young participation in higher education in the parliamentary

Young Participation in Higher Education in the Parliamentary Constituencies of Nottingham North, Bristol South, Sheffield Brightside and Hodge Hill

Sheffield Brightside Strand

Final Report December 2006

Report Authors

Helen Kay and Ann Walker Sheffield Hallam University

Research Team

Helen Kay, Caroline Heaton, Mark Hogg, Laura Selby, Ngoza Sikombe, Ann Walker, Diane Burns, Lesley Gornall,

Claire Wolstenholme & Ben Willis

Low Participation in Higher Education (Brightside, Sheffield)

Contents Page Abstract 6

1. Introduction 7

2. Geography of the Area 8

3. Review of Local Strategies and Literature 11 3.1 Sheffield Wide Strategies, Plans and Reviews - Superseded 11 3.2 Sheffield Wide Strategies, Plans and Programmes - Current 12 3.3 Strategies, Activities and Initiatives Operating in Sheffield Brightside 14

3.4 Annotated Bibliography of Local Grey Literature 26 4. Methodology 33 4.1 Quantitative 33 4.2 Qualitative 35

5. Quantitative Results 38 5.1 Introduction 38 5.2 Demography 39 5.3 Socio-Economic Context 41 5.4 Education Attainment 51 5.5 Education and Training - Participation and Attainment 60 5.6 Progression to Higher Education 72

6. Qualitative Result 78

6.1 Introduction 78 6.2 Analysis of Questionnaire Data 78 6.2 Analysis of Focus Group and Interview Data 92 7. Discussion 101 7.1 Introduction 101 7.2 Context 101 7.3 Young Participation in Higher Education in Sheffield 101 7.4 Attitudes, Perceptions and Experiences of Sheffield Brightside 101 7.5 Attitudes, Perceptions and Experiences of the Educational Offer 106 7.6 Attitudes, Perceptions and Experiences of Influences of Progression 111 8 Conclusions 114 9 Recommendations 117

2


Appendices No. Title Page

No. 1 Sheffield Wide Strategies, Plans and Reviews - Superseded 119

2 Sheffield Wide Strategies, Plans and Programmes - Current 123

3 Southey Owlerton Area - Residential Area Strategies 138

4 Brightside Shiregreen Area - Residential Area Strategies 142

5 Information Sheet and Consent Form for Parents/Carers 146

6 Research Questions Underpinning Schedules for Interviews and Focus Groups

147

7 Questionnaire for Sheffield Hallam Students Living in the Sheffield Brightside Constituency

148

8 Interview Schedule - Professionals 152

9 Interview Schedule- Focus Group Students - Access/University 154

10 Information Sheet for Practitioners 156

11 Information Sheet for Focus Group Participation 158

12 Summary of Ofsted Reports Relevant to the Brightside Research

160

13 Provision at Level 2 and Above at The Sheffield College's Main Centres

188

14 Level 2 and 3 Provision at Longley Park Sixth Form College 198

15 Young People's Perception of the Area 200

16 Educational Journey 201

17 Feedback from Young People on the Meaning of Education 205

3


Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the funding and continued support of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and in particular Sarah Howels. HEFCE provided a valuable steer for the work and facilitated the development of a co-operative network across the four research strands. The research network has been an extremely valuable resource and our thanks go to our colleagues in the other three strands: Birmingham Hodge Hill Sandra Cooke Pat Mannion Gail Rothnie Paul Warmington

Nottingham North Sarah Coward Peter Gates Penelope Griffin Dean Penford

Bristol South Arthur Baxter Chris Croudace Neil Harrison Kathryn Last Lynn Raphael Reed

The Sheffield Brightside strand of this project has been greatly influenced by its project co-ordination group. The group had an important role in shaping the project process, and providing valuable local knowledge and contacts. The co-ordination group consists of: Jed O'Neill Director of Aimhigher, South Yorkshire Maxine Greaves Faculty of Development & Society Jon Parry Research & Intelligence Manager, Connexions South Yorkshire Ian Swain Regional Research Manager Learning and Skills Council Maggie Bamford Sheffield Futures Finally, thanks are given to the Sheffield Hallam University project team who managed and carried out this research to very tight deadlines with great professionalism. The team includes: Helen Kay Head of the Widening Participation Policy Unit Caroline Heaton Senior Administrative Officer - Widening Participation Policy Unit Mark Hogg Project Officer - Widening Participation Policy Unit Laura Selby Project Assistant - Widening Participation Policy Unit Ngoza Sikombe Project Assistant - Widening Participation Policy Unit Ann Walker Developmental Psychologist - Faculty of Development & Society Diane Burns Independent Consultant Lesley Gornall Senior Research Fellow - Centre for Education Research Claire Wolstenholme Centre for Education Research Ben Willis Centre for Education Research

4


Contact Information Helen Kay Widening Participation Policy Unit Sheffield Hallam University City Campus Sheffield S1 1WB The maps in this report are produced from Ordnance Survey Material (Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003) with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office © Crown Copyright

5


Abstract This case study has been focussed on the Sheffield Brightside area in Sheffield, South Yorkshire. It has been identified as having the lowest participation in higher education rate in England. The study has undertaken an extensive review of local and neighbourhood studies and local grey literature together with a quantitative evaluation of demographic, socio-economic, deprivation, educational attainment and progression to HE data. It has also used a range of methodologies to determine the attitudes, perceptions and experiences of people living in the Sheffield Brightside area, its educational offer and issues relating to progression. The research has revealed that the Sheffield Brightside constituency cannot be considered as a single homogeneous area and therefore the educational experiences of the young people living in the constituency cannot be considered to be all the same but to vary depending upon the individual's social circumstances and personal experiences. One of the main barriers to progression is the lack of level 2 qualifications both by adults and young people. For young people this stops progression to level 3 qualifications, whilst for adults this restricts their personal progression as well as their ability to be "good" educational role models for the younger generation. Work based learning and acquisition of vocational learning and skills were seen as possible routes into further and higher education. From these findings, five key recommendations were made. These included: the promotion of post compulsory progression routes; the development/re-branding of aspects of the Aimhigher initiative into Aimfurther to Aimhigher; expanding activities which influence and inform key 'adults' about the need for young people to develop higher level skills; the promotion and funding of skills development and learning for the adult population; and, as part of their wider community engagement strategies, for universities to consider how they can facilitate a coherent and sustainable presence in low participation neighbourhoods such as Sheffield Brightside.

6


1. Introduction Context and Introduction to the Evaluation The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) published ‘Young participation in higher education’ (HEFCE 2005/03)1 in January 2005. The report detailed patterns of young participation in higher education in England by electoral ward and parliamentary constituency. It revealed that Nottingham North, Bristol South, Sheffield Brightside and Hodge Hill (Birmingham) had some of the lowest young HE participation rates in the country. One of the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s primary aims is to offer the opportunity of higher education to all those who are able to benefit from it. A reasonable amount is known about the generic reasons for young people not progressing to higher education at a national level. However, in a response to concerns about the very low participation rates exhibited by these constituencies, the council commissioned a series of research projects to attempt to establish what is particular about these constituencies. This project focuses on the Sheffield Brightside constituency. Once the issues particular to the four constituencies have been established recommendations will be made as to how progression to, and participation in, higher education could be increased in these areas. It is hoped that the work will also bring lessons for other areas with very low HE participation rates. Aims and Objectives The project aims to develop a better understanding of the range of factors which contribute to young people not progressing to higher education and how these factors interrelate to result in areas of very low participation. It will use the research findings to make recommendations which can be used to try to improve the progression rates of young people in areas of low participation in HE. The project objectives are to:

• establish what is already known through a review of the existing literature in the area;

• establish the availability and appropriateness of the post-16 educational offer; • provide a clear picture of the relationship between area factors, such as the

deprivation index and school structure and patterns of young participation; • build on the existing knowledge to determine the attitudes, perceptions and

experiences of young people that are not participating in education; • determine the nature of the information, advice and guidance (IAG) that young

people receive with regard to progression to post-16 provision and subsequently higher education;

• identify examples of good practice in reaching out and engaging young people in post-16 and HE provision.

1 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_03/

7


2. Geography of the Area South Yorkshire Sheffield is situated in the metropolitan county of South Yorkshire, within the Yorkshire and the Humber government region, in the centre of England, roughly midway between Nottingham to the south and Leeds to the north and about 40 miles east of Manchester, Figure 2.1. South Yorkshire shares its borders with West Yorkshire to the north, the East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire to the east, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire to the south and Greater Manchester to the west. Figure 2.1 - The Geographical Location of Sheffield

West YorkshireWest YorkshireWest YorkshireWest YorkshireWest YorkshireWest YorkshireWest YorkshireWest YorkshireWest Yorkshire

DerbyshireDerbyshireDerbyshireDerbyshireDerbyshireDerbyshireDerbyshireDerbyshireDerbyshire

NottinghamshireNottinghamshireNottinghamshireNottinghamshireNottinghamshireNottinghamshireNottinghamshireNottinghamshireNottinghamshire

South YorkshireSouth YorkshireSouth YorkshireSouth YorkshireSouth YorkshireSouth YorkshireSouth YorkshireSouth YorkshireSouth Yorkshire

East Riding of YorkshireEast Riding of YorkshireEast Riding of YorkshireEast Riding of YorkshireEast Riding of YorkshireEast Riding of YorkshireEast Riding of YorkshireEast Riding of YorkshireEast Riding of Yorkshire

North LincolnshireNorth LincolnshireNorth LincolnshireNorth LincolnshireNorth LincolnshireNorth LincolnshireNorth LincolnshireNorth LincolnshireNorth Lincolnshire

LincolnshireLincolnshireLincolnshireLincolnshireLincolnshireLincolnshireLincolnshireLincolnshireLincolnshire

NottinghamNottinghamNottinghamNottinghamNottinghamNottinghamNottinghamNottinghamNottingham

LeedsLeedsLeedsLeedsLeedsLeedsLeedsLeedsLeeds

ManchesterManchesterManchesterManchesterManchesterManchesterManchesterManchesterManchesterSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffield

Sheffield The extent of the Sheffield metropolitan district boundary and its location within South Yorkshire is shown in Figure 2.2. The three other metropolitan districts in South Yorkshire, (Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham), are shown in blue. Sheffield, shown in green, has been subdivided into pre-20042 parliamentary constituencies.

2 Rationale for this choice of geography is given in the methodology section

8


Figure 2.2 - The Location of Sheffield within South Yorkshire

SheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffieldSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, Central

Sheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, Heeley

Sheffield, HillsboroughSheffield, HillsboroughSheffield, HillsboroughSheffield, HillsboroughSheffield, HillsboroughSheffield, HillsboroughSheffield, HillsboroughSheffield, HillsboroughSheffield, Hillsborough

Sheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, Hallam

BarnsleyBarnsleyBarnsleyBarnsleyBarnsleyBarnsleyBarnsleyBarnsleyBarnsleyDoncasterDoncasterDoncasterDoncasterDoncasterDoncasterDoncasterDoncasterDoncaster

RotherhamRotherhamRotherhamRotherhamRotherhamRotherhamRotherhamRotherhamRotherhamSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, Brightside

Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003

Sheffield Brightside The pre-2004 parliamentary constituency of Sheffield Brightside is located to the east of Sheffield and borders on to the metropolitan borough of Rotherham, Figure 2.2. The pre-2004 wards, which Sheffield was subdivided into, are shown in Figure 2.3 with the pre-2004 wards of Brightside, Firth Park, Nether Shire, Owlerton and Southey Green shown in green. The parliamentary constituency of Sheffield Brightside and the five wards which made up the constituency were superseded by the Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough Borough in 20043. The new constituency is composed of the five wards of Burngreave, Firth Park, Hillsborough, Shiregreen and Brightside, and Southey. Due to the timing of the boundary changes, the data on which this report is based relates to both the pre- and post- 2004 parliamentary constituency. Figure 2.3 - Sheffield's Pre-2004 Electoral Wards

CastleCastleCastleCastleCastleCastleCastleCastleCastle

NortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNorton

BrightsideBrightsideBrightsideBrightsideBrightsideBrightsideBrightsideBrightsideBrightside

Firth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth Park

Southey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey Green

Nether ShireNether ShireNether ShireNether ShireNether ShireNether ShireNether ShireNether ShireNether Shire

OwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlerton

BeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchief

WalkleyWalkleyWalkleyWalkleyWalkleyWalkleyWalkleyWalkleyWalkley

StocksbridgeStocksbridgeStocksbridgeStocksbridgeStocksbridgeStocksbridgeStocksbridgeStocksbridgeStocksbridge

South WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth Wortley

SharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowParkParkParkParkParkParkParkParkPark

NetherthorpeNetherthorpeNetherthorpeNetherthorpeNetherthorpeNetherthorpeNetherthorpeNetherthorpeNetherthorpe

Nether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether Edge

MosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosborough

ManorManorManorManorManorManorManorManorManor

IntakeIntakeIntakeIntakeIntakeIntakeIntakeIntakeIntake

HillsboroughHillsboroughHillsboroughHillsboroughHillsboroughHillsboroughHillsboroughHillsboroughHillsborough

HeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeley

HandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworth

HallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallam EcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesall

DoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDore

DarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnall

Chapel GreenChapel GreenChapel GreenChapel GreenChapel GreenChapel GreenChapel GreenChapel GreenChapel Green

BurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreave

BroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhill

BirleyBirleyBirleyBirleyBirleyBirleyBirleyBirleyBirley


3 http://applications.barnsley.gov.uk/syforum/aboutsy.asp

9


The Sheffield Brightside area can also be described in terms of Sheffield City Council's political management system. Sheffield is divided into 12 corporate areas. Although not exact geographical matches, the Sheffield Brightside area fits within and substantially comprises two of these corporate areas. The corporate areas are:

• Owlerton/Southey Green; • Brightside/Shiregreen.

