RESEARCH. Reasons for Early Leaving from FE and Work-Based Learning Courses. Claire Simm, Rosie Page, Linda Miller Institute for Employment Studies

Transcription

1 RESEARCH Reasons for Early Leaving from FE and Work-Based Learning Courses Claire Simm, Rosie Page, Linda Miller Institute for Employment Studies Research Report RR849

2 Research Report No RR849 Reasons for Early Leaving from FE and Work-Based Learning Courses Claire Simm, Rosie Page, Linda Miller Institute for Employment Studies The views expressed in this report are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and Skills. Institute for Employment Studies 2007 ISBN

3 Prepared by: INSTITUTE FOR EMPLOYMENT STUDIES Mantell Building University of Sussex Campus Brighton BN1 9RF UK Tel (0) Fax + 44 (0) Copyright 2007 Institute for Employment Studies

4 The Institute for Employment Studies The Institute for Employment Studies is an independent, apolitical, international centre of research and consultancy in public employment policy and organisational human resource issues. It works closely with employers in the manufacturing, service and public sectors, government departments, agencies, and professional and employee bodies. For over 35 years the Institute has been a focus of knowledge and practical experience in employment and training policy, the operation of labour markets, and human resource planning and development. IES is a not-for-profit organisation which has over 60 multidisciplinary staff and international associates. IES expertise is available to all organisations through research, consultancy, publications and the Internet. IES aims to help bring about sustainable improvements in employment policy and human resource management. IES achieves this by increasing the understanding and improving the practice of key decision makers in policy bodies and employing organisations. iii

5 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Rachel Youngs, Maura Lantrua and Kathy Murphy at the DfES, and the project Steering Group, for their advice and support throughout the project. We would also like to thank Lorraine Sims, Oliver Norden, Helen Lambert and Nick Coleman at BMRB, who designed the sample and managed the survey fieldwork as well as providing useful advice on the questionnaire. BMRB also made available data from the FE Learners Longitudinal Survey (Wave 1) in order to inform the comparative analysis presented here. Finally, we would also like to thank all of the people who gave up their time to participate in this research. iv

6 Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction Background to the research Aims and objectives Methodology The report structure 17 2 The Profile of Early Leavers Sample characteristics General attitudes to learning Chapter summary 29 3 Reasons for Early Leaving Overview of reasons for early leaving Not all learners who experience problems during their course actually drop-out Chapter summary 38 4 Pre-Entry Issues Motivations for undertaking the course Course-related reasons for leaving and pre-entry IAG Access to and use of pre-entry IAG Usefulness of pre-entry IAG Chapter summary 50 5 Satisfaction with the Course Pace and level of the course Satisfaction with the quality of teaching/training Overall satisfaction with the course Chapter summary 59 6 Time and Workload Issues Amount of time spent on the course Extent and impact of doing other courses at the same time 63 v

7 6.3 Extent and impact of combining working and studying Ease or difficulty of combining work and study Match between timing of the course and learners needs Chapter summary 71 7 Financial Issues Extent of student contribution to cost of course Perceptions of financial circumstances Chapter summary 79 8 Support Issues Satisfaction with support from the course tutor/trainer Interaction with WBL assessor Employer support Information and advice on transferring or deferring course Chapter summary 86 9 Reflections on the Course and Future Learning Activity prior to starting their course Changes in labour market status Benefits of learning Likelihood of future learning Barriers to future learning Chapter summary Conclusions and Policy Implications What do we know about the profile of non-completion compared with completion? Why do early leavers leave? What could be done to improve retention rates, in light of this? 100 Bibliography 103 A Technical Report outlining the survey design, explaining the population definition, the sample selection, fieldwork procedures, fieldwork response, and weighting is available from the DfES website. vi

8 Executive Summary This report presents the findings of a survey of early leavers from further education (FE) and work-based learning (WBL) courses. The research was undertaken by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) and BMRB for the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Method Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,180 learners recorded as having withdrawn from a FE or WBL course before completion, during the academic year 2004/05. The survey was conducted between September and November Where relevant, results are compared with surveys of learners who completed a FE or WBL course, conducted by BMRB in 2005 (among learners aged 19+) and by IES/BMRB in 2006 (among learners aged ). The sample was drawn from the Individualised Learner Record (ILR) provided by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Findings Reasons for leaving Most learners provided just one reason for leaving their course early. When grouped, course-related reasons such as being unhappy with course choice or with the quality of the teaching/training were the most common (32 per cent), followed by circumstantial reasons (28 per cent) and time/workload issues (20 per cent). The most common single reason for leaving was finding that the course was not what they wanted to do after all/changing their mind about it part-way through, cited by 14 per cent of early leavers. Poor quality teaching, and the course not being at the right level, were the next most common reasons (each cited by 11 per cent). 1

