Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006

From Key Stage 4 to Work and College: support from Connexions Personal Advisers for young people with specific language and communication difficulties (and those with other special educational needs)

Mairi Ann Cullen*, Geoff Lindsay*, Julie Dockrell+, Olympia Palikara+

* Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research (CEDAR), University of Warwick

+School of Psychology and Human Development,

Institute of Education, University of London

Contact e-mail:

1Introduction

1.1The research

This paper reports on one aspect of the longitudinal study, Raising the Achievements of Children with Specific Speech and Language Difficulties, directed by Professors Dockrell and Lindsay. In that study, a cohort of 69 children, identified at age 8 (Year 3) with specific speech and language difficulties (SSLD),were followed up at five further time points (age 10-11, age 11-12, age 13-14, age 15-16, age 16-17) to identify their wider curricular, social and educational needs. When the cohort was in Year 6 (age 10-11), where possible each child in a mainstream class was matched with two other children in the same class - a typically developing peer, that is, achieving at average level for reading, maths and science, and with a child with different special educational needs (SEN) but on the same stage of the Code of Practice for identifying and assessing SEN (G.B. DfE, 1994).

The most recent phase of the research, funded by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), focused on Key Stage 4 (age 14-16) and entry to post-16 destinations. The research sought to clarify the ways in which individual, school and other statutory services, family and community factors interacted to raise achievement and support post-16 access to education, employment and training. A full report of this phase is forthcoming (Dockrell, Lindsay, Palikara, Cullen, 2006). One aspect of this phase explored the role of Connexions Personal Advisers in supporting transitions to post-16 destinations for the young people in the SSLD sample (n=64), as well as those in the SEN comparison group (n=28).This paper focuses on this aspect of the research.

The role of Connexions in supporting young people with SEN had received limited attention, although its potential was signalled by Grove and Giraud-Saunders (2003; Grove, 2001).More recently, however, the DfES-funded, large scale study of post-16 transitions of young people with SEN, which followed up over a thousand young people with SEN from Y11 (age 16) (Polat, Kalambouka, Boyle & Nelson, 2001) into their post-16 destinations when aged 18 (Dewson, Aston, Bates & Ritchie, 2004) and, finally, when aged 20 (Aston, Dewson, Loukas and Dyson, 2005), included consideration of Connexions in this regard. The impact of Connexions support on young people with SEN was also specifically included in a study of young people ‘at risk’ (Hoggarth & Smith, 2004) and in a study ofyoung people with ‘complex needs’ (Social Exclusion Unit, 2005). All these studies confirmed that young people with SEN remained a potentially vulnerable group in making the transition to post-16 destinations and that advice and support from a trusted and knowledgeable adult, such as a Connexions PA, could make an important contribution to achieving a successful post-16 pathway. Our research explored in detail the role Connexions PAs played in the transitions of the 92 young people in our study.

1.2About the Connexions Service

Announced in the White Paper, Learning to Succeed (G.B. DfES, 1999), the Connexions Service was launched in England in April 2001 as an integrated service able to offer holistic support to all young people aged 13 to 19 (up to age 25 for those with learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD). Although a universal service, there was a clear emphasis that the primary aim was to reduce the number of 16-18 year-olds not in education, employment or training (NEETs) (CSNU, 2002). The new Service had been piloted prior to this (DfEE, 2000a, b; Dickinson, 2001) and was rolled out across the country in three phases. Locally, the Connexions Service was delivered through Connexions Partnerships. Each Partnership was accountable to a Local Management Committee responsible for the implementation of the local Connexions Service and, in turn, accountable to a strategic Connexions Board. By the end of 2003, all 47 Connexions Partnerships were operational. Research commissioned by the DfES (Rodger & Marwood, 2003) has shown that Connexions Partnerships were of two types: either ‘direct delivery’ (companies that transmuted from Careers companies) or ‘sub-contracted’ (a hub of central staff that sub-contracted to existing organisations).

Connexions Partnerships employed Personal Advisers (PAs) to work with young people, providing advice and guidance on education, training and employment opportunities, as well as on a wide range of other issues, making referrals to other organisations and advocating improvements in the provision available for young people. Although heralded as a ‘new profession’ (G.B. DfEE, 2000b) that would draw adults from a wide range of backgrounds (CSNU, 2002), in fact the majority of PAs were former Careers Advisers whose previous employers, careers companies, had become the new Connexions service in their area (Hoggarth & Smith, 2004). The role of the Connexions PA has been open to differing interpretations since the pilot phase of Connexions, with the greatest debate being around how to achieve the optimal balance between delivering both a universal and a targeted service (see, for example, Dickinson, 2001; Hoggarth & Smith 2004).

In 2002, the Connexions Service National Unit (CSNU) issued a vision statement for Connexions (G.B. DfES, 2002). It set out a commitment that, by 2006, there would be “clarity about the role of personal advisers. Instead of ‘intensive’ and ‘universal’ personal advisers, all will have core skills.”The close link between PA role and deployment model, found by Roger and Marwood in their 2002-03 study, was illustrated also in the CSNU’s vision statement which went on to state that, by 2006:

‘[PAs] will be deployed in the most appropriate setting according to their range of skills, experience and knowledge, and to best complement the work of teachers, other professionals and support staff, including Learning Mentors.’