The Owlerton/Southey Green area is mostly covered by one of the largest public housing estates in Europe. The area was originally planned on the garden city movement principles. It is characterised by a mix of pre and post-war housing, 1960s maisonettes, flats and some private housing. The neighbourhoods within Owlerton/Southey Green include:

• Foxhill; • Parsons Cross; • Southey Green; • Shirecliffe; • Longley.

Brightside/Shiregreen is similarly predominantly a residential area made up of various housing types. The neighbourhoods within the area include:

• Firth Park; • Wincobank; • Brightside; Shiregreen. •

The Firth Park neighbourhood comprises the Stubbin, Brushes and Flower estates, which are mainly inter- and post-war housing. The Wincobank neighbourhood is a mixture of privately owned Victorian terraces, post-war and recent developments, with a small amount of late 20th Century social housing. The Brightside neighbourhood comprises mainly privately owned Victorian terraces and recent developments with a small amount of

cent social housing. Shiregreen is exclusively made up of inter-war social housing. re Owlerton/Southey Green and Brightside/Shiregreen together have an area of 19km² and make up 5 per cent of the City area. The population of the area is in excess of 68,400, which represent 13.4 per cent of the City's population. Within the area, there are 29,000 households. Approximately 30 per cent of the population of the area are on income support.

10


3. Review of Local Strategies and Literature 3.1 Sheffield Wide Strategies, Plans and Reviews - Superseded The following strategies, plans and reviews have been summarised in Appendix 1.

Sheffield First For Learning (August 2002). The Sheffield Learning Plan 2002-2004. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffieldfirst.net/downloads/sffl&w_learning_plan_2002.pdf

Learning and Skills Council South Yorkshire (2004). Strategic Area Review (StAR) of South Yorkshire 2004. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.lscdirections.co.uk/star/star/action.html

Sheffield First for Inclusion (May 2002). Social Inclusion Strategy for Sheffield 2002-2005. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffieldfirst.net/downloads/inclus6.pdf

These documents highlighted that post-16 progression in Sheffield was a weakness, compounded by problems of retaining those who did progress. They also acknowledged that there were insufficient numbers of people gaining further and high level skills and qualifications to meet the needs of the local economy. It was stated that across Sheffield, 60 per cent of 16 year olds did not attain level 2. Whilst the predicted employment trends anticipated that 40 per cent of new jobs would be at level 4, with only 10 per cent at level 1. Consequently, significant up-skilling was recognised as being required and a major objective for the city was increasing post-16 participation in some form of education and/or training. The plans focus on generating demand for learning by facilitating an awareness of local opportunities and skills needs, improving retention and post-16 progression and the provision of advice and guidance relating to educational opportunities and pathways for young people and adults. There was an acknowledgment that present (2005) post-19 provision did not sufficiently bridge the gap between types and levels of provision. The Strategic Area Review singled out the east of the city as experiencing the most challenging conditions especially in respect of poor GCSE results, high truancy rates and disengagement pre-16 and poor progression post-16. The Longley Park 6th Form College was identified as providing a total of 1,000 level 1, 2 and 3 places when fully operational reflecting the needs of the (Sheffield Brightside) area. However, the College's potential impact on post-16 provision across the city was said to be unclear. The South Yorkshire LSC's review of the impact of the college, due in summer 2006, has not yet been published. The social inclusion strategy highlighted the links between truancy and low levels of achievement and proposed interventions to tackle youth disaffection and address levels of exclusion. It also recommended the production of a 'Basic Skills Action Plan' to address the low levels of adult literacy and numeracy in Sheffield. The fact that half the unemployed people in Sheffield lived in the nine most deprived wards in the city was also highlighted in the Social Inclusion Strategy. Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) citizens were said to be four times as likely to be unemployed. Many low income people were living in poor standard housing, with BME communities experiencing some of the worst. Some of Sheffield Brightside's areas were identified as having some of the

11


highest proportions of people registered as drug users. It was also suggested that in deprived areas those committing burglaries often lived within a 2 mile radius of their victims, i.e. within the communities or adjacent communities. 3.2 Sheffield Wide Strategies, Plans and Programmes - Current The following strategies, plans and programmes have been summarised in Appendix 2.

Sheffield First Partnership (2005). Sheffield’s Future: be part of it. Sheffield’s City

Strategy 2005-2010. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffieldfirst.net/downloads/Sheffield%20City%20Strategy.pdf

Children and Young People’s 0-19+ Partnership (2006). Sheffield Children and Young People's Plan 2006-2009. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/education/jar/cypp

Sheffield First For Learning (November 2002). 14-19 Learning Strategy for Sheffield 2002-2006. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffieldfirst.net/downloads/sfl&w_14-19_learning_strategy.pdf

Learning for Life - a new approach to 14-19 education and training. [website]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffield14-19.org.uk/introduction.shtml

Sheffield City Council (2004). Extended Schools... towards a strategy for full service extended schools in Sheffield 2004-10. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.continyou.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_799.pdf#search=%22towards%20a%20strategy%20for%20full%20service%20extended%20schools%20within%20sheffield%22

Sheffield First For Learning and Work (2004). Transforming Adult and Community Learning in Sheffield: A Partnership Approach. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffieldfirst.net/scsl2k5/docs/A&CS%20Strategy.pdf

Sheffield City Council (2005). Family Learning In Sheffield: A Strategy for Development.

Sheffield First for Learning and Work (May 2005). More jobs, more skills: Sheffield’s Employment and Skills Strategy 2005-2010. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffieldfirst.net/downloads/ConsultationDraft18.5.05.doc

Sheffield Safer Communities Partnership (2005). The Safer Communities Strategy: Sheffield’s Crime Reduction Strategy and Drugs Strategy 2005-2008. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffieldfirstforsafety.net/downloads/SFfS_strat_fullhighres.pdf

Sheffield City Council (2005). Executive Summary - Best Value Review: Behaviour. [online]. Last accessed 9 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/scrutiny/successful-neighbourhoods/agenda-14-september-2006/anti-social-behaviour-

Sheffield City Council/Sheffield First Family of Partnerships (2003). Closing the Gap: A Framework for Neighbourhood Renewal in Sheffield. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/neighbourhood-renewal-and-partnership/closing-the-gap

12


These strategies and plans follow on from those reviewed in Section 3.1. The issues raised previously are reiterated and underpin the current documents. Sheffield is a city undergoing rapid transformation. These strategy documents and plans highlight that at the heart of city's ambitions is the desire to make learning part of everyone's way of life. Public consultation has identified the need to improve learning opportunities for people in the city using the strengths of its universities to stimulate a learning culture. In addition to the improvements needed in skills and education identified above, the city's strategy focuses on reducing the gap between the most deprived and the most affluent neighbourhoods across the city, tackling crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour and making the city inclusive and cosmopolitan. The Children and Young People's Plan and the14-19 Learning Strategy for Sheffield, following on from the Sheffield Learning Plan, have a focus on improving achievement in compulsory education and progression in to post-16 education, training and/or work. The 'Learning for Life' initiative is a major 14-19 innovation in Sheffield previously known as the 'Sheffield Apprenticeship'. It is a framework of new learning pathways for students of all abilities designed to enhance the existing curriculum. By working closely with employers in key areas that are important to the local economy, Learning for Life offers young people opportunities to pursue new programmes and qualifications that will make the curriculum more relevant to them. It aims to develop in them the skills, knowledge and experience necessary for progression to further education, training or work in the identified growth sectors of the local economy. The specific growth sectors are software engineering, bioscience, construction, catering and retail. The learning and skills development will be achieved through a mixture of study in the classroom and opportunities to train at college or learn in the workplace. It will be possible for young people from 14 to choose from a wider range of applied learning pathways as part of their option choices, e.g. new Applied GCSEs in Business or Manufacturing or a new qualification valued by prospective employers e.g. NVQ Construction. The extended schools initiative is being adopted in Sheffield, with the resources being targeted towards areas with the greatest disadvantage. The initiative develops the role of the school so that it becomes a hub providing support and a place for a wider range of formal and informal learning within the community. The Firth Park family of schools is an example within Sheffield Brightside of a school actively engaged in the initiative. The extended schools initiative links to Sheffield's Family Learning Strategy, Family e-Learning, the Adult and Community Learning Unit and the Children and Young People's Service Districts. Weaknesses in adult learning participation and achievement have been identified in the Family Learning Strategy which include low levels of engagement in any form of learning on a regular basis and learning participation rates which vary markedly in terms of ethnicity and gender. Participation in LSC core funded adult learning provision was found to be geographically uneven. Southey Green was cited as having the lowest number of adult enrolments (19+). There are insufficient numbers of adults in possession of formal qualifications; a marked disparity in qualifications held by adults living in different parts of the city; and too few adults progressing to HE or engaging in courses which offer higher-level vocational qualifications. As with levels of educational achievement, there are marked disparities in employment rates across Sheffield ranging from 36 per cent to 75 per cent, and there are also

13


discrepancies between groups (e.g. the employment rate for BME communities is 52 per cent and 75 per cent for white people). In general the rate of employment in Sheffield is well below the national average. Consequently the Employment and Skills Strategy is devoted to increasing the rate and closing the gaps across the city. Increasing the stock of skills in the city is seen as key. The strategy aims to provide more and better opportunities for training, entitlement to high quality information and guidance and a choice of learning routes for young people in the 16-24 age range. Sheffield has a 'Safer Communities Strategy' which focuses on crime reduction and substance misuse. The strategy notes that burglary is not evenly spread across the city, it also indicates that few drug users travel more than 3 miles to obtain their drugs and often offend on their way to a dealer. Thus drug 'markets' fuel crime in particular areas. The Best Value Review has shown that many neighbourhoods in Sheffield Brightside have very high incidences of anti-social behaviour reporting, with Southey Green, Parsons Cross, Stubbins/Brushes and Shirecliffe having particularly high rates. An overview of Sheffield's neighbourhood renewal strategy is provided in the summary of the 'Closing the Gap' Framework. A more detailed review of neighbourhood regeneration within Sheffield Brightside is given in Section 3.3. 3.3 Strategies, Activities and Initiative Operating in Sheffield Brightside 3.3.1 Introduction This section attempts to create an overview of the activity taking place within the Sheffield Brightside area, but is by no means an exhaustive list. There is a significant amount of regeneration and development taking place with in the area aimed at improving the housing, the environment, education and school and college infrastructure, the provision of children's and community centres, etc. The neighbourhood strategies, in particular, have also captured a view of the current perceptions that people living and working in Sheffield Brightside have of the area. The strategies also articulate the aspirations residents have for the area. 3.3.2 Area Panels Sheffield is divided into 12 corporate areas, each of which has an Area Panel. Area Panels are an integral part of Sheffield City Council's political management structure and are made up of local Councillors. Panel meetings are open to the public and normally held at local venues. They are respected as a body for debate and provide a well-used channel of two-way communication between local communities, the Council and other service providers. The Sheffield Brightside area is divided into two Corporate Areas each of which has an Area Panel. The Corporate Areas are as follows:

Owlerton/Southey Green Brightside/Shiregreen

14


Owlerton/Southey Green and Brightside/Shiregreen Area Panels have each produced three-year strategic plans. These plans reflect important issues, identified through local consultation, and set out the key priorities for each area4, 5. 3.3.3 Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder The Transform South Yorkshire Housing Market Renewal (HMR) Pathfinder is a 10-15 year programme aiming to tackle the causes of low demand by restructuring housing markets with appropriate interventions. It is the largest of nine areas in England and comprises ten areas in South Yorkshire, three of which are in Sheffield. The North Sheffield Area Development Framework (ADF) relates to one of the three Sheffield areas and covers both the Owlerton/Southey Green and Brightside/Shiregreen Panel areas. 3.3.4 Neighbourhood Strategies The Neighbourhood Strategies process is an approach which has been used in North Sheffield’s Housing Market Renewal (HMR) area. The process seeks to empower local people so that they are more able to participate in developing and managing their neighbourhoods and aims to develop partnership working and communication between the local community and the other area stakeholders. The Neighbourhood Strategies approach was successfully completed in Southey Owlerton in 2002 and subsequently rolled out to the Brightside Shiregreen area, where it is due for completion in early 2007. The method is being used to support Sheffield's 'masterplanning', which sets a vision of how people want their community to look and feel. Brightside Shiregreen and Southey Owlerton form the two halves of the North Area Development Framework within Sheffield’s HMR area. They roughly correspond to the Area Panels identified in Section 3.3.2. These two areas are made up of a number of smaller residential neighbourhoods. The process has involved the development of a number of residential neighbourhood strategies that feed into the respective area neighbourhood strategy, Figure 1. The geographical relationship of these areas is given in Figure 2. Opinions about the smaller neighbourhoods were gathered to facilitate a more realistic view of the individual communities and because of the sheer size of the areas, e.g. Southey Owlerton is the same size as the town of Guildford.