9 The profile of early leavers Analysis of the profiles of early leavers and completers aged and 19+ shows many similarities, but some important differences: _ Among those aged, cases of early leaving were significantly more likely than completions to involve learners from non-white ethnic backgrounds, and learners who were not in education, employment or training (NEET) before starting the course. _ Cases of early leaving among learners aged 19+ were more likely to involve learners with a long-term health problem or disability and learners studying courses at below Level 2. Early leaving was more likely to involve learners who were recorded as disadvantaged according to the Individualised Learner Record (ILR), this was common to both age groups. A significant proportion of cases also involved drop-out from a course either at or below the level of the learner s existing highest qualification. Attitudes to learning Early leavers were more likely than completers to feel they lacked sufficient skills and experience to find the type of job they really wanted, in particular among those aged (37 per cent of early leavers compared with 26 per cent of completers). In addition, those aged 19+ were more likely than completers in the same age group to regard learning as too much effort (19 per cent versus eight per cent). Nonetheless, early leavers were just as likely as completers to say that they enjoyed learning at school and that they enjoyed learning new things, and (broadly) to acknowledge the labour market advantages of learning or training. This suggests that factors linked to experiences during the course, rather than general attitudes about the value of learning, were more important influences on early leaving. Motivations for learning Interest in the subject was by far the most common reason why early leavers started their course (31 per cent), followed by learning new skills for a future job, getting a qualification, and learning new skills for a current or previous job. Comparing the main or only reason for learning shows that early leavers aged 19+ were significantly less likely than completers in the same age group to have been motivated to learn principally out of interest (22 per cent compared with 28 per cent) or by learning new skills for a future job (11 per cent compared with 18 per cent). Use and views of information, advice and guidance (IAG) Just one-quarter of early leavers reported receiving any pre-entry IAG (24 per cent), and use of IAG was significantly higher among those studying full-time and those 2

10 aged. Early leavers aged 19+ were less likely than completers in the same age group to have accessed any IAG at all. Colleges were the most frequently cited source among those aged 19+, while Connexions/careers advisers were the most common among those aged. Early leavers were less likely than completers to say that the IAG helped them to make their decision about learning/work, but this is likely to be related to the nature of their outcomes rather than the quality of the IAG per se. Early leavers aged were more likely than completers in the same age group to say that they would have liked more advice about their suitability for the course (58 per cent compared with 46 per cent) and more information about the time commitment involved (46 per cent compared with 32 per cent). They were also less likely than completers to agree that they felt well-informed about what their course would cover (69 per cent compared with 76 per cent). This suggests an information gap in terms of pre-entry IAG, although it should be noted that respondents did provide their views with the benefit of hindsight. Satisfaction with and views on the course Around three in ten early leavers were unhappy with either the pace (32 per cent) or the level (29 per cent) of their course. Notably, early leavers from Apprenticeships and other WBL courses were more likely than average to regard their course as too slow and/or too easy, while those in FE were more likely to have found the course too fast and/or too difficult. Level 2 early leavers were more likely to say they found the course too slow and/or too easy; whereas those at Level 3 were more likely to say they found the course too fast and/or too difficult. This suggests that a significant minority of early leavers were studying at a course level that they found unsuitable. At least some of this may be related to the fact that a high proportion of learners with no or low qualifications were seeking to upgrade whereas most of those with Level 3 qualifications and above were on courses at a level below their existing highest qualification. On the whole, early leavers were satisfied with the quality of teaching/training on their course (72 per cent), and with the course overall (71 per cent). Although this was significantly lower than the corresponding rating among completers, it is still notable that only a minority of early leavers were dissatisfied with these aspects. Those most likely to be dissatisfied were, consistently, early leavers aged (compared with those aged 19+); those undertaking long courses (compared with those doing short courses); and those doing courses at Level 2 or Level 3 (compared with below Level 2 and other courses). Those who cited circumstantial or time/workload-related reasons for leaving were generally more likely than average to have been satisfied with the pace, level, and quality of their course. This suggests that these learners did not have strong underlying reasons for leaving related to the course itself. 3

