrations of families or individuals with refugee status

e) Patterns of achievement, socio-economic status and ethnic origin vary throughout the region – for example Brent and Harrow have participation rates in full time education for Year 11 leavers of 84% compared to 71% in Hammersmith and Fulham.

Research Methodology

The research involved a qualitative study, using focus group and interview methods developed in earlier studies (Foskett and Hemsley-Brown, 2001; Lumby et al, 2002). Five forms of data collection were planned:

1. Focus groups with Year 11 students in one school in each LEA within the London West region
2. Interviews with the Head of Year 11 in each of the sample schools
3. Interviews with the head of student guidance in each of the seven LSC sector institutions
4. Interviews with representatives of each of the careers service providers in the region.
5. Interviews with coordinators of the Connexions service in each borough.

The sample of schools was selected on the basis of one per LEA within the region. Within each LEA the sample school was selected by using a school whose GCSE achievement rate (percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more grade A*-C GCSEs) was close to the mean for the borough, indicating that the school might be representative of all schools within the LEA. In order to explore the influence of gender, in one borough a single sex group of young men and of young women were included. As a result of sample erosion the number of schools involved in the study finally was five, spread between four of the boroughs.

Within each school one focus group was planned, with 12 Year 11 pupils, divided equally between boys and girls. The precise membership of the group was left to schools to choose, but the selection was indicated to include four pupils each from the top, middle and low potential GCSE achievement range within the school. Each school provided one group, although the numbers within the groups varied. In total the number of pupils within the focus groups was 56, an average of 11.2 per group. The gender and ethnicity characteristics of the sample are shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 Focus group respondents by gender and ethnic background

The focus group script used with the pupils was designed to draw out evidence in relation to the aims of the study, and was constructed around a number of themes:

a) A general description of what the students intended to do after GCSEs, and when they decided on their choice

b) The potential influences from the family context, including parental and cultural influences

c) The potential influence of the social context, particularly of peers and friends

d) The potential influence of the institutional context, particularly of their current schools and of the range of possible post-16 institutional choices

In addition to the open-ended discussion questions, data was collected on the individual characteristics and perspectives of each participant, by means of a brief questionnaire. This enabled accurate pictures of the ethnicity, socio-economic background and individual choice processes and experiences to be identified.

The interviews with Year 11 tutors, careers and Connexions service representatives and the heads of student guidance in FE sector colleges followed the same themes, to facilitate comparison with student responses. The Year 11 tutors in each of the sample schools were interviewed. Seven Connexions representatives, three careers service representatives and seven college heads of student guidance were also interviewed.

Interviews and focus groups were all tape recorded for subsequent transcription, and were analysed using a classification of content approach. Data is reported anonymously.

Patterns of Choice and Influential Factors

Figures from the six boroughs of the London West area indicate a profile of post-16 destinations that is broadly in line with national patterns of progression, with 79% of young people continuing into full-time education, 6% into employment and 6% unemployed. Although these figures compare favourably with national trends, there remains a small but significant group of young people who struggle with the transition from schools to further education or work and are consequently at risk of long term social and economic exclusion . Of the 56 pupils who participated in the focus groups, 45 indicated that they planned to stay on in full time education. Figure 2 presents the data on the planned destinations of those who indicated an intention to stay on, detailed by ethnic group and specific post-16 institutional choice.

Figure 2 Intended destinations by ethnic origin

Of the 45 pupils who indicated they wanted to stay on in education, 34 wanted to do A level study either in a school sixth form, sixth form college or FE college. A high number of these (23 out of 34) would prefer to do their A-level study in FE colleges. Eleven out of 45, despite their intention to go to college and thus remain in full time education, had given consideration to other options of study besides pursuing A-levels. Although the data is too limited in scale to enable generalisations, given the profile of focus groups with a majority of average to low achieving pupils, the dominance of A-level as a preferred choice across the ability range is apparent.

The study considered a wide range of potential influencing factors on the emergent pattern of choice. These included the influence of parents, peers, finance and the pupils schools; the influence of ethnicity; the role of gender; and the importance of socio-economic status. Understanding the interplay between these factors is essential in understanding the process and nature of choice. For example, neither ethnicity nor gender can be dissociated from socio-economic status. Additionally, as one careers guidance professional pointed out, the socio and economic must also be distinguished. Some refugees and asylum seekers, for example, may have families with a long history of professional status, but be financially disadvantaged and there is an automatic correlation between financial status and culture:

Whatever the occupation of parents they are London based and may well have middle class attitudes rather than the status and attitudes connected with a particular economic position.

This interplay is explored in full in Lumby, Foskett and Maringe (2003a; 2003b) and in the full research report, available at The current paper seeks rather to consider one specific emerging theme from the research evidence, which is that of the notion of ‘fashionability’, and its importance in peer influence of choice.

Social Context, Lifestyle and Choice

The significance of the social context within which young people make their choices about progression into post-16 education or training has been highlighted by many researchers within the field (Maguire, MacRae and Ball, 2000; Foskett and Hemsley-Brown, 2001). The social context of choice has two distinct meanings. In general terms it describes the broad social and cultural environment of the individual and their family, and is therefore strongly related to social class and cultural heritage. Choices are framed by this environment, and the relationship between for example, social class and patterns of choice is well-established.

Social context has a second meaning (Maguire et al, 2000), though, since it also encompasses the social and leisure life of an individual. It is in this context that pressures to establish or preserve self-esteem and to make decisions that support group identity are found. These pressures are important in shaping choice. In relation to school choice it is the social context of the parents that is important, but by the time choice is being made at 16 this combines with, and is probably overshadowed by, the pressures on the young people themselves. The growing significance of ‘lifestyle’ as a theme in the development of personal image has been identified by Foskett and Hemsley-Brown (2001), and lifestyle is intimately involved with social relations and the establishment and maintenance of social status. Young people bring together their pre-conceptions of careers, pathways, courses and institutions with the pursuit of a choice that will secure social approval in terms of maintaining self-esteem and peer group acceptance. The importance of choosing institutions and programmes which attract ‘people like me’ or ‘people like I aspire to be’ is akey element in the choice process. Matching choices, too, to the choices of friends and peers protects group identity and bolsters self-esteem.

One element of the second of these dimensions of social context of choice has emerged strongly from the data from the West London study as significant. This relates to the notion of fashionability as a component of choice, and the operationalisation of this influence through peer groups and peer pressure. Fashionability in this context is seen as the primacy of particular choices on the basis of their perceived acceptability to specific social groups, where that primacy is based on subjective judgements of value rather than, necessarily, objective measures of value. Choices that reflect fashion will in part be associated with establishing membership of a specific social group and of achieving acceptability or enhanced status in a chosen social group. It may also indicate active rejection of alternative social values or social groups. What is fashionable is often ephemeral and may change over short or long time periods, but once fashionable choice patterns become established within particular social groupings, positive feedback processes may lead to substantial reinforcement of those patterns.

This does not mean that the choice has no rational component. Indeed, most young people and their parents will provide a rational explanation for that choice in terms of short-term or long-term benefits relating to career, income or social status. What it means, rather, is that at the point of choice the choice itself is steered by the concept of fashionability rather than by a separate rational choice process. There is, in effect, an assumption that, if this particular choice is fashionable, there must be a good reason for that, and hence it is a safe and confident choice.