Although some variation has been found in operational definitions (Deakin, Jones, Brunwin & Mortimer, 2004), nationally, all Connexions Partnerships assessed and prioritised young people's support needs into three levels: Priority 1 (P1) - intensive support, Priority 2 (P2) - enhanced support, Priority 3 (P3) - minimum intervention. A fairly standard version of the definitions attached to these gradings is reproduced in Figure 1 (compare, for example, Deakin et al., 2004). Young people were to be categorised according to need and not on the availability of resources to meet their needs. The categorisation of an individual was not fixed but varied according to the young person's changing circumstances.

Figure 1Priority levels

‘Priority 1 – intensive support
Integrated and specialist support for those facing substantial multiple problems preventing them from engaging with learning who are likely to be involved with a number of different professionals engaged in education, social welfare, health and housing. Includes support for the specially gifted. Young people in this category need PAs to take effective action on their behalf to help them gain access to a range of more specialist services, to ensure that barriers are addressed in a co-ordinated way and to maintain in contact with progress being made.
Priority 2 – enhanced support
In depth guidance and help for those at risk of not participating effectively in education and training. This group includes those whose aspirations do not relate to their abilities; who do not attend school regularly; who have learning difficulties or disabilities; who are unlikely to achieve as they should. Young people in these situations need in-depth guidance and support to help them address barriers to learning and enable them to fulfil their potential.
Priority 3 – minimum intervention
General advice and support at key periods in a young person's life where information, advice and support on educational and vocational issues will be necessary to help them make decisions about their future.'

Source: Quoted from an extract from Connexions Management Information, 2003-04 supplied to the researcher by a PA.

Concern about PAs providing both the intensive/targeted support and the universal level of support were raised from the start (Watts, 2001) and led to innovative attempts to address this issue in some areas through, for example, the introduction of a small number of ‘transition advisers’ to focus on the transition to post-16 of those in the P2 category (Coldwell, Trickey, Holland, Smith, 2005).

Changes for the Connexions Service

Recently, Government policy on the Connexions Service has changed. Following Youth Matters (GB. Parliament. House of Commons, 2005) and Youth Matters: Next Steps (G.B. DfES, 2006), resources for Connexions Services will be shifted to local authorities, through Local Area Agreements. Eleven areas have piloted Connexions moving to children’s trusts. Calling Connexions “a valuable asset which we do not want to lose”, the DfES has stated that there is “a strong basis for retaining the Connexions brand as the public face of children’s trusts in action for all young people” (G.B. DfES, 2006).

1.3Data collection

During the summer and autumn terms of 2005, the 57 Connexions PAs covering the 92 young people involved in this phase of the study (64 SSLD and 28 SEN) were identified and invited to take part in a telephone interview. Forty-six Connexions PAs provided information on 83 young people in the study (90% of those involved in this phase).

The majority of the 46 PAs interviewed were employed by two Partnerships, called here ConnexionsCounty and ConnexionsCity. The remaining PAs worked for another eight different Partnerships, referred to as Connexions plus a number, for example, Connexions 10. The interviews explored the role of the Connexions Service in supporting the transition to post-16 of the young people in the sample.

2Findings

The findings are presented in four sections: PA deployment, roles and training around SEN; Connexions’ involvement with the young people during KS4; continuity of Connexions support post-16; and PAs’ reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of the Connexions service as illustrated by the cases of the sample young people.

2.1PA deployment, roles and training around SEN

Despite the CSNU's goal of a single type of PA with core skills (G.B. DfES,2002), the research found that a wide range of PA roles existed. This mirrored the finding of Rodger and Marwood in 2003 who stated: “The title, PA, in practice covers a wide range of staff performing different job roles. Adjuncts are sometimes used to describe the focus of the role.”

The three main systemic factors affecting how PAs supported the young people in the study were: decisions made at Connexions Partnership level about how to deploy PAs, how the PA role was defined, and provision of training around SEN issues.

Deployment and roles

Across the 10 Connexions Partnerships, it was clear that the roles and deployment of PAs differed from Partnership to Partnership. The Roger and Marwood (2003) ‘Models of deployment’ were useful in making sense of this variation, particularly as a number of different models could be used within a single partnership. The deployment models used in the two Partnerships where most of the PAs interviewed were employed illustrate this.

In ConnexionsCity, one main deployment decision was to have a mainstream team and a special needs team. The SEN team was based in one location and mainly worked with young people in the special schools across the city but also supported colleagues in the mainstream team by working with young people in mainstream schools who required additional support because of their special educational needs. Thus, they operated within the ‘Specialist’ deployment model. The mainstream team were all located in another building but divided according to geographic sectors of the City. They were deployed according to the ‘Parallel’ model with most PAs working in schools but some working in the community. Within mainstream schools, PAs operated the ‘Mini-team’ model of one working with more complex cases and another (or others) working with the bulk of young people.