11 Time and workload issues Citing time or workload pressures as the main reason for leaving was not directly related to the volume of tuition time or coursework, or to doing more than one course. This suggests that it was the balance of the course with other commitments that was the source of such problems, rather than the amount of time that the course took up, in itself. This is borne out by the finding that there were no major differences between early leavers and completers aged, in terms of tuition time or study load. Indeed, completers aged were slightly more likely than early leavers to have been attempting more than one course (46 per cent compared with 39 per cent). Although there was no difference in the likelihood of working between early leavers and completers aged, early leavers were more likely to work over 12 hours per week (56 per cent compared with 48 per cent), and to say they found it difficult to combine work and study (28 per cent compared with 19 per cent). Overall, the early leavers who found it most difficult to combine work and study were those working 40+ hours per week (mostly men), and women aged 19+ (regardless of the hours they worked). Financial issues Only one-quarter (25 per cent) of early leavers had paid directly towards the cost of their course. Reflecting funding priorities, these were mostly aged 19+. Among those who had paid, most paid 100 or less, while among those who had not paid, the most common reason was that the course was free. Early leavers aged 19+ were significantly less likely than completers in the same age group to have contributed anything towards the cost of their course (36 per cent compared with 43 per cent). This was the case even among learners who were recorded as disadvantaged according to the ILR. Among those aged 19+, completers who did not pay towards their course were more likely than early leavers to say the course was paid for by another person or organisation (usually their employer), while early leavers were more likely to say the course was free. Even though early leavers were less likely to have paid towards their course costs, they were more likely than completers to say they were finding it difficult to cope, financially, while studying. This applied particularly to those aged. Early leavers from Apprenticeships were around twice as likely to say they were finding it very difficult to cope financially, compared with those in other forms of learning (18 per cent, compared with ten per cent in FE and nine per cent in other work-based learning). Analysis of those who cited financial reasons for leaving (just four per cent of early leavers overall) finds that they were no more or less likely than average to have paid towards their course, although they were more likely to be finding it difficult to cope financially. This suggests that financial difficulties were more general, rather than having to pay for course fees and other course-related expenditure. 4

12 Learner support The majority of early leavers (74 per cent) were satisfied with the support they received from their tutor/trainer, although those aged were less likely to be satisfied than completers of the same age (72 per cent compared with 86 per cent). Leaving because of poor quality teaching/training or because the course was not at the right level was associated with higher levels of dissatisfaction with teacher/tutor support, as we might expect. Most WBL early leavers had contact with an external or internal assessor within the workplace. Early leavers were less likely than completers to have had contact with an assessor, nonetheless most of them were satisfied with the frequency of meetings. Most early leavers who worked while studying also found their employer to be supportive (60 per cent), although early leavers aged were less likely than completers of the same age to think so (67 per cent compared with 77 per cent). Information on deferring, transferring or changing course Almost one-third of acknowledged early leavers (29 per cent) had looked for some form of information or advice about ways of transferring, deferring, or otherwise changing the way they were doing their course. However, only one-third of these had actually received any (32 per cent). Of those who had not looked for information, a further one-third reported that they would have liked some (35 per cent). Those who left because of perceived poor quality teaching/training were significantly more likely than average to say they would have liked to receive information on alternatives to dropping out of their course (46 per cent). Perceived benefits of learning Immediately before enrolling on their course, early leavers aged were significantly more likely than completers in the same age group to have been NEET. After they left their course, leavers in this age group remained more likely to be registered unemployed, and were significantly less likely than completers to be in education, or to have moved into paid work. Early leavers were less likely to report any benefits from doing their course than completers. Those who left their course for circumstantial reasons were most likely to cite benefits whereas those who were disenchanted with the course were least likely to do so. The most frequently cited benefits were improved qualifications and gaining new skills (15 per cent each). Likelihood of future learning Sixty-five per cent of both early leavers and completers aged reported that they would be likely to learn in the near future. However, among those aged 19+, early leavers were significantly more likely than completers to say they were unlikely to learn again in the near future (25 per cent compared with 15 per cent). Early leavers 5

13 who reported a negative experience of their course, such as poor quality teaching, were less likely to say they would return to learning. The majority of early leavers and completers aged reported no barriers to future learning. Older learners were more likely to do so. Among early leavers overall, cost (12 per cent) and lack of time (11 per cent) were the most frequently cited obstacles. Learners whose main reason for leaving was related to a negative experience of the course were the most likely to report barriers, while those who had left for circumstantial reasons were less likely to do so. Conclusions Reasons for leaving FE were generally more disparate (reflecting the wider range of learners, courses, and learning modes within that sector). This suggests that, in policy terms, a wider range of approaches may be needed to reduce drop-out in FE than in work-based learning. Reasons for leaving Apprenticeships and other WBL were more concentrated under two areas: that the course was not what they wanted to do after all, and that they had changed or left their job. In policy terms, this suggests that a smaller range of measures may have a larger impact on reducing drop-out, compared with FE. Forty-three per cent of acknowledged early leavers reported they left their course due to reasons that may have been addressed, to an extent, by more access to IAG, or to better quality IAG. This includes some cases where leaving was due to the wrong choice of course, inappropriate level of course, workload issues or unsuitable course times. The following IAG-related measures may help to address learner drop out for these types of reason: _ Ensure that more learners receive appropriate IAG prior to enrolling on the course. Tasters may have a role to play here, particularly in Apprenticeships and other work-based learning. _ Provide minimum standards of course information (on content, level, time commitment, etc). _ Direct more information at parents and employers, who are important informal sources of advice and information. _ Improve the fit between learners ability/aptitude and prior level of qualification and their course, for example via clearer, or more strictly applied, pre-entry requirements. Another way of improving this would be to allow greater flexibility within courses for learners to progress at a more personalised rate. It is clear that some early leaving for circumstantial reasons can never be fully addressed and, encouragingly, those who left for such reasons were more likely than others to be satisfied with many aspects of their course and less likely to have experienced time/workload or financial strains. The main circumstantial reasons that could be tackled, in slightly different ways, are as follows: _ As many as one-quarter of acknowledged Apprenticeship and other WBL leavers quit their course due to changing (or leaving) their job. Such learners and their new 6

14 employers (if they remained in the same sector of work) could be encouraged to continue their course in their new company by improving the portability of Apprenticeships and other work-based learning. _ Those who left for health reasons, or to have a baby, were particularly likely to report they would have liked to have received information on deferring their course. Information and support on this could be made more widely available. Citing time or workload pressures as the main reason for leaving was not directly related to the volume of tuition time or coursework, or to doing more than one course. This suggests that it was the balance of the course with other commitments that was the source of such problems, rather than just the amount of time that the course took up. Altogether, 20 per cent of early leavers cited time/workload problems as a reason for quitting the course and this was associated not only with finding it difficult to combine work and study (more likely among those doing part-time evening and open/distance learning), but also with higher levels of dissatisfaction with the timing of the course (more likely to be full-time learners). This suggests that: _ A proportion of early leavers who were studying while working needed more flexible modes of learning. In particular, these could be offered to full-time learners who were working medium to high hours: a significant minority of full-time learners were working 20+ hours per week. _ Another proportion, who were already on more flexible modes (partly because of their high working hours), needed better advice about ways of managing their time between work, study and other commitments. In total, around 45 per cent of acknowledged early leavers said they had either looked for information/advice on deferring, transferring or otherwise changing their course (but did not get it), or that they did not look, but would have liked some if it was available. Although we should accept that these responses are given in hindsight, this suggests a large information and advice gap that, if filled, may help to lower drop-out further, as well as reducing its impact on individual learners. 7

15 1 Introduction This report presents the results of a survey of early leaving among 2,180 Further Education (FE) and Work-Based Learning (WBL) learners, who were recorded as withdrawing from a course before fully completing it, during the academic year 2004/05. The research was undertaken by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) and BMRB, on behalf of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). 1.1 Background to the research In this section we summarise the policy context of this research as well as the key aspects of what is already known about learner retention from previous studies. We then discuss the aims of this study and outline the structure of the report FE and WBL success, achievement and retention rates Growth in participation Participation in further education has increased substantially over the past decade. Evidence from the Success for All Delivery Plan (Data Evidence Report) (Mount, Bursnall and Butcher, 2005) indicates an increase in learner numbers in FE colleges of 19 per cent between 1996/97 and 2003/04. This growth has been accompanied by further widening of participation in FE, which has traditionally always catered for a more inclusive and less homogenous group of learners than higher education. The increase in learner numbers since 1996/97 has resulted predominantly from an increase in part-time learners and adult learners. Participation in WBL has increased by 11 per cent since 2000/01, with learner numbers up from 268,800 to 299,500 (LSC/DfES 2005). Much of this increase has been fuelled by the growth of participation in Apprenticeships. 8

16 The drive for quality improvement The DfES Success for All strategy was introduced in Its aim is to improve the quality and responsiveness of learning and skills provision in colleges and other providers, driven in part by the need to support the government s Skills Strategy, in the face of the widening diversity of both FE students and the types and modes of learning offered by the sector. Operating in conjunction with Success for All, the Learning and Skills Council s) (LSC) Agenda for Change programme is designed to ensure that local and national planning arrangements are agreed with providers to facilitate meeting minimum levels of performance, and that providers are supported to make quality improvements where necessary. These include subject-specific resources, a coaching programme and regional subject networks to share and embed best practice. Collecting student feedback on satisfaction with learning programmes is also a key component of this process. Success and retention rates in FE One of the shared aims of these policies is to improve success rates. Successful completion of education and training by learners is key both to the achievement of the Public Service Agreement (PSA) adult Level 2 target (to reduce by at least 40 per cent the proportion of adults in the workforce who lack NVQ Level 2 or equivalent qualification by 2010), and to measuring the impact of Success for All reforms. The LSC measures success rates as the number of achievers across all colleges, divided by the number of starters across all colleges. The headline success rate rose by 12 percentage points between 1999/2000 and 2003/2004, hitting the original target of 72 per cent by 2005/06, two years early. This target has since been extended and raised to 76 per cent by 2007/08. The most recent headline success rate was 75 per cent (2004/05). Analysis reveals that this growth in headline success rates has largely been driven by an increase in achievement rates, particularly for short courses and A-levels, combined with a shift in the mix of provision towards more short courses (Mount, Bursnall and Butcher, 2005). However, recent policy initiatives suggest that short course provision is likely to fall as a proportion of total provision, as greater emphasis is placed on long, full Level 2 and Level 3 courses. There is also likely to be a natural ceiling for achievement rates that will see these eventually levelling off. To achieve further increases in success rates, it is therefore essential that retention rates are also improved. Retention rates have increased slowly over the equivalent time period, but the rise has been particularly small for adult long vocational courses, as shown in Table 1.1, with the rate hovering just over 70 per cent across the period. Recent evidence shows that institutions are beginning to focus more effort on raising retention rates as part of their quality improvement programmes. 9

17 Table 1.1: Retention Rates in FE colleges, by course length and age (%) Retention rate 2000/ / / / /05 Short Long Long adult (19+) All long courses Source: LSC Benchmarking data 2005, reproduced in Technical Supplement to the FE White Paper: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances (DfES 2006), and ILR/SFR, FE and WBL for Young People: Learner Outcomes in England 2004/05 (LSC/DfES 2006) Retention rates are linked to course length: as one might expect, people are more likely to drop out of longer courses than short ones. The main issues are that, within long courses: _ retention rates are lower for learners aged 19+ than for those aged (74 per cent compared with 83 per cent) _ vocational programmes such as NVQs have substantially lower retention rates than academic ones, in particular at Level 3 and among adults. Success rates in WBL WBL learners include those doing an Apprenticeship either at Level 2 or Advanced Apprenticeship level, and other on other work-based courses including Entry to Employment (E2E) and NVQs. Retention rates as such do not exist in WBL and success rates are used instead. The success rate for Apprenticeships is calculated by the proportion of starters who achieve either a full framework qualification (comprising the NVQ, key skills, and technical certificate) or an NVQ only (without achieving the framework). This increased from 46 per cent to 53 per cent between 2003/04 and 2004/05 (Table 1.2). However the Apprenticeship framework completion rate was substantially lower at just 40 per cent in 2004/05 (although this marked a large increase from the previous year). Work-based learning success rates vary significantly by level and area of learning. Generally speaking, NVQ success rates are higher at Level 2 than at Levels 1 and 3. Until 2003/04, Apprenticeship success rates were higher for Advanced Apprenticeships (Level 3) than for those at Level 2, but after rapid increase over the past two years, Level 2 Apprenticeship success rates have now caught up. 10

18 Table 1.2: Success rates in WBL, by programme type and level (%) NVQ Success (all levels) Apprenticeship Success Full framework 2002/ / /05 NVQ only NVQ success Full framework NVQ only NVQ success Full framework NVQ only NVQ success Level Advanced Source: Technical Supplement to the FE White Paper: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances (DfES 2006) and ILR/SFR, FE and WBL for Young People: Learner Outcomes in England 2004/05 (LSC/DfES 2006) What does previous research tell us about learner retention? Previous research on retention has found that students who withdraw from a course are not substantially different from those who complete in terms of age, ethnicity or gender (Martinez 1995, 1997; Martinez and Munday, 1998), nor in terms of their motivations for doing the course (Martinez 2001). Several studies of FE learners have been undertaken that have included a sub-sample of non-completers, although few have sought to focus solely on this group. While these provide some information on the reasons for non-completion, this tends to be limited to the general population of learners rather than being of sufficient scale to break down reasons by learner and learning characteristics, or to examine the relative importance of different factors. Key issues for further exploration are outlined below. Changes of circumstance/personal factors Learners may leave as a result of positive outcomes (such as to take up employment) or for reasons unrelated to the course (for example, changes in circumstance like leaving the area or changing job). These are recorded in the ILR as not having achieved their learning aim. The DfES report A Study of Learners in Further Education included a sample of early leavers (IFF Research, 2003b). Some 28 per cent of these left due to personal circumstances such as moving, pregnancy/a new child in the family, or other caring responsibilities. More recently, the FE Learners Longitudinal Survey (Wave 1) found that one-third of non-completers studying at full Level 2 or 3 left due to changes in personal/household circumstances (BMRB, 2006). Other research specifically on non-completion of Apprenticeships shows that most left to take up a new job, typically for reasons of pay or better prospects (IFF Research, 2000). It is important to acknowledge that, in some cases, learners reasons for withdrawal (such as to get a job, or a new job) may be seen as positive and rational choices from the students perspective (for example, see Martinez and Munday 1998; Adamson and McAleavy 2000). However, while some element of non-completion due to changed personal circumstances is unavoidable, it is important to ensure that learners who do 11

19 leave early for these reasons are offered appropriate advice about options to transfer or temporarily defer their course. The quality of provision Findings from the FE Learners Longitudinal Survey (BMRB, 2006) found that 16 per cent of non-completers cited poor teaching as the reason they left the course. According to the National Learner Satisfaction survey (LSC, 2006), the quality of teaching and training is the biggest driver of learners overall satisfaction. This suggests that, if the quality of teaching or training is perceived as poor, there is a higher likelihood that students will be dissatisfied and therefore consider dropping out, relative to other aspects of the learning experience. The delivery of provision There appear to be particular issues for people combining learning with work or other commitments. For example, research undertaken for DfES in 2003 found that onequarter of early leavers cited not being able to cope with combining work and study as a reason for dropping out of their course (IFF Research 2003b), raising questions about workload, timing and flexibility. Pre-course information/guidance and learner expectations Qualitative research (Martinez 2001) has highlighted inadequate advice and guidance (particularly for adults), poor course choice, and lack of understanding about the course as being associated with non-completion. Choosing the wrong course was the most commonly stated reason for early leaving among both FE and work-based learners in the most recent National Learner Satisfaction Survey (LSC, 2006), at 15 per cent and 22 per cent respectively. Support Quality of support is also an important aspect of motivation, in particular in WBL where trainees may sometimes have to work on their own for long periods with no contact with an assessor or other learners. Among work-based learners, further reasons cited for early withdrawal include insufficient employer support and inadequate consistency and frequency of trainer and assessor support (for example, Thornhill, 2001; IFF Research 2000). Other factors Some learners may be seeking to consolidate their existing qualifications by doing a new course at the same level, and therefore may have a lower stake in completing it. Attitudinal differences may also influence commitment to learning. However, in this study it is not possible to say whether such attitudinal differences impacted on drop- 12

20 out, given that both this and the comparative surveys of completers were all undertaken retrospectively, and attitudes reported here will have been influenced by learners subsequent experiences of quitting or completing the course. 1.2 Aims and objectives The bulk of the research on retention in FE and WBL in recent years has either been qualitative or has been carried out as part of a wider study of FE and WBL learners, and is therefore not strictly representative of all learner drop-out. In particular, it is often not possible to identify the most important factors that impact on retention, especially for adults undertaking long vocational courses, and for work-based learners. This study was commissioned in order to address this evidence gap and, in particular, to: _ Assess the reasons for non-completion, and the relative scale and importance of these for different groups of learner and types of learning. _ Explore what, if anything, could be done to provide support or advice to learners considering dropping out of their course. _ Identify policy mechanisms that might reduce non-completion, for example through better arrangements for course transfer or deferment; improved pre-entry information, advice and guidance; more flexible course provision. _ Find out what has happened to non-completers since they left their course. Are they planning to return to learning? What benefits, if any, do they feel they have gained from the learning that they only partially completed? 1.3 Methodology The focus of this report is a telephone survey of 2,180 early leavers from LSC-funded FE and WBL courses during the academic year 2004/05. This included learners aged and 19+ at the time they started their course. The survey is of learners who quit a particular course; it should be noted that some of these learners may have completed another course during the same period. It is therefore designed to be representative of course drop-out, rather than of learners who dropped out of learning or training completely. Alongside this, a comparison survey of 530 completers from the same academic year was conducted, focusing on young people aged. Again, some of these completers may have dropped out of other courses during the same period, but they were selected to be representative of courses completed during that academic year. Additional comparative data was made available on completers aged 19+, via the FE Learners Longitudinal Survey (Wave 1) undertaken by BMRB for the DfES in Comparative data between early leavers and completers aged 19+ is limited to key factors such as satisfaction with the course; financial contribution to the course; use and sources of pre-course information, advice and guidance (IAG); and likelihood of future learning. This is partly because the focus of the two surveys was different: the longitudinal study was on experience of and transitions from FE, whereas the early 13