4 Sheffield City Council (2005). Owlerton/Southey Green Area Plan 2005-2008. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/area-action/owlerton--southey-green-area-action/area-plans 5 Sheffield City Council (2004). Brightside and Shiregreen Area Panel Local Action Plan 2004-2006. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/area-panels/brightside--shiregreen/agenda-25th-february-2004/local-action-plan-

15


Figure 1: North Area Development Framework

Not part of Sheffield Brightside

Figure 2: The Geographical Relationship of Residen

Shiregree

FirthPark

Flower

Brushes

Stubbins

Foxhill

ShirecliffeHillsborough

Parson Cross

Longley

SoutheyGreen

Southey Owlerton Area Neighbourhood Strategy

Foxhill NS Hillsborough NS

Longley NS Firth Park NS

Parsons Cross NS

Shirecliffe NS Southey Green NS

Brightside Shiregreen Area Neighbourhood Strategy

Northern Area Development Framework

16

Brightside Grimesthorpe

NS

tial Neighbourhoods

Brightside/Grimesthorpe

Wincobank

n

Shiregreen NS

Wincobank NS


3.3.5 Sheffield City Council (May 2002). Southey Owlerton Neighbourhood Strategy: Regeneration Framework Volume 1. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=48441 The Strategy refers to Southey Owlerton as occupying one tenth of the city of Sheffield and being particularly deprived. It has been described as "a sea of housing, the largest council housing estate in Europe, with few facilities that have anything other than very local use." Most of the housing was constructed between the 1920s and 1950s. There is a shared history and culture in the area - whole communities moved into the area together. The 'breadwinners' were often employed in the steel/engineering industries. These large estates were almost exclusively houses. Those living in the area worked in the industrial zone along the Don Valley. As the steel and associated engineering industries declined in the 1980s the impact on communities was devastating. In 1999, the Southey Owlerton Regeneration Board (SOAR) was awarded £21m of Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) funding for the period up to March 2006. After an initial plan was rejected, SOAR decided to embark on a Neighbourhood Strategies process. This process was developed and led by local people through Neighbourhood Groups and supported by council officers and partners. Strategies were developed for six neighbourhoods within Southey Owlerton, five of which fall within Sheffield Brightside. They are shown in Figure 1 and listed below:

Foxhill; Longley; Parson Cross; Shirecliffe; Southey; Hillsborough (not in Sheffield Brightside).

These six strategies, summarised in Appendix 4, were brought together to form a coherent regeneration framework for the whole Southey Owlerton area. The overarching ideas and plans for the regeneration of the whole area between 2002 and 2012 are articulated in the Southey Owlerton Neighbourhood Strategy. The process used community consultation to identify perceptions of the area. This revealed that people were positive about living there and had a strong sense of community. Homes, local schools, good public transport and closeness to shops were some of the aspects of the area most valued by residents. Residents had a pride in their area and but also expressed sadness at its deterioration - associated with the reduction in jobs in the steel industry and decline in public services. The importance of family, extended family and friendships was notable, although some people, particularly the elderly, felt isolated as young families had begun to leave the area. The consultation revealed that whilst many were willing to confront the issues that faced the area, others wanted to move away. Those wanting to leave perceived that other areas of the city had better schools and facilities and less crime/nuisance. Issues identified as needing improvement were related to:

17


safety - a greater police presence; more action on drug use, vandalism and crime; traffic calming; better street lighting in the parks; and places for children to play.

environment - improvements to homes and gardens and repairs to roads and

pavements. There were concerns about the perceived "tatty image" and the lack of investment in housing and open spaces has had on the area.

community and social facilities - residents wanted more and better play facilities

for children and young people and meeting places for community groups. parks - more/better play areas, sports facilities, pathways and lighting.

other issues included those relating to health and access to training and jobs.

Among the issues identified as being needed to create opportunities for the people of Southey Owlerton were:

childcare places - these were said to be very few which caused both social and economic problems. It was proposed that long term support and co-ordination would be needed.

support for young people - this was found to be unevenly spread across the area.

There was a lack of things for young people to do and high levels of youth nuisance. It was proposed that some indoor and outdoor provision in each local neighbourhood would be necessary.

schools - the 19 schools in the area were identified as not only being valuable

physical resources, but also as having the potential to provide childcare provision and family learning.

centres for learning/training - the provision of centres to facilitate learning linked

to training and employment in the neighbourhoods. training and IAG - getting people 'job ready' by supporting their development of

skills and connecting them to employment opportunities. supporting community enterprise.

A key issue for this neighbourhood strategy was the need for sites, premises and resources in each neighbourhood. This led to the concept of the 'hub' projects. The 'hub' would provide access to a minimum core of services set within a distinct neighbourhood centre. Each 'hub' would deliver a range of services e.g. lifelong learning, access to Job Net, learning centre/IT facilities, community health and advice, and a community meeting space, as well as having a strength linked to one of the growth sectors in the job market. Southey Owlerton's Five 'Big Ideas' The Strategy identifies five overarching themes. These are referred to as the 'big ideas'. They are concerned with making a connection between the natural and built environments by joining the green spaces and key routes to centres of community activity; using the built

18


form to make the area visible to the rest of the city and to reflect neighbourhood identity; and using what the framework describes as "the green web" to support local facilities and enterprises. Big Idea 1: Park City It is intended that, by joining up the open spaces of the neighbourhoods that connect the community facilities, hubs and neighbourhood centres, the "green web" would serve as a backdrop to every aspect of daily life. All new community and work places could link into this area of greenness. The framework states that this is not merely about increasing the amount of green space but about improving its quality and connectivity. Big Idea 2: See and Be Seen This area is very visible from the city centre and other parts of the city. Through the development of the main footpaths, play facilities and open spaces and better use of lighting, Southey Owlerton would highlight features across its neighbourhoods. Big Idea 3: Identity from Landform Making the built environment respond to the natural qualities of the area - aspect, landform and vegetation - could change the image of Southey Owlerton and its neighbourhoods. Big Idea 4: From City to Country and Back Again Joining up the footpaths across the neighbourhoods would make possible the creation of some longer routes that would link some of the distinctive parts of the area. These routes could be connected to each other and to the hubs of community activity. Big Idea 5: Green Arteries The "green arteries" would link the key open spaces and community facilities and become centres for activity and the drivers for new projects. It was proposed that the green character of the Southey Owlerton could be emphasised. 3.3.6 Fluid for Sheffield City Council (February 2006). Brightside Shiregreen Neighbourhood Strategy. Consultants 'Fluid' were commissioned by Sheffield City Council in July 2005, to facilitate a 'vision' for the regeneration of Brightside Shiregreen. As with Southey Owlerton, the neighbourhood strategy process was adopted and Brightside Shiregreen was subdivided into a number of smaller residential neighbourhoods. Although the process was broadly similar, some of the methodologies employed to consult with communities were different from those used in Southey Owlerton. Four separate 'visioning exercises' were undertaken in the following areas:

Brightside Grimesthorpe; Firth Park (including the Flower, Brushes and Stubbin areas); Shiregreen; and

19


Wincobank. The summaries of the key points from the four residential neighbourhood strategies are given in Appendix 5. Community Engagement To facilitate community engagement in the process a number of neighbourhood and area groups were set up. These included:

neighbourhood forums; and a steering group.

The roles of the neighbourhood forums were to focus on large scale/long term aspirational planning and they brought together residents who were often involved in other community groups. The neighbourhood forums ran in parallel with the Brightside Shiregreen Area Panel. The Steering Group considered area-wide aspects of the Neighbourhood Strategies process. It includes representatives from Community North Forum, Brightside Shiregreen Area Panel, Sheffield Homes, community representatives from each Neighbourhood Forum, and council officers and other agency representatives (e.g. education, police, etc). A range of methods were used to gain an understanding of the areas. These included: 'walk and talk' activities with residents and local agency officers, an 'urban study', interviews with council officers and canvass cards (seeking views of the area and aspirations). Feedback on the ideas developed was made via an 'event in the tent' with 500 participants, public exhibitions across the area and an extended steering group meeting. Existing Perceptions of the Area During the consultation process over 1,200 comments were collected. Council officers and agencies working in the area contributed 40 per cent of the comments, 37 per cent were from residents and 23 per cent were from the neighbourhood forums. The comments were subdivided into 'assets' (things valued by the community) and key issues (things people were most concerned about). The assets identified were:

generally positive neighbourhood identities; community spirit and friendliness; community centres valued and well used; proximity to green spaces e.g. Concord Park and Wincobank Hill (although

residents were concerned about their current state). Key issues (concerns) related to the following themes:

Buildings and environment

20


o litter o maintenance of trees, shrubs and grass verges

Crime and fear of crime

o drug taking and dealing o motorbikes on green spaces and streets o anti-social behaviour

Transport and road safety

o parking o speeding traffic o insufficient pedestrian crossings

Young people

o views relating to young people were overwhelmingly negative o lack of resources and facilities for young people and poor maintenance of

existing ones o groups of young people perceived as threats/nuisances and associated with

anti-social behaviour and crime

Community facilities

o shortage of space in existing facilities o maintenance and management issues

Communication

o lack of information about what's going on

The strategy identified 12 potential opportunities/needs:

development of healthy neighbourhoods; to make the environment safe and clean; provision of social spaces for families and communities; provision of a network of services via neighbourhood centres and schools

('hubs'); improvement in educational attainment; engagement and support of young people; more child-care facilities; better communication and access to information; better transport links; increased access to employment opportunities; increased housing quality and choice; involve the whole community.