In ConnexionsCounty, the distinction between mainstream and SEN team was not made; instead, the Connexions Partnership was organised into teams based in area offices. PAs from six of these area offices were interviewed and from this it was evident that, across the areas, there was some variation in deployment but the basic model seemed to be a ‘Parallel’ model, with PAs working in schools and others in the community.

In both ConnexionsCity and ConnexionsCounty, only a small number of the young people in our sample were supported by Community PAs and, in all cases, only after the end of their compulsory education.

The four PAs covering the residential special schools in which young people in the research were being educated, each reported that their Connexions Partnership (Connexions 5, 8, 9 and 10) had specialist PAs working with young people with significant special needs.

In terms of relevance to our sample of young people, the key issues were:

  • deployment - whether or not the Connexions Partnership deployed PAs in a specialist SEN team;
  • PA role - the PAs’ level of specialism in SEN issues;
  • caseload - balance between targeted support cases (such as those with special educational needs) and universal support cases.

The situation in ConnexionsCounty and City at the time of the research (2005) is summarised in Figure 2.

Figure 2Effect of deployment and role on support to young people

Deployment & role / ConnexionsCounty / ConnexionsCity
Deployment / No teams / Two teams: ‘mainstream’ and ‘special educational needs’
Role/s / Generic role;
Minority of PAs had a specialism. / Four distinct roles:
Specialist – SEN
Link – main contact for school; careers advice and guidance from Y9
Careers – careers advice and guidance from Y9
Generic – worked with non-attenders, disengaged and those needing additional support
Caseload / Generic PAs - full range of young people’s needs (Priorities 1-3) across all settings (school, college, community);
Generic PA with specialism – as Generic PA but included young people matched to specialism . / Specialist and Generic PAs - targeted young people at Priority 1;
Link and Careers PAs –young people at Priority 2 and 3
Support to young people in:
Special schools / Generic PA with specialism in SEN / Specialist PA from SEN team
Mainstream schools / Pupils with statements supported by generic PA with careers guidance specialism;
Other pupils supported by non-specialist generic PA. / Careers PA, with advice and support from Specialist PA as necessary
Issue raised / Limited support generic PAs could give to young people with SENs / Young people potentially supported by a number of different PAs who may or may not “connect”.

Source: Interviews with Connexions PAs

The configurations of PA deployment, role and caseload in both Partnerships had drawbacks for the young people in the study. In ConnexionsCounty, there was concern about the limited nature of the support the generic PAs were able to give to young people with special educational needs. For example, CountyPA9 spoke about having to support young people across a “crazy” range of needs and stated: “my frustration is that I don’t have sufficient skills and experience and time to get involved [as I’d like]. It would need a much smaller caseload and to specialise.” Similarly, CountyPA14 was dissatisfied with the time she had to spend with young people with SEN:

‘I don’t feel I have as much time with the young people with special needs as I would have had as a Careers Adviser. … I do feel it’s something the Government have not really understood or, if they’ve understood it, they’ve chosen to not give it the priority it needs. …

ConnexionsCounty, PA14

In ConnexionsCity, one result of there being four distinct PA roles was that City young people in the sample were supported by various combinations of PA types. This meant that young people with a history of communication difficulties or of other SEN had to build relationships with several PAs, rather than having one person to whom they could turn to for advice and support regarding their transition to post-16 (see Box 1)

Box 1One young person: multiple PAs

Young Person 84 (SEN) was seen by at least two Careers PAs regarding the universal service offered to all young people, by an SEN PA in relation to specialist advice regarding planning for transition to a post-16 placement and by a Generic PA regarding targeted support to enhance social and leisure activities. In this case, the PA interviewed was pleased about how this support had all "connected" and resulted in the young person having a successful transition to post-16 - but the potential for lack of connection was clear.

Caseloads

Caseloads (numbers of active cases and types of need presented by the young people) varied widely across the 46 PAs interviewed. Sixteen noted the negative impact of their caseload size and range on their work with the young people in the study. They spoke, for example, about not having enough time to spend with the young person to ensure that the most appropriate post-16 destination had been secured (see Box 2), about being unable to act as quickly as they would have liked, and as having to limit their involvement. They particularly would have liked to have been able to spend more time with the sample young people in Year 10 and Year 11 so that they could have, for example, got to know the young person better, done more work with parents, helped more with applications to post-16 providers, and taken the young person on visits to some of these providers.

Box 2Negative impact of large PA caseload: an inappropriate post-16 destination

  • City PA16 was only able to be involved with Young Person 105 (SSLD) when there was a problem; as a result, the PA was concerned that that young person may have gone on to an inappropriate college course rather than followed up on his strong inclination towards work-based learning. Our interviews with this young person and his parent indicated that this had been the case – he had gone on to a Foundation course where he struggled with the academic work and had a few problems with his course tutors. Despite this, he enjoyed the practical taster elements of the course and hoped to go on to gain a bricklaying job.

Awareness of caseload issues (the range of needs supported, the numbers of young people worked with, the tension between universal delivery and targeted support) is an important background to the findings about Connexions’ involvement with the young people in the sample – particularly given that these young people were single cases from among many others dealt with by the PA interviewed. PA16 illustrated this point well as she described her caseload of universal and targeted support: