Research update

In this article we provide a brief update on some of the research papers and reports published in 2014 on career development, examining in particular some issues related to equality and employment, career adaptability and self-efficacy in career decision making. The research findings are presented and discussed with careers practitioners in mind. We also consider the validity of the findings and their relevance to careers practitioners

World-class apprenticeship standards: Report and recommendations

The aim of this research was to identify world-class apprenticeship standards and to make suggestions as to how these could be applied to the English system. By ‘world class’ we mean that the standards described here are acknowledged to be among the best in the world. Thirteen indicators for world-class apprenticeship standards were identified through the research and these have been divided into four sub-sections: (1) training, (2) skills and expertise, (3) recognition and (4) progression. Each of the indicators is explained separately in this report but they have to be understood as being in close relationship to each other. As well as identifying world-class apprenticeship standards the indicators are also designed to compare these standards to apprenticeship standards that are of a good level but do not necessarily feature amongst the best in the world. Identifying and applying standards in apprenticeships is important because apprenticeship training, especially if delivered at a world-class standard, can raise the number of people in employment, increase individual and company productivity and enhance economic growth. The findings from our research suggest that world-class apprenticeship standards require: • extended apprenticeships of between three to four years; • broad and in-depth scientific and industrial skills and knowledge; • the presence of a ‘master’ in the company to train an apprentice; • high-quality knowledge-based education and training; • recognition through an occupational title on completion of the training; • apprentices to acquire all the skills and knowledge necessary to work effectively in an occupation; • apprentices to become skilled workers in an occupational area with a critical and creative approach; and • progression routes into employment as well as into further education and training. This report is based on interviews with seven experts from Australia, Denmark, England, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and South Korea on vocational education and training with a review of the literature

Employers' experience of Higher Apprenticeships: benefits and barriers

This report explores employers’ experience and understanding of Higher Apprenticeships. It is based on a survey of almost 200 companies and follow-up interviews with eleven employers. The findings suggest that there is strong support for Higher Apprenticeships amongst employers although there are many employers who have yet to engage with this programme. Employers that have implemented Higher Apprenticeships report a range of business benefits, but they were also clear that appropriate funding has to be in place to support these programmes. Employers generally thought that the introduction of Higher Apprenticeships would improve employee retention, help them to train people in the way they thought necessary and would enhance their company’s skills base. Barriers that had mitigated against the introduction of Higher Apprenticeships included the cost of introducing a Higher Apprenticeship programme, the work needed in making the business ‘higher apprentice friendly’ and findings appropriate apprenticeship frameworks and training providers. Companies that had successfully embedded Higher Apprenticeships had typically developed an approach to recruitment which enabled them to identify and select the best apprentices. Companies also set up management processes to ensure that higher apprentices were well supported and able to progress and developed effective partnerships with training providers.Funded by the European Social Fund and the Skills Funding Agenc

The Minoritisation of Higher Education Students

Research into ‘ethnic’ attainment differences in British higher education tends to depict students from minority ethnic backgrounds as disadvantaged, marginalised, discriminated against and excluded. This shapes the current theoretical perspective adopted by university policies and informs practice. However, the consequences of this perspective for students, their educational attainment and university education as a whole are largely unexamined. This study explored the teaching and learning experiences of students, alongside their views concerning how these experiences may have impacted on their attainment. To arrive at a more unbiased and better informed understanding of ethnic attainment differences, the student narratives in this study were analysed from a realist philosophical position. The experiences students related included student interactions, participatory and intellectual engagement, (un)equal treatment and academic study and support. The richness and variety of the individual narratives defied simple analysis and required further discussion of perceptions, interpretations, meaning, understanding and categorisation. Some students talked of social interaction in terms of race, colour, ethnicity, nationality, culture, class and age, while others thought such social grouping unproblematic. Engagement was seen either as participatory engagement in the learning process or as intellectual engagement with the subject. There were perceptions of unequal treatment due to race or ethnicity which contrasted with suggestions of straightforward unprofessional practices. Attitudes to academic study ranged from descriptions of struggling with the academic workload to feeling the lack of intellectual challenge. The analysis and discussion revealed a process of minoritisation that resulted from the current approaches to ethnic attainment. The continued use of group-based social differentiation inadvertently fosters the idea that ethnic and social attributes matter and creates a divisive subtext which loses any sense of our common humanity. Group-based social differentiation can undermine the resilience and human agency of students because it suggests that educational attainment is predominantly determined by ethnic and social attributes, downplaying the students’ capacity to act in pursuit of educational goals. As a result, university policies and practice perpetuate rather than ameliorate the status of minority ethnic higher education students

Evaluation of the NAHT Aspire

Data collected for this second interim report through a survey, telephone interviews and site visits indicates that the NAHT Aspire Partner Schools Programme has over a short period of time demonstrated an effective approach to school improvement. Significant is that 14 schools have been rated ‘Good’ by Ofsted. Schools have particularly welcomed and benefited from the adopted approach which emphasises; • Distributed leadership which empowers staff to take on a leadership role for the five strands; • Achievement Teams which build problem focused solutions, a positive climate for staff to feel valued and improved use of data within schools; • A whole school approach to school improvement through adoption and implementation of core values; • Peer support provided through Network Days and in school through Development Days; and • Staff development through training, coaching and the 2-6-2 meeting models. Survey evidence suggested that school leaders and teachers have a lot of confidence now that their school will change for the better (97% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement). Furthermore they reported that they have the right strategy and short term priorities to effect change that will impact upon teaching and pupil attainment. There was overall a high level of confidence (99%) that teaching and pupil’s learning would improve as a result of involvement in the programme. The dedicated support provided by NAHT Aspire Achievement Advisers offers a unique and valued aspect to the programme which provides localised bespoke training and consultancy to schools in the programme. Leadership capacity was identified as a concern by Ofsted in the three pilot schools that were judged to be ‘Inadequate’ and this factor was reflected in termly reviews of the schools’ success in implementing NAHT Aspire prior to the inspections. The programme is considered to provide value for money by schools, and may represent especially good value when compared with the costs of academisation. There have been a few withdrawals to date and these have been predominantly as a result of Ofsted inspections where schools have been judged ‘Good’ or have moved to ‘Special Measures’. It would be interesting to continue to monitor the outcomes of the programme over the coming years and to assess progression from ‘Good’ to ‘Outstanding.’National Association of Head Teacher

The Racialisation of Campus Relations

The author of this report, Ruth Mieschbuehler, argues that there is a real danger that campus relations at universities will become racialised. The term ‘racialisation’ – referring to the process of emphasising racial and ethnic grouping – is discussed to show how higher education policies and practices implemented to address the ‘ethnic’ attainment gap are driving this trend. The result of these interventions is that students are ‘minoritised’. In short, they are held to be in need of special treatment. The ‘minoritisation’ of students has driven racialisation on campuses because the higher education sector is trying to understand and address disparities through ethnic grouping. Racialisation, in turn, minoritises students because it denies students their individuality by emphasising their group identities. By reflecting on the so-called ‘ethnic’ attainment gap in higher education, the report finds that what appears to be a significant gap when attainment is reported by ethnicity has been shown to be significantly reduced when other factors known to impact on attainment are taken into account. There is no statistical evidence that ‘ethnicity’ determines educational attainment of higher education students. Yet, as the author argues, policymakers and practitioners believe in the ethnic attainment gap and introduce measures to address it with adverse consequences. Students from minority ethnic backgrounds are believed to underperform academically when they do not. This stigmatises students based on their ethnicity and contributes to the racialisation of campus relations. The practice of defining and grouping students by their skin colour and basing attainment policies and practices on these divisions drives a wedge between people and removes any sense of our common humanity. Meanwhile, the continued rise of a new type of ‘deficit talk’ depicts students as being vulnerable – and ultimately, it denies students the opportunity to develop fully academically while accommodating them to failure. Ruth Mieschbuehler suggests a long-overdue change in approach. Universities need to re-examine the reporting of statistical data on attainment that has contributed unjustly to the perpetuation of the diminished educational status of students from minority ethnic backgrounds. The report concludes by rejecting the practice of grouping higher education students by their skin colour and ethnicity in future policies and practices.N/

How to promote real equality in higher education

This chapter aims to open up a debate about two meanings of ‘equality’ in higher education (HE). The first meaning of ‘equality’ is ‘the right to be the same’. The second meaning of ‘equality’ is ‘the right to be different’. Three contrasting examples from politics, compulsory education and HE are given in detail to illustrate how the meaning of the term ‘equality’ has changed. The older meaning of ‘equality’ required a universal and common education for all students. The newer meaning requires the curriculum to be refocused on the perceived group identities that necessitate a variety of curricula. The curriculum in HE has become divisive and undermines education for all students. This chapter raises issues that are rarely discussed for fear of being offensive. The future of HE depends on opening up a debate about the divisive nature of current conceptions of ‘equality’ that undermine HE – the university - as the embodiment of Enlightenment universalism.N/

The refuge of relativism.

N/