21 leavers study was more about the learners experience of specific aspects of their course which may have impacted on withdrawal. It should also be noted that the longitudinal survey was undertaken face-to-face among completers from the academic year 2003/04, and whose course had a minimum of 30 guided learning hours. This means that comparisons should be treated with a degree of caution. The samples for all surveys were drawn using the Individualised Learner Record (ILR), provided by the LSC. The remainder of this section focuses on the methodology for the two surveys conducted specifically for this research, namely the survey of early leavers and the survey of year old completers Sample design The samples of early leavers/completers were designed to be as representative as possible of learner drop-out and completion for that academic year. Within the early leaver sample, some sub-groups of particular interest were boosted in order to allow more robust analysis of those groups. Defining the population The population of early leavers for the survey was defined as including learners aged 16 and over, who withdrew from a course in England and whose actual leaving date was between 1 August 2004 and 31 July 2005 inclusive; and excluding learners on courses that were adult and community learning (ACL) courses and learners on courses that were non-lsc funded. The population of completers for the survey was defined as learners aged who completed or were continuing on a course in England during the same academic year, also excluding ACL and non-lsc funded courses. Sample selection Having assigned an eligible course to the eligible learner, those who had not granted permission to be re-contacted were removed. There was little difference in the profile of learners before and after this procedure. The sample proportions selected from the ILR were boosted to provide additional interviews with those from WBL courses and those from non-white ethnic minorities. The amount of sample requested took into account the number of cases needed for fieldwork, as well as the fact the some learner records would not have a complete or accurate telephone number. Having removed the ineligible cases and constructed the sample frame, the file was separated into four sections covering white and non-white early leavers within FE and WBL. 1 Each file was then stratified in order to meet the desired representative 1 Learners with missing/unknown records for ethnicity were combined with white learners. 14

22 distribution of: non-vocational and vocational courses, short courses (defined as less than 24 weeks) and long courses (24 weeks or over), NQF level, and provider type. Cases were then selected randomly within each stratified file. The completers sample used a similar procedure, although there was no ethnic minority boost. The Technical Report contains further details on the sample design and sampling procedures used Fieldwork After a small pilot undertaken in August, the main stage of fieldwork took place between 6 September and 6 November In accordance with data protection legislation, advance letters were sent out to learners who had been selected. This gave them the opportunity to opt out if they did not wish to take part in the survey. Those who opted out were removed from the issued sample. The achieved sample comprised of 2,081 early leavers and 629 completers, as defined in the ILR data. However, when interviewed, some respondents reported that they had completed a course which the ILR database showed them as not completing, and vice versa. Table 1.3 shows how the survey data compared with the sample data for early leavers and completers. Of the 2,081 interviews undertaken with early leavers as defined in the ILR, just over one-third of them (N=716) reported they had finished their course. Meanwhile, of the 630 interviews undertaken with other learners, around one in six said they had not completed their course (N=99). Table 1.3: Number of interviews with early leavers and completers, survey versus sample Sample defined (based on ILR record) Early leavers Completers Survey defined (based on interview) Early leavers 1, Completers Total 2, Note: shaded cells depict early leavers The agreed approach to this discrepancy was to adhere to the ILR classification where non-completion was recorded, given that it is unlikely that non-completion would be over-recorded to this extent, and much more likely that early leavers may not recognise that they did not fully complete the course (for example, if they only wanted to do a part of it anyway), not remember, or be reluctant to admit so in a telephone survey. Because the completer sample was drawn from learners recorded as having completed or who were continuing their course during the 2004/05 academic year, sample-defined completers who said they left early were re-classified as early leavers in the data analysis. The actual proportion of sample-defined completers aged who said they left their course early (19 per cent) is also broadly in line with drop-out rates among courses. 15

23 This resulted in a final achieved sample of 2,180 early leavers (depicted in the shaded cells in Table 1.3) and 530 completers. The final data was checked against ILR returns which showed that only three per cent of early leavers were recorded as having achieved (or partially achieved) their learning aim, suggesting that the final classification of early leavers and completers was broadly accurate. Further details, including responses rates, are provided in the Technical Report Data preparation and weighting BMRB asked respondents for their permission to link their survey data to data provided to the LSC by their course provider, to aid the analysis of the survey data. For those people who gave their permission, this data was added to the file provided to IES by BMRB. The final data was weighted to take account of sample design and non-response. Population weights were also applied to ensure the data was representative of learner drop-out for the 2004/05 academic year. No population weights were required for the completer data as the weighted proportions were very close to the original completer population. Further information on the weights used is contained within the Technical Report Interpretation of findings The surveys reported here are based on samples only, rather than the entire population of FE completers and early leavers. This means that all findings are subject to sampling tolerances. Differences are reported in the text only when they are statistically significant at the 95 per cent confidence level, and not every statistically significant difference is highlighted. The early leavers and completers surveys were based on individuals who left or completed courses during the academic year 2004/05; the research was conducted from September to November Therefore a small proportion of respondents would have been interviewed up to two years after withdrawal from the course, and answers will be influenced by their recall of the particular course in question. The FE Learners Longitudinal survey was also conducted retrospectively, around seven to thirteen months after learners completed their course. Throughout this report, the figures quoted in the charts and tables are percentages unless specified otherwise. The unweighted base size (N) from which the percentage is derived is indicated on each chart or table. Base sizes may vary as not all questions are asked of all respondents. Where an asterisk (*) appears in a chart or table this indicates a percentage of less than 0.5 per cent but more than zero. Where percentages do not sum to 100, this can be due to various reasons including the exclusion of don t know or other responses, multiple responses, or computer rounding to the nearest whole number (in cases where column totals may sum to 99 or 101 per cent). 16

