Aimhigher Essex
Staff Attitudes Research Study
A report by the Educational Access Research Network (EARN) part of the Aimhigher London West Central and North (WECAN) Partnership
Contents
Section / Title / Page1 / Introduction / 3
2 / Aimhigher Essex & the context of this research / 4
2.1 / The Aimhigher Essex area / 4
2.2 / Exam results and progression in Essex / 4
2.3 / Understanding of and attitudinal change towards Higher Education for Aimhigher cohorts / 8
2.4 / UCAS applications / 9
2.5 / The research in context / 10
3 / Background to the Research / 11
4 / Methodology / 14
4.1 / A triangulated approach / 14
4.2 / Analysis of data / 15
5 / Results / 17
5.1 / Objective 1: To evaluate qualitatively how effective Aimhigher has been in Essex Schools, and in particular to what extent it has become integral to school’s ethos, practice and curriculum / 17
5.1.1 / Aimhigher interventions / 17
5.1.2 / Parental involvement / 18
5.1.3 / Benefits to learners / 19
5.1.4 / Impact on school culture / 20
5.2 / Objective 2: To estimate the involvement of senior management in pursuing the aims of Aimhigher and judging the extent to which Aimhigher is known by all staff throughout the school / 22
5.2.1 / SMT involvement in Aimhigher / 22
5.2.2 / Staff involvement in Aimhigher / 24
5.2.3 / Relationship of Aimhigher and IAG / 30
5.3 / Objective 3:To inform staff development activities as we move to a period of embedding / 32
6 / Conclusions / 34
7 / References / 36
Appendix 1 / Survey Questionnaire / 37
Appendix 2 / Interview Aide Memoire / 41
Appendix 3 / Focus Group Guide / 42
1. Introduction
Aimhigher Essex commissioned the Educational Access Research Network (EARN), part of the Aimhigher London West, Central and North (WECAN) Partnership to deliver a piece of research in 2009/10 looking at the impact of Aimhigher on staff in schools in the area.
This report outlines the findings from the research undertaken by EARN. It is divided into a number of sections.
Section 2 describes the nature of the Aimhigher Essex partnership and the educational landscape in which the partnership operates in Essex.
Section 3 looks at the research hypotheses. It places these in the context of some of the recent relevant literature concerning the impact of Aimhigher, and changes in ‘school/institutional culture’.
Section 4 describes the methodology used in this project. A mix of quantitative and qualitative techniques has been adopted.
Section 5 is the largest of the report and addresses the results of the research. As stated earlier, each of the research questions is examined in sequence. For each question, the relevant statistical analysis is included and the key relationships identified. The qualitative data is then drawn upon to try and shed light on these relationships and also as a source of other potential connections between Aimhigher and staff changes that may need further quantitative investigation.
Section 6 offers conclusions and brief pointers for further research and what the implications of this research for policy may be.
2. Aimhigher Essex& the context of this research
2.1 The Aimhigher Essex area
The Aimhigher programme aims to increase the numbers of young people from lower socio economic groups and those who have disabilities or have been in care, going to Higher Education. It has been in existence since 2004 when it was formed by the merger of The Excellence Challenge programme (started in 2001) and the Partnerships for Progression initiative (started 2003).
The Essex Aimhigher area, one of 42 in the country, encompasses one Local Authority (EssexCounty) and two unitary Authorities (Southend and Thurrock). Before 2004 there were five areas in Essex that were either an EAZ, Excellence Cluster or EiC. After 2004 Aimhigher Essex introduced widening participation programmes to four other areas in the County.
Each of these 9 areas formed a local Aimhigher partnership which included several schools, one or two Further Education or Sixth form colleges, HEIs and Connexions. The local partnerships ‘committees’ which organise and manage the local programmes consists of School co-ordinators, college co-ordinators and representatives for HEI(s) and connexions. It also has a paid co-ordinator and an honorary chair; the chair is likely to be a local head teacher, a manager from the local college or from the local Excellence Cluster. The local partnerships, with some devolved funds can, subject to APC approval, plan their own series of activities that accommodate the progression framework. HEIs will also run Outreach programmes, many of which are dovetailed into the School and college plans.
The Healthcare strand programme, Summer school programme and Associate scheme run alongside the main Aimhigher programme.
The programme works currently with:
- 8 Further Education Colleges
- 51 schools
- 3 Higher Education Institutions.
Two of the FECs have substantive HE work. Targeting of pupils is done by selecting those who come from areas of deprivation and low progression to HE, (and those with disabilities or who are Looked After Children). Schools were chosen by selecting those with a high proportion of targeted students. Prior to 2007 the targeting was mainly by working with students who were ‘first in the family’ to go to HE, but the more recent targeting guidance reduced the number of schools selected to work with, as Essex has areas of relative affluence coupled with low educational aspiration and achievement.