21


Brightside Shiregreen's Five 'Big Ideas' Five 'big ideas' were identified to deliver the aspirations for Brightside Shiregreen. These 'big ideas' draw together the common ideas and aspirations of the individual neighbourhoods and are as follows: Big Idea 1: Mini-city, a suburb and two villages Firth Park to be considered as a mini-city, with an area-wide role to provide important services, financial facilities and to act as the main shopping area for Brightside Shiregreen. Shiregreen is to be seen as a suburb. Dependent on Firth Park and other neighbouring places for main shops and services, but having smaller local focal areas. Brightside Grimesthorpe and Wincobank to be looked upon as villages which, whilst not having to have the same level and type of services and facilities as Firth Park, would each have a proper 'village centre' offering residents the opportunity to improve their sense of community and access to local services. Big Idea 2: Countryside in the City To make the most of the extensive and historic landscapes of Wincobank Woods, Concord Park and Woolley Wood, which bring rich countryside and wildlife right into the heart of Brightside Shiregreen, so that they benefit current residents and become a key attractor for new residents and a regional destination for people across Sheffield. Big Idea 3: Let’s walk The development of a network of 'urban walks' that link up community facilities, residential areas, formal parks, pocket greens and countryside entrances. Big Idea 4: Good edges make good neighbourhoods Brightside Shiregreen is surrounded by a ring of busy roads, bringing residents in and out of the area and carrying other people past and through the neighbourhoods. This 'big Idea' proposes that investment in improving the “thresholds” (i.e. main junctions or green gateways) into Brightside Shiregreen, and making improvements to the quality of the environment along the “edges” (i.e. busy pedestrian and vehicle routes), would make Brightside Shiregreen a more attractive place. Big Idea 5: Heritage and recreation This builds on the heritage and recreation qualities of the area and would enable people in the area to value and enjoy the place and attract a wider audience from the city. This would offer marketing opportunities to promote living in Brightside Shiregreen. 3.3.7 'Closing the Gap' in Sheffield Brightside The 'Closing the Gap' initiative selected areas based on their ranking in the Index of Deprivation 2000 and local benefits data. Most of the identified areas fell within the ten Sheffield wards that were in the top 10 per cent most deprived in England. Additional

22


deprived areas were also added using data from the housing benefits system on Income Support/Job seeker Allowance households. At least one 'Transformational Project' is planned for every ‘Closing the Gap’ area. Transformational Projects are those identified by the Council as having the potential to have a significant and long-term impact on changing the prospects for Sheffield’s most deprived areas. The transformational projects within the Sheffield Brightside area are:

the implementation of four physical elements of the ‘Southey Owlerton Neighbourhood Strategy’:

I. redevelopment sites;

II. community 'hub' buildings and neighbourhood centres (see Section 3.3.9); III. green spaces - creating at least one high quality open space in each

neighbourhood; and IV. street scene improvements.

access to post-16 education - ensuring take up of opportunities created by the

Longley Park post-16 college.

the creation of an integrated approach to raising educational attainment. 3.3.8 'Liveability Fund' Southey Owlerton is the pilot area for Sheffield’s 'Liveability Fund' Programme, an initiative from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister aiming to help local authorities improve the way they manage and maintain public space. The pilot in Southey Owlerton was awarded £3.4m for the period 2004-06. This focuses on parks and green space, street scene and temporary treatment of redevelopment sites. The emphasis is on evaluating existing service delivery and trying out new management and maintenance approaches. 3.3.9 Community 'Hub' Buildings and Neighbourhood Centres Underpinning the Southey Owlerton Neighbourhood Strategy (and prominent in the emerging Brightside Shiregreen) is the development of a hub building in each neighbourhood. Each hub project is intended to provide space for community activity and delivery of services. The aspiration is that they will be landmark buildings at the heart of each neighbourhood, a place for economic activity and an asset base for the neighbourhood group. The following hub buildings are planned in the area:

Parson Cross - community space development at St Thomas' More on Margetson Crescent;

Parson Cross Adult Learning Centre in Buchanan/Chaucer area; Foxhill - Wolfe Road Healthy Living Centre; Shirecliffe - Shirecliffe Community Centre (linked to Children’s Centre

development); Longley - expanded LOCAL premises at Four Greens - new-build community

centre on the green; Southey - exploring feasibility of securing shops at the Magnet site.

23


Closely connected with the hub developments is the recently completed Southey Owlerton Neighbourhood Centres Strategy6. This consisted of a strategic options review of the future role and function of the neighbourhood centres within the Southey Owlerton area. It also considered proposals for a district shopping centre serving the wider Southey Owlerton area. 3.3.10 Education Action Zones (EAZs) Two Education Action Zones (EAZs)7 have been operating within Sheffield Brightside. These are part of the Excellence in Cities (EiC) programme to raise standards and promote inclusion in inner cities and other urban areas8. 'Together We Can', established in January 2001, covered the Parson Cross, Foxhill and Southey areas. Its work focused on a programme of staff training and educational projects to support raising attainment and attendance; and creativity and the participation of pupils, parents and the community in school life. 'Learning Together', established in January 2001, covered the 5 schools in Shirecliffe and Longley - as well as schools outside the area. It is focused primarily on raising attainment by developing the ‘Extended Schools’ agenda by enhancing curriculum provision and developing family and community learning. 3.3.11 Aimhigher in Sheffield Brightside Aimhigher is a national initiative which aims to widen participation in HE by raising the aspirations and developing the abilities of young people from under-represented groups. In 2005-06, the secondary schools in the Brightside constituency engaged in various Aimhigher activities9, such as:

HE evenings at Sheffield Hallam University for Year 9 pupils and their parents (Hinde House and Yewlands);

the national Aimhigher roadshow to promote the benefits of HE for Year 9 pupils (Chaucer, Hinde House and Yewlands);

visits to the Universities of York and Derby for Year 9 and 10 pupils (Hinde House); school workshops with HE undergraduates for Year 10 and 12 pupils (Chaucer);

and the Impact Theatre Group's tour of the "Staying in Learning" show for Year 10

pupils (Chaucer, Firth Park, Hinde House, Parkwood and Yewlands). Under new arrangements for 2006-08, the Aimhigher Sheffield partnership10, through its Area Steering Group, will determine allocations of funds to partners according to

6 Sheffield City Council (2004). Southey Owlerton Centres Strategy Report. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=39548 7 Department for Education and Skills/The Standards Site. Excellence in Cities. [website]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/sie/eic/ 8 Following funding changes in April 06, the targeted funding and support for EiC partnerships that came through Local Authorities has changed. Instead, the funding now goes directly to schools within EiC areas as part of their School Development Grant. This gives schools the freedom to decide on the most appropriate and effective ways to address school improvement and pupil achievement. EiC Partnerships are being encouraged to develop into Education Improvement Partnerships with a broader remit. 9 Higgins, J, and colleagues. Aimhigher Co-ordinator Sheffield. July 2006. Personal communication.

24


established priorities and agree the levels of funding allocated to each school, college, HEI or other provider involved in the delivery of its new partnership plan. Funding for schools will be distributed by local authorities as a separate, non ring fenced grant and schools will then organise their own Aimhigher programmes and activities. Approximately 86 per cent of total funds will be devolved to schools and colleges. Fourteen per cent will be utilised by the central partnership for co-ordination and delivery of a central activity programme, in which all schools and colleges in the borough will be invited to participate. Allocations for programmes and related management will be made on the basis of 80 per cent for widening participation activity with the remaining 20 per cent directed at work with gifted and talented cohorts. In 2005-06, gifted and talented pupils from Brightside schools took part in the following Aimhigher activities -

Learning Performance seminars in memory skills and revision techniques (Year 7 pupils from Chaucer);

Year 7 Maths sessions at Sheffield Hallam University (Chaucer, Hinde House and Parkwood);

creative writing sessions (Year 7 pupils from Hinde House, Year 8 from Parkwood and Year 10 from Yewlands); and

Year 10 Stock Market Challenge - teams of 5 students played the Stock Market for a day (Chaucer, Hinde House and Parkwood).

3.3.12 Sure Start and Children's Centres There are three programmes operating in the area:

Southey/Shirecliffe; Shiregreen/Firth Park; and Foxhill/Parson Cross.

The Council is implementing Government plans to create Children’s Centres11, to facilitate the provision of joined up services, e.g. education, care, family support and health. The work of Children’s Centres is an extension of the work already begun by Sure Start and the plans for a number of Children’s Centres in the area:

Foxhill/Parson Cross Sure Start: Children’s Centre at NCH Family Centre; Southey/Shirecliffe Sure Start: proposed Children’s Centre on the Busk Meadow

site, linked in to the hub development at Shirecliffe Community Centre. Firth Park First Start Children’s Centre: newly built Children’s Centre in the Firth

Heritage Park; Brightside Children's Centre.

10 The Aimhigher partnership in Sheffield is currently made up of the central co-ordination from within the Children and Young People’s Directorate (CYPD), all 27 maintained secondary schools in the borough, The Sheffield College, Longley Park VI Form College, the University of Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University, South Yorkshire LSC, and Sheffield Futures. 11 Sheffield City Council Education Directorate/Early Years Education & Childcare Service (2004). The Sheffield Strategy For Children’s Centres 2004-2007. [online]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=44718

25


3.3.13 Building Schools for the Future Initiative Building Schools for the Future (BSF)12 is a Department for Education and Skills (DfES) initiative to deliver modern and sustainable secondary schools that provide buildings fit for the 21st Century and Sheffield has been selected as a Pathfinder Project. Investment is being made in Firth Park Community Arts College, Yewlands School Technology College and Chaucer Community School. The building work at Chaucer Community School should be completed by the end of 2006 and Yewlands by the end of 2008. 3.4 Annotated Bibliography of Local Grey Literature 3.4.1 Introduction Below is an annotated bibliography detailing seven grey literature resources, four that research and evaluate Aimhigher objectives and activities associated with services and provisions within the city of Sheffield, two reports commissioned by South Yorkshire Learning and Skills Council and one by Sheffield Futures. The topics of interest to this bibliography are the studies of Aimhigher activities within or relevant to the Brightside area of Sheffield, particularly those which may be associated with issues involving the attitudes, perceptions and experiences of a) people living in the Brightside area, b) educational provision on offer in the Brightside area and c) the types of influences which may impact on educational progression of young people who live in the Brightside area. 3.4.2 Bamford, M (2005). Aimhigher “Influencing the Influencers” - a project to raise the awareness of parents and carers to opportunities for young people in higher education. Phase 1 - research project. Sheffield Futures The author, who is the Aimhigher Project Worker at Sheffield Futures13, reports on Phase 1 of a Research Project to establish best practice locally, nationally and internationally in engaging parents and carers in the process of careers guidance. The report offers a brief review of national publications deemed to be relevant in helping inform understanding about the role of parents in influencing the choices of young people, before moving on to examine the local perspectives in Sheffield. The author draws on data gathered through consultations with stakeholders and a survey of the LEA, universities, FE colleges, Sheffield schools, 11-16 and 11-18 year olds, community learning campaigns and networks, undertaken to collect information about best practice targeting parents in Sheffield. The questionnaire is reported as have being sent to schools in Sheffield and also some projects operating adjacent to Sheffield Brightside, however as the findings do not differentiate between responses given by each group or organisation, it is not possible to glean any information about practices and activities directly relating to the Sheffield Brightside area from this research.

12 Department for Education and Skills/Building Schools for the Future. [website]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.bsf.gov.uk/ 13 Sheffield Futures is an independent charity formed when Sheffield Careers Guidance Services combined with Sheffield City Council's Youth Service to provide individuals and organisations with high quality information, advice, guidance and support across a wide spectrum of activities relating to their work, education, training and personal and social development.

26


3.4.3 Centre for Research and Evaluation (2006). Aimhigher South Yorkshire: (a) an evaluation of four Aimhigher projects in South Yorkshire & (b) impact of Aimhigher on three institutions. Sheffield Hallam University The Centre for Research and Evaluation (CRE) undertakes a wide variety of educational and public sector research and evaluation. The Centre was commissioned by the Aimhigher South Yorkshire Area Steering Group in 2005 to assess the impact of activities since 2001 under a number of different programmes that are now collectively known as Aimhigher. The authors undertake this assessment through a two-stage evaluation. The first stage assessed the impact of four Aimhigher projects: Careers Education and Guidance Training, Vocational Masterclasses, the Graduation Project and the Credit Finance Union Project. The second stage assessed the impact of all Aimhigher projects and activities that have been undertaken since the Aimhigher predecessor programmes on three institutions: Sheffield College, Firth Park Community Arts College and Tapton School. (a) Centre for Research and Evaluation (2006). Aimhigher South Yorkshire: an evaluation of four Aimhigher projects in South Yorkshire. Sheffield Hallam University The authors draw on qualitative evidence collected from interviews and focus groups with projects co-ordinators; staff involved with, and participating in, activities; parents and pupils to assess how well each project is working to meet the general objectives of Aimhigher, as well as specific outcomes identified in Project Delivery Plans. The main conclusions point to the role of a range of sustained activities, rather than any individual or isolated project, in raising the awareness of pupils about progression opportunities to HE. In brief: The Careers Education and Guidance Training was reported as being successful in providing teachers who had little understanding of the different routes to HE with knowledge they needed to be able to provide Impartial Advice and Guidance (IAG) to the pupils in their school or work-based learning provision. Pupils were reported as being positive about the development of Individual Learning Plans (ILP) as a way of helping them to make informed choices about their GCSE subjects and educational routes to a career of their choice. The Graduation Project was reported as being more popular with staff than with pupils, although the reasons for the difference in these views are not explored further by the authors. Vocational Masterclasses were reported as being successful in familiarising pupils with the university environment and subject. The Credit Finance Union Project in Rotherham was reported as having failed to meet its own modest targets in terms of providing training to credit union staff. Overall the perceptions of different groups, including students of different ages attending different schools and staff at differing levels within the schools or projects, are presented in this report. However, as the samples are not directly or explicitly drawn from schools within the Sheffield Brightside catchment area, little information can be gleaned that directly relates to the topic of this bibliography.

27


(b) Centre for Research and Evaluation (2006). Aimhigher South Yorkshire: impact of Aimhigher on three institutions. Sheffield Hallam University The institutions evaluated in this report were chosen as they were thought to reflect the different types of institutions where Aimhigher funding was being utilised. The institutions were Sheffield College, Tapton School and Firth Park Community Arts College (FPCAC). Interviews were undertaken with Senior Managers and Aimhigher co-ordinators at each institution and specifically with Transition Advisors (at Sheffield College), Mentors (at Tapton School) and Year Tutors (at FPCAC). Each of the institutions was found to respond to the Aimhigher funding differently. Sheffield College, which is a federation of three colleges across the city, each recruiting different groups of students with different needs, showed a varied array of Aimhigher funded activities. Sheffield College has put in place a system by which each separate college can bid to spend money in a way that meets the needs of the specific cohorts within their college. Tapton School provides education to 11-18 year olds in one of the more affluent areas of Sheffield where progression rates into HE are higher than the national average. It tended to focus its Aimhigher activities on activities that supported their students to optimise their opportunities in HE. Whereas, FPCAC, which provides education to 11-16 year olds, tended to focus their efforts and activities on encouraging their pupils to think about going to university and on building their attainments. The study of the impacts of Aimhigher on FPCAC is most relevant to the topic of this bibliography as the school provides secondary education to young people living in the Sheffield Brightside area. The study contains reports regarding the perceptions and attitudes and experiences of staff, as to the impacts of Aimhigher on their institution. The evaluation is reported to have found that the school has had a designated Aimhigher Co-ordinator for several years (but does not state how long exactly). Interviews with Year Tutors revealed that they view Aimhigher as having several objectives within the school. This involves firstly identifying the cohort of students who are capable of progressing to HE, followed by interventions to build up their aspirations and their self esteem. These objectives have been prioritised as students are viewed as needing to overcome certain personal and other barriers. For example, it was found that young people need to develop an awareness of the opportunities which are available to them, and which are appropriate for them. One Senior Manager at the school described barriers as being attitudinal, motivational and parental, and a Year Tutor viewed pupils as having an attitude that is ‘”Well I’ll never go, I can’t go to university.” The idea is they go to school, they might go to college, then they’re going to work.’ (p.25). The authors positively evaluate the ways in which the school has developed its networks and links with post-16 providers and conclude that staff are successfully drawing on their networks when devising their own activities. The report also alludes to a change in culture at the school which, is loosely explained as being reflected in the improvements in examination results and increases in number of pupils that are entering post-16 education from the school. Staff are reported as having concerns about ways to measure the impact of Aimhigher in the School and suggest that it is difficult to isolate these interventions from other activities and influences. On the issue of students’ self-reporting, staff were also reported as having doubts about the reliability and validity of this data. For example, one member of staff was reported as doubting the merit with which you can consider the responses provided by

28


pupils - due to the views that ‘they are just writing what they want or they think you might want to read’ (p.28). Although this evaluation research does present qualitative insights into the types of views and perceptions held by a small number of staff at the school in the Sheffield Brightside area, there are some weaknesses in reporting the evidence for the conclusions presented. It is not, for example, always possible to discern the views of the authors from those of the participants. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence provided that explicitly links the findings to the evaluative statements contained in the report. 3.4.4 Parry, J (2005). Evaluation report on Aimhigher activity in South Yorkshire. Connexions South Yorkshire. The author, who is the Research and Intelligence Manager at Connexions South Yorkshire, was commissioned by Aimhigher South Yorkshire Steering Group in 2005, to evaluate Aimhigher activity through the examination of three distinct projects. The report aims to build a picture of young people’s experience of each of these projects and the effectiveness of the projects. Effectiveness is conceptualised in terms of whether the projects are addressing raising aspirations and motivations, enabling progression and if they are making the case for HE. The author is clear in asserting that the aim of the study does not include measuring the ways each project has had an impact on the attainment and progression of the participating young people. The author seeks to evaluate each project using qualitative and quantitative methods specifically designed to collect and analyse data appropriate to each setting. Methods and techniques include individual and group interviewing with key staff and groups of recipients of the projects, survey research of recipients and the analysis of secondary data source (e.g. in-house evaluations). ‘Together We Can’ - Hollowford Project provides young people with industry standard, weekend programmes of generic management training in an attempt to build their self-confidence. Although the resource is targeted at specific groups of young people, no details are provided about whether the numbers recruited include specific areas of South Yorkshire. The report found that the links between raising the confidence of young people and progression into HE are not made explicit to the young people participating in the weekend. It is, therefore, unsurprising that the young people were also reported as not relating the training they received to thinking about HE. The Open Horizons Project provides tailor made taster educational experiences in companies and FE/HE institutions for young people in Key Stages 3 to 5 in South Yorkshire. The evaluation drew on data gathered via an interview with the Regional Director of Open Industry and two focus group interviews with recipient groups of young people from a school in Barnsley and one in Rotherham. The ‘Get Ahead Roadshow’ aims to help Y8 students across schools in all four of South Yorkshire’s LEAs to discover more about FE and HE and the types of careers these routes can open up. Whereas the evaluation of the other projects relied mainly on retrospective self-reporting and discussions, the author reported being present during the running of the Roadshow at Hinde House School in Sheffield. Hinde House School provides education to children age 3-16 years and its catchment area includes the Sheffield Brightside area. However, little can be gleaned from the observations reported in terms of the topic of this

29


bibliography, as these primarily focused on the structure and delivery of the Roadshow at the school. However, the main evaluation of the Roadshow drew on data collected via a questionnaire designed to survey the experiences and views of participating students from 19 schools across South Yorkshire. The total sample was made up of around 500 pupils, of which 191 completed the questionnaire, giving an overall response rate of 38 per cent. However, it is worth noting that completed questionnaires were returned from only 11 of the 19 participating schools. A total of 73 questionnaires were returned from six schools in Sheffield. This number includes responses from two Secondary Schools with catchment areas that include Sheffield Brightside. Although it is not possible to discern the actual number or the range of responses given by students who live in the Sheffield Brightside area, the first observation that can be made is that the two Secondary Schools serving this area are among the schools that have supported their students to both partake in the Roadshow and actively participate in its evaluation. The author reports that all 191 students are already considering their post-16 options. Eighty-two per cent were reported to be thinking of continuing into FE and 77 per cent had thought about going to university. Although 53 per cent thought of themselves as having little knowledge of university and that 64 per cent of the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) students thought this. Ninety per cent of the sample stated they had a parent, sibling or friend who had achieved a qualification and, of those reporting that they had thought about going to university, 70 per cent said their parents had themselves been to university. The author reports the biggest influence on pupils’ decisions of whether or not to go to university to be their parents, followed by costs, with peers being reported to have a much lesser influence. Forty-two per cent of pupils reported that they consider having to leave the area they live in to be important to their decision to go to university. The way in which ‘the area they live in’ is deemed to be important, i.e., for example, whether wanting to leave the area or wanting to stay, is not specified. Eighty-seven per cent of the sample are reported as learning that university would open up more career options and 84 per cent as now feeling they have a better understanding of university. Ninety-one per cent reported that the Roadshow made them think about university as a future option and 86 per cent were reported as wanting to visit a university. Sixty-six per cent of pupils were reported as having an actual intention to continue in post-16 education. Based on self-reports collected via a questionnaire, this report provides insights into students’ views and opinions from 11 schools about the Roadshow and also how the activities may draw influence on the thinking of young people, including those attending schools that draw pupils from the Brightside area. The design of the questionnaire however, is to focus on ‘university’ (e.g. including questions about whether students talk about ‘university’ and their knowledge of ‘university’). This emphasis may reflect that taken by the Roadshow, but it perhaps could be argued that it runs the risk of treating HE as synonymous with ‘university’ and does not, therefore, attend fully to the different routes and providers of HE that young people can consider following.

30


3.4.5 SMSR Ltd (December 2002). Report on a study into providing an understanding of participation into HE in South Yorkshire for LSC South Yorkshire SMSR Ltd, a Hull based company which specialises in social and market strategy research, was commissioned by LSC South Yorkshire to carry out a qualitative study with the aim of identifying barriers to participation in HE with a particular focus on Y9 pupils. The report notes that one of the study’s major limitations was the heavy reliance on focus groups which meant that due to the small number of participants who took part in the study and the lack of a literature review which would have enabled the report writers to put their findings into some form of context, definite conclusions could not be drawn. The report did, however, identify a number of perceived barriers to HE progression including low aspirations for both education and career employment, conflict between raising aspirations and loyalty towards family, peer group and community, negative pressures from peer groups and parents/family, a perceived low family/parental involvement in creating and/or supporting children through their HE progression, low awareness of HE provision in general, a negative attitude towards debt, and low awareness of (and contact with) the surrounding and wider communities/locations. It is not possible to establish the degree to which these findings are/were relevant for people living within the Sheffield Brightside constituency as, although a limited number of comparisons were drawn between the four districts which make up South Yorkshire (Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield), no reference was made to specific areas within districts. 3.4.6 KPMG (January 2003). LSC South Yorkshire: non-advanced post-16 provider links with HE providers KMPG was commissioned by LSC South Yorkshire to examine the links between post-16 providers and HE institutions. The stated purpose of the research was to prepare LSC South Yorkshire so that it could respond to calls for proposals relating to emerging widening participation initiatives. The methodology adopted included a document review and consultative seminar plus interviews with stakeholders. A limitation identified by the consultants, was the fact that the interviewees only included those stakeholders and providers identified by LSC South Yorkshire and therefore the study might have omitted other organisations that may have made an important contribution. Whilst the report included some postcode analysis, this was only reported for the twenty postcode areas within South Yorkshire which had the highest levels of HE participation and the twenty postcode areas within South Yorkshire which had the lowest levels of HE participation. As none of these postcodes were in the Sheffield Brightside constituency no information can be gleaned from the report which is specific to the area under consideration apart from the fact that in 2001 levels of participation in HE in the postcode areas which make up the Sheffield Brightside constituency were not amongst the lowest or the highest twenty postcode areas for HE participation in South Yorkshire. 3.4.7 Sheffield Futures (undated). The attitudes and aspirations of Y9 students As outlined on its website14, Learning for Life is Sheffield's response to two challenges laid down by the government:

14 Learning for Life - a new approach to 14-19 education and training. [website]. Last accessed 7 November 2006 at: http://www.sheffield14-19.org.uk/introduction.shtml

31


to develop a 14-19 curriculum which all young people find relevant and motivating, which stretches them to achieve their full potential, which makes staying on at 16 an expectation rather than an option and which prepares them for adult life and the world of work; and

to shape the 14-19 curriculum to better meet the needs of a rapidly changing, knowledge-based economy where success in global markets will require a workforce with a higher level and a wider range of skills and knowledge and where young people must be equipped to meet the new demands of the workplace if they are to maximise their life chances.

The report into the attitudes and aspirations of Y9 students, summarises the main findings of a questionnaire survey aimed at identifying the main influencers of option choice for Y9 pupils and whether the pupils had clear ideas in relation to post-16 activity. From an estimated sample population of 6,000 Y9 pupils attending schools across Sheffield, a response rate of 58 per cent (3470 questionnaires) was obtained. Whilst at times the report claims that there were major differences in the responses relating to the different schools (24 schools), these differences were reported in an ad-hoc and infrequent manner with no clear indication/listing of the participating schools, making it impossible to extract any information specific to Y9 pupils attending schools in the Sheffield Brightside constituency. The results do show however, that for the majority of Y9 pupils attending schools in Sheffield, parents, friends, Connexions personal advisors and teachers were preferred as a means of obtaining information about Y9 option choices compared to websites and published materials/media.

32


4. Methodology The Sheffield Brightside Constituency is itself complex, comprising a number of discrete communities with their own identities and aspirations and challenges. This is matched by a complexity of local management and regeneration arrangements. The challenge has been to develop a research framework which incorporates existing knowledge, information, quantitative and qualitative methodologies and that will facilitate the understanding of the issues as experienced by the local communities. It is hoped that the approach adopted will provide a basis for identifying those actions that are likely to promote increased participation in Higher Education. 4.1 Quantitative Quantitative analysis was carried out using the following:

• The English Indices of Deprivation 200415 • Statistics from the Skills for Life Survey - Department for Education and Skills in

200316 • The Office for National Statistics (ONS) - 2001 Census Data17 • The Office for National Statistics (ONS) - Neighbourhood Statistics18 • Department for Education and Skills - Schools and Colleges Achievement and

Attainment Tables19 (formerly Performance Tables) • Department for Education and Skills - In Your Area20 - Education and Skills

Statistics • Higher Education Funding Council for England - Polar Young Participation Rates21

for Sheffield • University and College Application Service (UCAS) - Applicant Data for Sheffield

Residents 2002-0422 The above data sets were either downloaded directly from the internet or in the case of large data sets at Lower Super Output Area Level (LSOA)23 ordered from the provider. All data used, except the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) data set, are publicly available. The data was either in Microsoft excel format or was converted to it. Where necessary the raw data was aggregated and/or converted into percentages. The data was accessed in a number of geographies, e.g. Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA)24, Wards25, Westminster Parliamentary Constituencies26 and Metropolitan Districts/Local Authorities27. The report ‘Young participation in higher education’ (HEFCE 2005/03), which formed the basis for this research, detailed the patterns of young participation in higher education in

15 http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128440 16 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR490.pdf 17 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census/ 18 http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/ 19 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables/ 20 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/inyourarea/ 21 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/widen/polar/ 22 With the kind permission of Aimhigher South Yorkshire and Yorkshire and the Humber 23 Super output areas are new statistical areas built from output areas. A lower super output area (LSOA) has a minimum population of 1000 and a mean of 1500. There are 32,482 LSOAs in England. 24 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/soa.asp#lower 25 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/Statistical_CAS_ST_Wards.asp#1 26 Standard Names and Codes 2003: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/snac_previous.asp 27 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/geographic_area_listings/administrative.asp#04

33


England by electoral ward and parliamentary constituency. The parliamentary constituency of Sheffield Brightside identified in the above report and the five wards, which make up the constituency, were superseded by the Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough Borough in 200428. The new constituency is composed of five wards Burngreave, Firth Park, Hillsborough, Shiregreen and Brightside, and Southey. However, the pre-2004 ward and constituency geographies have been used in order to make comparisons with the young participation rates, identified in the above report, and because much of the accessible data is only available in these geographies. Comparing the data at constituency level is problematic as it often masks variation that can be seen when lower geographies are employed. The use of ward level data is preferable, but can also conceal local variability. The use of LSOA as the data geography enables the variability within a ward/constituency to be seen. However, its use is limited by the availability of the data in this geography. Consequently, a mixture of ward and LSOA level data has been employed. Much of these data were imported into a Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping package - Mapinfo. LSOA boundary files29 were used to create maps of Sheffield at LSOA, ward and constituency levels. Standardised data was imported into Mapinfo and thematic maps produced. The data was used to determine the following: Participation in Higher Education

• Polar Young Participation in Higher Education rates (ward level) Demographic Context

• The proportion of the resident population in the 0-16 age range by LSOA level • The proportions of those from ethnic minority origins resident in each of the

Sheffield wards and at LSOA level for the Sheffield Brightside constituency. Socio-Economic Context

• The proportions of those from the higher National Statistics - Socio-Economic Groups (1-3) residents (ward level)

• The proportions of households living in social housing in Sheffield (LSOA level) • English Indices of Deprivation - The levels of deprivation in Sheffield Brightside

compare with other areas of Sheffield (LSOA level Education and Training - Participation and Attainment

• Adult Literacy Levels - The levels of literacy, numeracy and ICT amongst the adult population in Sheffield Brightside compared with other areas of Sheffield (ward level)

• Percentage of people with level 4/5 qualifications (ward level) • Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 in English and

Maths (ward level) • Average GCSE/GNVQ point scores at Key Stage 4 (2003)

28 http://applications.barnsley.gov.uk/syforum/aboutsy.asp 29 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/soa.asp#lower

34


• Average point scores at Key Stage 3 (2004) (LSOA level) • Average point scores at Key Stage 2 (2004) (LSOA level)

Education Infrastructure

• Proportions of pupils with special education needs at Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 (2005) (school, LEA, national level)

• Levels of achievement and engagement with Key Stage 3 tests (school, LEA, national level)

• Levels of achievement at Key Stage 4 (2005) (school, LEA, national level) • Levels of absenteeism (2005) (school, LEA level) • The destination of Year 11 pupils (2003, 2004, 2005) (school level) • Levels of achievement in GCE and VCE qualifications (School, college, LEA level)

Progression to Higher Education

• The proportions of students by age group, gender, ethnic group, with disabilities and socio-economic group progressing to HE (via UCAS) (Constituency level)

• The types of establishment previously attended by students and those they progress to (Constituency level )

• The proportions of students that study HE in the local government region (Constituency level )

4.2 Qualitative The aim of the qualitative element of the research was to gain an understanding of the attitudes, perceptions and experiences of the local communities of Sheffield Brightside. To this end, questionnaires were completed by students of Sheffield Hallam University with Sheffield Brightside addresses and semi-structured interviews and focus groups were held with people living and/or working in the local area. 4.2.1 Participants Questionnaires were sent to 421 undergraduate full-time and part-time students of Sheffield Hallam University with addresses in the Sheffield Brightside constituency. A total of 205 questionnaires were returned Interviews were carried out with 22 professionals including heads of schools and other professionals working in educational settings responsible for activity in the Sheffield Brightside area. Focus groups were carried out with twenty-nine adults including local Councillors, parents and mature learners; and eighteen school pupils and four excluded young people. In keeping with the requirements of the Ethics Board of Sheffield Hallam University, parental permission was obtained for all participants in full-time education who were under the age of 18 years (Appendix 5).

35


4.2.2 Schedules Following discussions between the Sheffield Hallam University project team and project teams for Nottingham North, Bristol South and Birmingham Hodge Hill, and Sheffield Hallam University's project and project co-ordination teams, seven key research questions were identified (Appendix 6). These research questions formed a framework that guided the design of the interview and focus group schedules and the questionnaires. Questionnaire for Students with Sheffield Brightside Addresses The questionnaire (Appendix 7) was designed to be in keeping with the adult focus group schedule. In order to be able to separate those responses which came from students who had grown up in Sheffield Brightside from those who had moved there as adults, questions were included which asked about the student’s pre-university education. Interview Schedule (for Individual Interviewees) The interview schedule (Appendix 8), for the individual interviewees who were predominantly practitioners working in the Sheffield Brightside area, asked about their perceptions of the local community, the challenges faced by the community and it’s achievements, and what, in their opinion, could be done to raise attainment and aspirations. Focus Group Schedule for Adults The interview schedule (Appendix 9) for the adult focus group participants, who were predominantly residents of Sheffield Brightside, asked about their perceptions of the local area, education and employment. The interview finished with the participants recording on the drawn outline of a tree, their individual educational experiences. The roots of the tree represented the influences on them as young people, the trunk the influences and events which helped them to get to where they were at present, and the branches their hopes and aspirations for themselves and their children. Barriers and enablers were represented as acid rain and a watering can. Focus Group Schedule for Young People The young people focus group participants, who were predominantly residents of Sheffield Brightside, carried out the three tasks which are described below. Each activity was followed by a full-group discussion which was audio-taped.

• Working in pairs, the participants were asked to write down or draw the first things that came into their head which described the area in which they live.

• Working independently, the participants were asked to represent their educational

journey in the form of a tree on a flipchart. The roots of the tree represented major influences in their past, the trunk represented where they were now in their journey - what was important to them, their beliefs and activities, and the branches their future. Barriers to progression were represented in the form of acid rain, and particularly positive influences in the form of a farmer.

• Working in small groups the participants were asked to write a rap/poem/play or

draw a picture representing what education meant to them.

36


4.2.3 Procedure Questionnaires The questionnaire was sent by post to all students registered on undergraduate courses at Sheffield Hallam University who had a Sheffield Brightside address. A follow-up questionnaire was posted out in early September. Interview and Focus Groups Potential interviewees were initially contacted by telephone. Those who consented to participate were sent further details via e-mail outlining the overall project, including its aims, and mutually convenient interview and/or focus group arrangements were made. Interviews were mainly conducted at the participant's workplace and lasted approximately one hour. Interviewees were advised that the session would be taped. Permission for the focus group involvement of school-aged participants was sought from parents. These sessions were conducted at the school, college or centre to which the participant belonged and lasted about two hours. Before the interview or focus group commenced, participants were asked to provide written consent in keeping with the requirements of the Ethics Board of Sheffield Hallam University (Appendices 10 and 11). 4.4.4 Data analysis Questionnaires The responses from the completed questionnaires were entered into an SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) data file. For the majority of the questions on the questionnaire the respondents were asked to select their answer from a number of possible responses. In the results section the findings are shown in terms of the number and percentage of students who selected a particular response. The analysis for question eight, which asked the respondent to grade in order of importance eight factors that are considered to be of importance when choosing an area in which to live was treated somewhat differently in that the responses were recoded into the following three categories:

• High priority - grades 1, 2, or 3; • Medium priority - grades 4 and 5; • Low priority - grades 6, 7 and 8.

Interviews and focus groups Using the computer software NVivo 7 the transcripts of the audio-taped interviews and focus groups, the researcher’s notes, and the drawings, raps, and charts produced by the focus groups, were coded for major themes and sub-themes. The choice of coding categories was guided by the framework identified by the joint project teams for Sheffield Brightside, Nottingham North, Bristol South and Birmingham Hodge Hill.

37


5. Quantitative Results 5.1 Introduction The Young participation in higher education (HEFCE 2005/03) study detailed patterns of young participation in higher education in England by electoral ward and parliamentary constituency. It showed that Sheffield Brightside had the lowest participation rate in England. Conversely, the Sheffield Hallam constituency had the third highest participation rate in the country. The ward level data presented in the above report is given in Figure 5.1. This shows that all the wards in the Sheffield Brightside constituency have participation rates in the lowest quintile, whereas in Sheffield Hallam all the wards have participation rates in the highest quintile. The participation rates of the wards that make up the other Sheffield constituencies are more variable. The Sheffield Central, Heeley and Attercliffe constituencies all contain wards in the lowest quintile but also wards with higher participation rates. Figure 5.1 - Polar Young Participation in Higher Education Rates

Sheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, Heeley

Sheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, Attercliffe

Sheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, CentralSheffield, Central

Sheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, BrightsideSheffield, Brightside


Polar Young Particpation Rate

InedSh

<16% (13)16% to 24% (7)24% to 32% (3)32% to 43% (1)

>43% (5)

Figures in brackets refer to the number of wards in the category Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: HEFCE (2005/03)

order to identify any area factors that might be contributing to low participation in higher ucation the data is presented in a format which enables comparisons between the effield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam constituencies.

38


5.2 Demography Sheffield has an area of 368 square kilometres and the resident population of a little over half a million30. The Sheffield population is predominantly white, with a Black, Minority and Ethnic (BME) population of about 11 per cent31. Pakistanis form the largest ethnic minority group (28.6 per cent) followed by those of mixed race (14.9 per cent), Black Caribbeans (9.3 per cent), those of Indian origin (5.5 per cent) and Black Africans (6 per cent). Local information in Sheffield is that the majority of people classed as 'Pakistani' are of Kashmiri/Mirpuri origin and a significant number of the 'Black African' population are from Somalia and the Yemen. However, there is an uneven distribution of this population across Sheffield. The ward with the highest ethnic minority population is Burngreave (44 per cent), which borders three of the Sheffield Brightside wards, Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2 - The Percentage of Black, Minority and Ethnic Residents








SharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowParkParkParkParkParkParkParkParkPark










HallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallam


EcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesall









Percentage of the Population

Less than 10% (19)10% to 19% (3)20% to 29% (5)30% to 39% (1)More than 40% (1)

Figures in brackets refer to the number of wards in the category Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: 2001 Census

Less than ten per cent of the populations living in three of Sheffield Brightside's wards are ethnic minorities. These are Nether Shire (5 per cent), Owlerton (4 per cent) and Southey Green (6 per cent). The Brightside ward has a slightly higher ethnic minority population of 10 per cent, whilst the Firth Park ward has one of the highest ethnic minority populations in Sheffield at 24 per cent. When the ethnic minority population of Sheffield Brightside is mapped at the lower super output level, Figure 5.3, it can be seen that the ethnic minority population is concentrated to the south of the constituency along the boundary between the Firth Park, Brightside and

30 Source: Progress in the Region 2005. http://applications.barnsley.gov.uk/syforum/aboutsy.asp 31 Source: Census 2001

39


Burngreave wards. The highest concentrations of ethnic minorities are seen in the LSOAs in the south point of the Firth Park ward. Figure 5.3 - The Percentage of Black, Minority and Ethnic Residents




Percentage of Population

ThLSgrthof Fi



<10% (43)10% to 19% (3)20% to 29% (3)30% to 39% (2)

>40% (2)

Figures in brackets refer to the number of LSOA in the category Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: 2001 Census