24 1.4 The report structure The remainder of this report is thematically structured, as follows: _ Chapter 2 provides a descriptive overview of the sample of early leavers and looks at their general attitudes to learning. _ Chapter 3 examines the prevalence of stated reasons for early leaving and explores patterns in responses by learner and learning characteristics. _ Chapter 4 focuses on pre-entry issues to examine early leavers motivations for undertaking their course and use of and satisfaction with pre-entry information, advice and guidance. _ Chapter 5 explores early leavers views on satisfaction with various aspects of their learning experience, and the course overall. _ Chapter 6 examines issues around time and workload, including the extent and impact of combining work and study. _ Chapter 7 covers financial issues, including whether the learner paid towards their course or not. _ Chapter 8 considers early leavers views on the support they received from their teacher/trainer, assessor, and employer and looks at whether they accessed any information or advice on transferring or deferring their course. _ Chapter 9 looks at changes in circumstance since leaving the course, early leavers views on the benefits of the learning they did, and the likelihood of and barriers towards learning in future. _ Chapter 10 concludes by assessing the findings of the survey in the light of current policy initiatives and draws out policy implications, where appropriate. Throughout the report and where appropriate, comparisons are made with completers within the same age group. 17

25 2 The Profile of Early Leavers This chapter provides a descriptive overview of the characteristics of individuals in the interviewed sample of early leavers. This profile is also compared with that of completers, where possible. The chapter then explores general attitudes towards learning. 2.1 Sample characteristics As outlined in Chapter 1, the sample of early leavers was drawn from ILR data and comprised LSC-funded learners aged 16 and over who had withdrawn from at least one of their FE or WBL courses during the academic year 2004/05. There were no restrictions by length of course, number of guided learning hours, or by the proportion of the course that had been completed. In all subsequent analyses, for both early leavers and completers, age and age 19+ refer to the age of the individual when they started their course Gender and age Overall, 60 per cent of early leavers were women. Table 2.1 shows that men and women were almost evenly represented among year old early leavers. In contrast, two-thirds of those aged 19+ were women (67 per cent). Early leavers from FE were more likely to be women (63 per cent), whereas those from Apprenticeships (60 per cent) and other work-based learning routes (56 per cent) were more likely to be men. This is broadly in line with the learner profile overall. 18

26 Table 2.1: Profile of early leavers and completers by gender and age group (%) Age Age 19+ Male early leavers Female early leavers Male completers Female completers Total no. early leavers 849 1,332 Total no. completers 530 6,687 Over one-third of early leavers surveyed were aged at the time they started their course (39 per cent). Apprenticeships and other work-based learning routes contained a higher proportion of young early leavers than FE courses, as to be expected given the age-limited criteria of some of those courses. Three-quarters of the early leavers from general work-based learning courses were aged (75 per cent), as were over half of those from Apprenticeships (57 per cent). Most of those doing other workbased learning courses were young people on the Entry to Employment (E2E) route. Table 2.2: Profile of early leavers by age group and type of learning (%) FE Apprenticeship Other WBL Base N 1, Disability and ethnicity Twelve per cent of early leavers reported having a long-term illness or disability 1 limiting the type or amount of paid work they could do. The incidence of disability was higher among the 19+ age group than among those aged (17 per cent compared with five per cent). Analysis shows that disability increased with age, and was highest among those currently aged 50+ (25 per cent). Early leavers aged 19+ were slightly more likely than completers in that age group to report having a disability (17 per cent compared with 14 per cent), but there was no significant difference between early leavers and completers aged. In total, four-fifths of early leavers were white (80 per cent). The proportion of white early leavers increased to 94 per cent of those who were doing Apprenticeships, reflecting overall participation patterns by ethnicity. Table 2.3 shows ethnicity by 1 Comparing the survey results with information recorded on the ILR (for those who agreed to have their responses matched back) shows a corresponding percentage of ten per cent who considered themselves to have a learning difficulty and/or disability and/or health problem. 19