2.2 Exam results and progression in Essex
In the Essex Aimhigher Area it can be seen that GCSE results have risen faster in schools engaged in Aimhigher than other schools.
Table 1 - GCSE results: 5A* to C passes in Essex Schools
2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / 2006 / 2007 / 2007 / 2008 / 2008 / 2009 / 2009A / A / A / A / M&E / A / M&E / A / M&E / A / M&E
AH
Schools / 47.90% / 47.70% / 49.90% / 54.00% / 38.20% / 56.70% / 40.00% / 60.00% / 42.30% / 67.00% / 44.80%
Non AH
Schools / 71.00% / 71.30% / 72.30% / 72.60% / 62.60% / 74.70% / 65.60% / 76.30% / 66.60% / 78.20% / 67.30%
All Schools / 55.90% / 55.90% / 57.70% / 59.90% / 46.10% / 62.30% / 48.10% / 65.20% / 49.90% / 70.60% / 51.70%
Results shown for Aimhigher and non-Aimhigher schools and for passes in any subjects (A) and including Maths and English (M&E)
Graph 1 – GCSE Results Comparison
Analysis of results on Aimhigher cohorts in schools has shown that of the 29 schools surveyed for 2009, for students in the Aimhigher cohorts a higher proportion than the school average were gaining 5 or more A*- C passes
Table 2 – GCSE results in Aimhigher / non-Aimhigher schools
Cohort and school / All subjects / With Maths and EnglishAverage Aimhigher Cohort % gaining 5A*- C / 90.6% / 76%
Whole school average % gaining 5A*- C / 51.7% / 36.1%
School average % gaining 5A*- C for students from 0-40% most deprived areas (IDACI) / 45.3% / 29.3%
Table 3 - GCSE results for local Authorities and England 2009
Local Authority / GCSE 5A*-C 2009 / GCSE 5A*-C with Maths and English 2009 / % points increase since 2006 GCSE 5A*-C / % points increase since 2006 GCSE 5A*-C with English and MathsEssex / 68.2% / 50.2% / 10.8 / 5
Southend-on-Sea / 70.4% / 57.8% / 7.4 / 7.9
Thurrock / 78.8% / 46.6% / 22.3 / 8.1
England / 70% / 49.8% / 10.8 / 4.0
In local authorities in Essex county, the % points increase in students gaining 5A*-C GCSEs with English and Maths has improved more than for England as a whole; students from Thurrock having made the greatest improvement.
Table 4 - Progression post-16 2003-09
2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / 2007 / 2008 / 2009TOTAL COHORT FOR ALL SCHOOLS IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX / Not Av / 20814 / 20775 / 21266 / 20572 / 20168 / 19829
Number of total students progressing to Post-16 education / Not Av / 16880 / 17240 / 17983 / 17744 / 17326 / 18267
% of total students progressing to Post-16 education / Not Av / 81.1% / 83% / 84.5% / 86.3% / 88.9% / 92.2
TOTAL COHORT FOR ALL AIMHIGHER SCHOOLS IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX / 12504 / 13000 / 12957 / 13851 / 14313 / 14073 / 10401
Number of Aimhigher school students progressing to Post 16 education / 9607 / 10025 / 10265 / 11306 / 11993 / 12212 / 9353
% of Aimhigher school students progressing to Post 16 education / 76.6% / 77.1% / 79.3% / 81.6% / 83.8% / 86.8% / 89.9
TOTAL COHORT FOR ALL NON AIMHIGHER SCHOOLS IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX / Not Av / 7814 / 7818 / 7415 / 6259 / 6095 / 9428
Number of non Aimhigher school students progressing to Post 16 Education / Not Av / 6855 / 6975 / 6677 / 5751 / 5732 / 8914
% of non Aimhigher school students progressing to Post 16 Education / Not Av / 87.7% / 89.2% / 90% / 91.9% / 94% / 94.6
In 2004 the percentage difference in progression rates between non-Aimhigher schools and Aimhigher schools was 10.6 percentage points whereas this had dropped in 2009 to a difference of 4.7 percentage points.
Graph 2 - % Progression post-16 for Essex 2004-2009
2.3 Understanding of and attitudinal change towards Higher Education for Aimhigher cohorts
At the beginning of year 10 and again at the end of year 11, Aimhigher students are asked to complete an identical questionnaire which when matched and analysed givesdata on the changes in understanding of HE of the students and also data on their changing attitude towards higher education following their participation in the Aimhigher programme. The questions asked are:
1)Tick whether the following statements are true or false:
- You can only get into Higher Education with A-Levels
- There are lots of qualifications to study in Higher Education including a degree
- To study in Higher Education you have to leave home
- Students in Higher Education can get help with living expenses
- On average, people with Higher Education qualifications get better jobs
- You can study part time in Higher Education
2)Are you planning to go onto a Higher Education course?