54%

72%

e proportions of the population in the 0-16 year old age range in each of Sheffield's OAs are shown in Figure 5.4. Generally, the proportions of the population in this age

oup in Sheffield Brightside are between 20 and 29 per cent. When this compared with e Sheffield Hallam constituency, there appear to be more areas with higher proportions this younger age group.

gure 5.4 - The Proportion of the Population in the 0-16 Age Group





Sheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, HallamSheffield, Hallam Sheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, Heeley
<10% (13)10% to 19% (145)20% to 29% (169)30% to 39% (11)

>40% (1)

Figures in brackets refer to the number of LSOA in the category Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: 2001 Census

40


5.3 Socio-Economic Context Socio-Economic Groups The percentages of the populations of each of Sheffield's wards in the higher socio-economic groups (National Statistic Social Economic Groups 1-332) have been mapped and are shown in Figure 5.5. This shows the social divide across the Sheffield. The wards in the south west of the metropolitan district have a higher proportion of people from the higher socio-economic groups than those in the east of the district. All of the Sheffield Brightside wards have less than 40 per cent of the population from the higher socio-economic groups, whereas all the wards in Sheffield Hallam have more than 60 per cent of the population in the higher socio-economic groups. Figure 5.5 - Proportions in the Higher Socio-Economic Groups (NS-SEG 1-3)


SharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrow













Southey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouthey GreenSouth WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth WortleySouth Wortley

ParkParkParkParkParkParkParkParkParkHallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallam HandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworth




So ThbeLSliv

32 h33 R

HeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeleyHeeleyEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesallEcclesall





DoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDore NortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNorton

less than 20%20% to 39%40% to 59%60% to 79%More than 80%

Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: 2001 Census

cial Housing

e proportion of households in the LSOAs in Sheffield who live in social housing33 has en mapped and is shown in Figure 5.6. This shows that in a significant number of OAs in Sheffield Brightside, Central, Heeley and Attercliffe the proportion of households

ing in social housing is above 60 per cent.

ttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/methods_quality/ns_sec/default.asp ented from Council (Local Authority), Other social rented

41


Figure 5.6 - Proportions of Households Living in Social Housing


Sheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, AttercliffeSheffield, Attercliffe




Percentage of Households


Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: 2001 Census

Figure 5.7 shows the percentage of households living in social housing in Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam. This shows that in Sheffield Brightside many of the LSOAs in the west of Owlerton, the east of Brightside and the south and the south east of Firth Park have less than 20 percent of households in social housing. The majority of households here live in either privately owned or privately rented accommodation. Other LSOAs with lower levels of households in social housing are seen in the south (Longley Park) and the north west of Nether Shire. Most of Sheffield Hallam comprises of LSOAs with less than 20 per cent of households living in social housing. The only LSOAs with high proportions of social housing are in the south-eastern corner of the constituency.

42


Figure 5.7 - Proportions of Households Living in Social Housing (Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam)













Percentage of Households



Data Source: 2001 Census The English Indices of Deprivation 200434

The indices are a means of identifying both the social and experienced by people living in a given area. The 2004 indeprivation35 and an index of multiple deprivation, which alevel. The small area used is the LSOA level36. Each of the 32,482 LSOAs in England has been assigned domains and the combined Index of Multiple Deprivation. between areas, the ranks have been divided into five quintmost deprived LSOAs through to the 20 per cent least depthe Sheffield Brightside and the Sheffield Hallam have beedirect comparisons between the two constituencies to be m

34 http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128440 35 The seven domains of deprivation are Income deprivation; Employment deprivation; Hand training deprivation; Barriers to Housing and Services; Living environment deprivat36 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/soa.asp

43

material deprivation dices contain seven domains of re measured at the small area

a score and rank for each of the In order to make a comparison iles representing the 20 per cent rived. The LSOAs belonging to n mapped statistically to enable ade.

ealth deprivation and disability; Education, skills ion; and Crime.


Income Deprivation The purpose of this index is to capture the proportions of the population experiencing income deprivation in an area. The domain comprises the following indicators: • Adults and children in Income Support households (2001, Source: Department for

Work and Pensions (DWP)) • Adults and children in Income Based Job Seekers Allowance households (2001,Source:

DWP) • Adults and children in Working Families Tax Credit households whose equivalised

income (excluding housing benefits) is below 60 per cent of median before housing costs (2001, Source: Inland Revenue and DWP)

• Adults and children in Disabled Person’s Tax Credit households whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefits) is below 60 per cent of median before housing costs (2001, Source: Inland Revenue and DWP)

• National Asylum Support Service (NASS) supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence only and accommodation support (2002, Source: Home Office and NASS)

The thematic map of income deprivation shown in Figure 5.8 shows a marked difference between the two constituencies. A large proportion of Sheffield Hallam comprises LSOAs that are amongst the 20 per cent most affluent in England, in stark contrast to Sheffield Brightside where the majority of LSOAs are in the 20 per cent most deprived. The exceptions in Sheffield Hallam are two LSOAs that form a pocket of income deprivation in the southeast of the constituency. This area is characterised by a large social housing estate. Figure 5.8 - Income Deprivation Index

20% most deprived

20% to 39%40% to 59%60% to 79%20% most affluent

Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Indices of Deprivation 2004

44


Employment Deprivation This index measures employment deprivation conceptualised as involuntary exclusion of the working age population from the world of work. The index comprises the following indicators: • Unemployment claimant count (Joint Unemployment & Vacancies Operating System

Cohort (JUVOS)) of women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64 averaged over 4 quarters (2001, Source: Office for National Statistics (ONS)

• Incapacity Benefit claimants women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64 (2001, Source: DWP)

• Severe Disablement Allowance claimants women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64 (2001, Source: DWP)

• Participants in New Deal for the 18-24s who are not included in the claimant count (2001, Source: DWP)

• Participants in New Deal for 25+ who are not included in the claimant count (2001, Source: DWP)

• Participants in New Deal for Lone Parents aged 18 and over (2001, Source: DWP) Employment deprivation for those living in the Sheffield Brightside constituency is generally high, with a large proportion of the LSOAs being amongst the 20 per cent most deprived in England, Figure 5.9. The pattern of deprivation is very similar to that observed for income deprivation, Figure 5.5. In Sheffield Hallam, the picture is much more positive with the LSOAs of the constituency towards the centre of Sheffield scoring in the top 20 per cent of the country, whilst the more rural LSOAs to the west score a little less well. However, the LSOA characterised by a high concentration of social housing in the south east corner of Sheffield Hallam shows an elevated level of employment deprivation. Figure 5.9 - Employment Deprivation Index

20% most deprived



45


Health Deprivation and Disability This index identifies areas with relatively high rates of people who die prematurely, whose quality of life is impaired by poor health, or who are disabled. The index comprises the following indicators: • Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLL) (1997 to 2001, Source: Mortality data from ONS) • Comparative Illness and Disability Ratio (CIDR) (2001, Source: Income Support (IS),

Attendance Allowance (AA), Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA), Incapacity Benefit (IB) from DWP)

• Measures of emergency admissions to hospital, derived from Hospital Episode Statistics (1999/2000 to 2001/2002, Source: Department of Health)

• Measure of adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders, based on prescribing (2001, Source: Prescribing Pricing Authority), Hospital Episode Statistics (1998/1999 to 2001/2002, Source: Department of Health), suicides (1997 to 2001, Source: ONS) and health benefits data (1999, Source: IB and SDA from DWP)

This index shows a similar pattern of deprivation in Sheffield Brightside (Figure 5.10) as observed for income and employment deprivation (Figures 5.8 and 5.9). The LSOAs exhibiting lower deprivation rankings tend to be those with lower levels of social housing, the general exceptions being those LSOAs of low social housing with high ethnic minority populations. The health deprivation and disability rankings in Sheffield Hallam are substantially better than those of Sheffield Brightside, except for the pocket of deprivation in the south east. Figure 5.10 - Health Deprivation and Disability

20% most deprived



46


Education, Skills and Training Deprivation The purpose of the index is to capture the extent of deprivation in education, skills and training in a local area. The index comprises the following indicators:

• Average points score of pupils at Key Stage 2 (end of primary) (2002, Source: Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) and the National Pupil Database (NPD) from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES))

• Average points score of pupils at Key Stage 3 (2002, Source: PLASC and the NPD from the DfES)

• Average points score of pupils at Key Stage 4 (GCSE/GNVQ – best of eight results) (2002, Source: PLASC and the NPD from the DfES)

• Proportion of young people not staying on in school or non-advanced further education above 16 (Child Benefit 2001, Source: DWP)

• Secondary school absence rate (Average of 2001 and 2002, Source: DfES school level survey of authorised and unauthorised absences, allocated to the local area via the PLASC data, DfES)

• Proportion of those aged under 21 not entering Higher Education (1999-2002, Source: Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS))

• Proportions of working age adults (aged 25-54) in the area with no or low qualifications (2001, Source: 2001 Census)

This index provides perhaps the starkest contrast between the two constituencies, virtually all the LSOAs in Sheffield Hallam are in the highest 20 per cent in terms of education, skills and training attainment. Conversely, most of Sheffield Brightside falls in the lowest 20 per cent, Figure 5.11. Figure 5.11 - Education, Skills and Training Deprivation

20% most deprived20% to 39%40% to 59%60% to 79%20% most affluent


47


Crime Deprivation Index This index measures the rate of recorded crime for four major crime areas – burglary, theft, criminal damage and violence – representing the occurrence of personal and material victimisation at a small area level. It comprises the following indicators: • Burglary (4 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2002-March 2003,

constrained to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level) • Theft (5 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2002-March 2003,

constrained to CDRP level) • Criminal damage (10 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2002-

March 2003, constrained to CDRP level) • Violence (14 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2002-March

2003, constrained to CDRP level) The crime index shows differences between the Hallam and Brightside constituencies, Figure 5.12. The rankings of a core of LSOAs in the centre of Hallam suggest that the people living in those areas experience low levels of crime. The picture is somewhat different in Sheffield Brightside. The LSOAs in the east of Sheffield Brightside are characterised by high levels of crime. In the west of Sheffield Brightside the LSOAs have middling rankings, suggesting that incidences of crime are less prevalent. Figure 5.12 - Crime Deprivation Index



48


Living Environment Deprivation Index The purpose of the index is to capture the extent of deprivation in the living environment of a local area. The index comprises the following indicators: • Social and private housing in poor condition (2001, Source: Building Research

Establishment (BRE) and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), modelled English House Condition Survey (EHCS))

• Houses without central heating (2001, Source: 2001 Census) • Air quality (2001, Source: UK National Air Quality Archive data modelled at SOA level

by the Geography Department at Staffordshire University) • Road traffic accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists (2000-2002, Source:

Department for Transport (DfT), STATS19 (Road Accident Data) smoothed to SOA level)

The index shows that levels of deprivation related to the living environment in Sheffield Brightside are generally higher compared with Sheffield Hallam, Figure 5.13. A significant proportion of the LSOAs in Sheffield Brightside are amongst the 20 per cent most deprived in England, but these levels of deprivation also exist in LSOAs in Sheffield Hallam towards the centre of the city and in the south east of the constituency. The cause of high levels of living environment deprivation in the LSOAs in Sheffield Hallam near the city centre may be related to air pollution and high concentrations of student housing. Figure 5.13 - Living Environment Deprivation Index



49


Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation Index This index focuses on barriers to housing and key local services. It comprises the following indicators: • Household overcrowding (2001, Source: 2001 Census) • Local Authority level percentage of households for whom a decision on their application

for assistance under the homeless provisions of housing legislation has been made, assigned to the constituent LSOAs (2002, Source: ODPM)

• Difficulty of Access to owner-occupation (2002) • Road distance to GP premises (May 2003, Source: National Health Service Information

Authority) • Road distance to a supermarket or convenience store (December 2002, Source:

MapInfo Ltd) • Road distance to a primary school (2001-02, Source: DfES) • Road distance to a Post Office (End of March 2003, Source: Post Office Ltd) The map of the barriers to housing and services deprivation index is shown in Figure 5.14. When Sheffield Brightside is compared with Sheffield Hallam, there seems to be little difference between the two constituencies. Sheffield Hallam has three LSOAs amongst the 20 per cent most deprived in England whereas Sheffield Brightside has only one. This suggests that Sheffield Brightside has a similar level of access to services and the housing related indices, i.e. overcrowding, homelessness and access to owner occupation are analogous when compared with Sheffield Hallam. Figure 5.14 - Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation Index



50


Index of Multiple Deprivation The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD 2004) brings together the above indices. The weightings used to form the IMD 2004 are as follows: • Income deprivation 22.5% • Employment deprivation 22.5% • Health deprivation and disability 13.5% • Education, skills and training deprivation 13.5% • Barriers to housing and services 9.3% • Crime 9.3% • Living Environment deprivation 9.3% Figure 5.15 shows that despite the distance between the two constituencies being only a little over two kilometres, the levels of deprivation experienced by people living in Sheffield Brightside are at the opposite end of the spectrum from the majority of people living in Sheffield Hallam. Figure 5.15 - Index of Multiple Deprivation









Index of Multiple Deprivation

5. AnBrstpote




4 Education Attainment

overview of the level of education attainment in the adult population of Sheffield ightside and how it compares with the rest of Sheffield has been created using national atistics data and data from the national basis skills survey. The proportions of the adult pulation with only entry-level literacy, numeracy and information, communication and

chnology have been mapped at ward level, as have the percentages of the population

51


with level 4/5 qualifications, i.e. those with higher education or equivalent level qualifications. The attainment of young people at key stage 2 (age 11), 3 (age 14) and 4 (age 15) have also been mapped to facilitate comparisons between Sheffield Brightside and other areas of Sheffield. Adult Literacy, Numeracy and ICT The Skills for Life adult basic skills strategy37, launched by the Government in 2001, developed national standards for adult literacy, numeracy and ICT38. Each framework outlines what an adult should be able to achieve at entry level (divided into three sub-levels), level 1 and level 2 or above. The framework39 for literacy is given below in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 - Adult Literacy (reading) Level Descriptions40

Level Literacy (reading)

An adult classified at this level... Equivalent to...