- Yes definitely
- Probably
- Unsure
- Probably not
- No
Table 5 – Survey answers change over time 2005-2009
Understanding of HE / Students considering HE in the futureBeg. Yr 10 surveys / End Yr 11 surveys / Beg. Yr 10 surveys / End Yr 11 surveys
No. of correct answers to true / false questions / No. of correct answers to true / false questions / Definitely / Definitely
Cohort / Matched Surveys / Act-
ual / % / Act-
ual / % / Act-
Ual / % / Act-
ual / %
2005-07 / 230 / 100 / 43.5 / 136 / 59.1 / 86 / 37.5 / 111 / 48.3
2006-08 / 480 / 148 / 30.8 / 240 / 50 / 125 / 26 / 190 / 39.6
2007-09 / 244 / 93 / 38.1 / 132 / 54 / 75 / 30.7 / 105 / 43
Table 6 –Summary of survey findings
Cohort / % increase in understanding of HE from beginning of Year 10 to end of Year 11 / % increase in the number of students definitely considering HE in the future from beginning of Year 10 to end of Year 112005-07 / 36% / 29%
2006-08 / 62.3% / 52%
2007-09 / 41.9% / 40%
2.4 UCAS Applications
Table 7 - Applicants to UCAS from the 40% most deprived neighbourhoods nationally 2003 to 2009 (all ages).
Geographic Area / Applications from deprived areas (2003) / Applications from deprived areas(2009) / % growth / % of applications from deprived areas (2003) / % of applications from deprived areas (2009)Essex / 1,428 / 2,553 / 78.0% / 16% / 20.6%
England / 109,290 / 161,830 / 48.1% / 32.7% / 36.5%
It can be seen that whilst Essex has only 20.6% of the applications from deprived areas the increase in applications from these areas increased by 78% from 2003-09 compared to an increase of 48.1% nationally, where 36.5% of the applications came from deprived areas in 2009.
Table 8 - Applicants to UCAS all neighbourhoods nationally 2003 to 2009 (all ages).
Geographic Area / 2003 / 2009 / % growth all neighbourhoodsEssex / 8,931 / 12,383 / 38.7%
England / 334,388 / 443,514 / 32.6%
For both Essex and England the rate of growth of applications from deprived areas has been greater than from all neighbourhoods. However it should be noted that the rate of growth for acceptances from both Essex and England is less than that for applications for both deprived areas and all neighbourhoods (not shown).
Rates of change for improvements in attainment at Level 2 and UCAS applications are greater in Aimhigher schools than non Aimhigher schools and also with Aimhigher cohorts rather than other pupils in a school. There may be many factors contributing to this, but there is a probability that Aimhigher has had some influence on schools in their work with youngsters from deprived backgrounds, those from disadvantaged areas and those not exposed to a culture of progressing to Higher Education at home.
2.5 Research in context
The key issue for Aimhigher Essex is their contribution to these changes and improvements. This is extremely hard to capture, given that Aimhigher while receiving a substantial amount of funds still only represents a very small fraction of the ‘offer’ to any learner. Aimhigher funds in the context of all education funding are themselves very small. This research is intended to be part of the evidence base concerning the contribution that Aimhigher is making to the changes outlined in the tables above.
Of particular importance is the sustainability or otherwise of any changes on the attitudes/practices of staff at all levels in the school. It is important because of the relatively small level of funding that Aimhigher has and because it cannot be assumed that this will increase, or even continue in the future. Therefore, the impact that Aimhigher is having, it is argued, needs to have ‘a life’ separate from the activities it funds. This is because of the nature of the widening participation challenge. It is a long term one, rooted in changing a performance profile of certain young people in the educational system that has a history going back since the start of a system in the late 19th century. To have any impact here Aimhigher may have to be working at a level beyond its minor, albeit important, funded activity programmes.
3. Background to the Research
Aimhigher Essex has outlined three main objectives for this research:
- To evaluate qualitatively how effective Aimhigher has been in Essex Schools, and in particular to what extent it has become integral to schools’ ethos, practice and curriculum.
- To estimate the involvement of senior management in pursuing the aims of Aimhigher and judging the extent to which Aimhigher is known by all staff throughout the school.
- To inform staff development activities as we move to a period of embedding.
The key issues emerging from these in relation to the fieldwork are described in turn.
By working with pupils and staff, raising awareness of the range of HE options open to young people and the changes in HE and upskilling teaching and learning support staff so that their knowledge and understanding of the options is increased, Aimhigher contributes to changing the expectations that staff have of their pupils progression options and helps them support young people to aim higher.
Available evidence does point to the importance of staff in schools in influencing the progression paths of pupils into post 16 and higher education (Foskett et al 2007). Work by Reay et al (2001) describes how the ‘institutional habitus’ of post 16 educational providers may affect the views of students regarding Higher Education. By institutional habitus Reay means a set of practices
Most recently the DCSF has published a major review looking at teachers attitudes in this context (Johnson et al 2009), which points directly to the issue of school ethos. It argues that ‘teacher’s attitudes are important, but even the more preferable mindsets need to be supported by good professional development, structures and strategies, if they are to be effective’ (2009:6). Our outputs will locate this study in that context.
When senior staff see the increasingly positive attitudes of staff and pupils, they too are convinced of the value of Aimhigher and of promoting progression to higher education.
School effectiveness literature has placed increased emphasis since the late 1970s on the importance of senior staff in shaping the educational outcomes of pupils and school ethos (Mortimore 1998). It will be interesting in this study to investigate how the attitudes of senior staff inschools/colleges are formed. It willbe worth exploring for instance, the extent to which their view of Aimhigher and its merits is shaped by the attitudes of staff and pupils in their institutions as opposed to their own higher education experiences, interaction with other school senior staff, interaction with Aimhigher and HEIs and their relationship with government policy and policy-makers.
It helps too if the aspiration raising work of Aimhigher is seen as resulting in increased achievement and attainment.
There is significant evidence that what drives curriculum provision choices by staff in schools, and the agenda of schools per se is attainment and league table position (Ball 2004). It is argued by some that this is to the detriment of the wider education of pupils/students including their support needs where progression to further study is concerned. There is real need in the context of the Aimhigher project to add to the evidence base here. Of relevance would be whether we could map contexts where aspiration work was valued on a continuum from when it was valued in itself to when it was valued only when it connects explicitly to attainment activities.
It is only through changing the culture of schools and equipping teaching and learning support staff to raise aspirations and challenge pupils to achieve and progress that Aimhigher will have a lasting effect – otherwise Aimhigher success will always depend on the level of funding and energy that creates the specific Aimhigher activity.
The most recent thinking from the government on cultural change in relation to educational and health policy, places cultural change in organisations as central to achieving changes in individual attitudes and behaviour (Cabinet Office 2008). This report argues that we need however, to enhance our understanding of how such cultural change works in different spatial and temporal contexts, and with regard to particular issues. It will be very exciting for Essexto be able to shape the debate here. The evidence from other countries, especially the US, where national widening participation initiatives have existed since the 1960s, supports the hypothesis that sustainable impact depends on institutional cultural change. This work implies that in the Essex context we need to explore how Aimhigher works at different levels in an institution e.g. classroom/department/year group/senior management team and where it is represented in the ‘formal’ organisational structure i.e. committee system, strategies/plans, meeting agendas andthe ‘informal’ structure i.e. attitudes in the staff-room.
What does ‘cultural’ change mean in the Aimhigher context?
To a significant extent this research is exploratory. There is not a body of work to draw on which describes how Aimhigher could affect the culture of school, Neither is there a great deal of work that looks at how schools as an organisation engage with the issue of Higher Education – the work of Reay described above focuses primarily on the views of students through qualitative enquiry. It does not get ‘underneath the bonnet’ of the school to explore where, who and how engagement with Higher Education might work.
There has been some recent work on ‘staff attitudes’ to Aimhigher by Hatt et al (2008) that paints a very positive picture of the view that teachers in the South East of England have of the project. This research will certainly add to that understanding of how certain staff view the project and its impact. However, affecting the culture of the school is a second order question, and will always be a difficult one. In the conclusions, there are some ideas offered regarding further research to enhance understanding of how this question could be answered.
4. Methodology
4.1 A triangulated approach
The approach taken to the project was based on a ‘triangulation’ of quantitative and qualitative methods. The merit of triangulation is outlined by Ritchie et al (2007:45) and is described as the ‘use of different methods and sources to check the integrity of, or extend, inferences from the data’. In this case, the argument for triangulation was that there is a relatively large number of schools in Essex. Hence, a survey of these schools was viable and could produce some statistically robust results. However, Aimhigher Essex need to be able to identify not just relationships between staff practice/attitudes and background contextual institutional factors, but perspectives on what underpins any such relationships. Therefore, a way of asking those in schools about any such relationships was needed. As Ritchie et al (2007) argues, in planning research it is essential that the researchers know as much as possible about the field they are working in and this will help ‘validate’ the data. The target group of respondents had on average limited time to devote to completing a questionnaire and too lengthy a document may have an adverse effect on completion rates. It is possible though, to find some such respondents who would be able to devote time to an interview and some who could attend a focus group.