Entry (level 1)

• Understands short texts with repeated language patterns on familiar topics • Can obtain information from common signs and symbols

National curriculum level 1

Entry (level 2)

• Understands short straightforward texts on familiar topics • Can obtain information from short documents, familiar sources and signs and symbols

Level expected of a seven-year-old (national curriculum level 2)

Entry (level 3)

• Understands short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently • Can obtain information from everyday sources

Level expected of an 11-year-old (national curriculum levels 3-4)

Level 1 • Understands short straightforward texts of varying length on a variety of topics accurately and independently • Can obtain information from different sources

GCSE grades D-G (national curriculum level 5)

Level 2 • Understands a range of texts of varying complexity accurately and independently • Can obtain information of varying length and detail from different sources

GCSE grades A-C (national curriculum levels 6-8)

Entry level 3 literacy is equivalent to what would be expected of an eleven-year-old (National Curriculum 3-4). The Skills for Life survey41 has indicated that nationally, 16 per cent of 16-65 year olds are classified as having entry level 3 or lower literacy skills. In Yorkshire and the Humber, the figure is 19 per cent.

37 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/readwriteplus 38 http://www.qca.org.uk/596.html 39 The skills levels and tests for adult literacy refer primarily to reading skills, rather than writing 40 http://www.literacytrust.org.uk 41 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/readwriteplus

52


The adult entry-level literacy rates for each of Sheffield's wards are show in Figure 5.16. This shows that the majority of wards have entry-level literacy rates at or below 19 per cent. However, a number of the wards in the east of Sheffield, including three of those from the Sheffield Brightside constituency - Southey Green, Nether Shire and Firth Park - have higher proportions of adults with entry-level literacy. The Skills for Life survey42 revealed that whilst nearly all parents of children aged 5-16 said they helped their children with reading (95 per cent), writing (89 per cent) or maths (87 per cent), those with lower levels of literacy and/or numeracy were less likely to help, and were less confident when they did, although the majority did try. Figure 5.16 - The Percentage of Adults with Entry Level or Lower Literacy

SharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowSharrowBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhill





DarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreave











FienavShnalege

42 h


ParkParkParkParkParkParkParkParkParkNether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether EdgeNether Edge









HandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworth0% to 19% (20)20% to 39% (9)40% to 50% (0)60% to 79% (0)
80% to 99% (0)
Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: Skills for Life Survey. DfES 2003

gure 5.17 shows that the wards with high proportions of adults classified as having try-level or lower numeracy are again situated in the east of the city. The national erage for entry-level numeracy or lower is 47 per cent. The wards in the east of effield, including all those in Sheffield Brightside, are considerably higher than the tional average of 47 per cent and fall between 60 per cent and 79 per cent for entry-

vel. These contrast with the wards in the Sheffield Hallam consistency, which are nerally below the national average.

ttp://www.dfes.gov.uk/readwriteplus

53


Figure 5.17 -The Percentage of Adults with Entry Level or Lower Numeracy





OwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth Park




ParkParkParkParkParkParkParkParkPark HandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworthHandsworth




HallamHallamHallamHallamHallamHallam



BurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnall

0% to 19%


A siTecpropthe BrigParThebelo Figu

MCD










HallamHallamHallam20% to 39%40% to 59%60% to 79%80% to 99%

Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: Skills for Life Survey. DfES 2003

milar pattern to that for numeracy is seen for Information and Communication hnologies (ICT), Figure 5.18. The wards in the east of the district have higher ortions of the population with entry level or lower ICT when compared with wards in

west. The national average for entry-level ICT or lower is 53 per cent. All Sheffield htside's wards have levels higher than this, Southey Green, Nether Shire and Firth k have above 80 per cent of the population with entry level or lower abilities in ICT. se contrast with the wards in the Sheffield Hallam consistency, which are generally w the national average.

re 5.18 - The Percentage of Adults with Entry Level or Lower ICT






OwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonOwlertonFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth ParkFirth Park






BurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveBurngreaveDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnallDarnall

0% to 19%










ParkParkParkParkParkParkParkParkPark






20% to 39%40% to 59%60% to 79% 80% to 99%

ap Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. rown Copyright 2003 ata Source: Skills for Life Survey. DfES 2003

54


Level 4/5 Attainment Figure 5.19 shows that less than 10 percent of 16 to 74 year old population in all the wards in Sheffield Brightside had level 4/5 qualifications. This is in stark contrast to Sheffield Hallam, where all the wards have population proportions with level 4/5 qualifications above 30 per cent. The Ecclesall ward has the highest proportion with 45 per cent of the age group having level 4/5 qualifications. Figure 5.19 - The Percentage of People43 with Level 4/5 Qualifications





Sheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, HeeleySheffield, Heeley



less than 10 %10% to 19%20% to 29%30% to 39%over 40%

Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: Census 2001 National Statistics website: www.statistics.gov.uk Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO

Key Stage 4: Average GCSE/GNVQ Point Scores The average point scores in 2003 of young people referenced to the LSOAs in which they live has been thematically mapped and is shown in Figure 5.20. Some LSOAs do not have an average point score attributed to them although young people aged 15 did live in these areas, the LSOAs are shown as having no data. In general, average point scores of those living in the LSOAs in the east of Sheffield are lower than those in the west. The average point scores of the young people living in the LSOAs in the Sheffield Brightside constituency are virtually all lower when compared with the Sheffield Hallam constituency. The LSOAs in Sheffield Hallam are almost exclusively in the top 25 per cent of LSOAs in Sheffield. There is one LSOAs of Sheffield Brightside where the average point score is in the top 25 per cent, this is the LSOA situated in the Longley Park area. There are two LSOAs in Sheffield Hallam exhibiting average point scores in the lowest 25%, these are situate in the south-eastern corner of the constituency.

43 All people aged 16 to 74 who were usually resident in the area at the time of the 2001 Census, whose highest qualification attained was 'level 4/5'. Level 4/5 qualifications cover: First Degree, Higher Degree, NVQ levels 4 and 5; HNC; HND; Qualified Teacher Status; Qualified Medical Doctor; Qualified Dentist; Qualified Nurse; Midwife; or Health Visitor.

55


Figure 5.20 Average GCSE/GNVQ Point Scores - 2003






Average Point Scores

Bottom 25%2nd lowest 25%2nd highest 25%Top 25%

K TarSKFflstte

Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: National Statistics website: www.statistics.gov.uk Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO

ey Stage 3: Average Point Scores

his is based on the test scores of young people who are at the end of Key Stage 3 (those ged 14). It is an aggregation of scores for English, Maths and Science and has been eferenced to the lower support output area in which the pupil lives. The data 2004 for heffield has then been thematically mapped and the result is shown in Figure 5.21. The ey Stage 3 APS picture for Sheffield is broadly similar to that for the Key Stage 4 APS, igure 5.20. The east of Sheffield is dominated by LSOAs where the average point score

or the young people living in the area is either in the bottom 25 per cent or the second owest 25 per cent. None of the LSOAs in Sheffield Brightside has an average point cores in the top 25 per cent. In contrast, the average point scores of the young living in he LSOAs in Sheffield Hallam are virtually all in the top 25 per cent. The exceptions are he two LSOAs in the south-eastern corner of Sheffield Hallam and the one in the north-ast. These have average point scores in the lowest 25 per cent of LSOAs in Sheffield.

56


Figure 5.21 - Key Stage 3: Average Point Scores - 2004








K Tiiy Faacw


ey Stage 2: Literacy and Numeracy he percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 in English and Maths

n 2005 for each of the wards in Sheffield have been mapped thematically and are shown n Figures 5.22 and 5.23 respectively. Level 4 achievement of is expected of most 11 ear olds.

igure 5.22 shows that only 40 per cent to 59 per cent of young people in the Firth Park nd Brightside wards within Sheffield Brightside achieve Key Stage 2 Literacy at level 4 or bove. In the other three wards, Owlerton, Southey Green and Nethershire, 60 to 79 per ent of pupils achieve level 4 or above. In contrast, at least 80 per cent of pupils in all the ards in the Sheffield Hallam constituency achieve level 4 or above.

57


Figure 5.22 - Key Stage 2: English 2005


ManorManorManor














TBwlo F

0% to 19%




BroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhillBroomhill ManorManorManorManorManorManor




tontontontontontontontonton





20% to 39%40% to 59%60% to 79% 80% to 99%

DoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDore NorNorNorNorNorNorNorNorNor Map Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown Copyright 2003 Data Source: National Statistics website: www.statistics.gov.uk Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO

he achievement of young people in Maths at Key Stage 2 is generally lower in Sheffield rightside, Figure 5.23, when compared with English, Figure 5.22. In four of the five ards, only 40 per cent to 59 per cent achieve level 4 or above. In Sheffield Hallam the

evel of attainment in Maths is lower than English but it is still considerably better than that f Sheffield Brightside.

igure 5.23 Key Stage 2: Maths 2005

















0% to 19%






BeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefBeauchiefMosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosboroughMosborough




NortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNortonNortonDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDoreDore

20% to 39%40% to 59%60% to 79% 80% to 99%


58


Key Stage 2: Average Point Scores The Key Stage 2 average point score (APS) is used to provide an overview of the achievements of pupils aged 11. It is an aggregation of the point scores for English, Maths and Science. The average Key Stage 2 point scores for 2004 referenced to the Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) of the residence of Sheffield's pupils has been thematically mapped and is shown in Figure 5.24. It can be seen that the performance of young people at Key Stage 2 is generally lower in the east of Sheffield. Many of the LSOAs in Sheffield Brightside have average point scores in the bottom 25 per cent of those in Sheffield. Sheffield Brightside does not have any LSOAs with average point scores in the top 25 per cent. This is in stark contrast to the Sheffield Hallam constituency where virtual all the LSOAs have average point scores in the top 25 per cent. Figure 5.24 - Key Stage 2: Average Point Scores - 2004









59


5.5 Education Infrastructure The previous section focused on the education attainment achieved by of the populations living in the respective constituencies, wards and LSOAs in Sheffield. Local intelligence has suggested that a significant proportion of the secondary school age population were (and still are) educated outside the constituency. This section focuses on those who were educated in the constituency by exploring the levels of attainment achieved in the Sheffield Brightside schools and comparing them with those in the Sheffield Hallam schools. Background By the early 1980s Sheffield LEA had decided that all schools should be fully comprehensive and be able to offer post-16 provision. Of the schools, serving the Brightside constituency at that time (Yewlands, Chaucer, Firth Park, Herries, Colley, Hinde House and St Peter's RC) few could sustain a viable sixth form on their own and consortium arrangements were made. The local authority soon realised that even these consortium arrangements were not suitable to meet needs and planned for a wholesale tertiary re-organisation across the city. The tertiary plan envisaged eight tertiary colleges providing the full range of opportunities post-16. The then Secretary of State for Education - Keith Joseph - upheld objections to the proposals and the schools in the Sheffield Hallam parliamentary constituency, together with All Saints RC School, were allowed to retain their sixth forms. Six tertiary colleges opened in 1988, two of which had centres located in or around Brightside - Parson Cross College and Parkwood College. Parson Cross College was located in the refurbished buildings of Colley and St Peter's schools which both closed. Both colleges were relatively successful, e.g. the A level intake at Parson Cross rose from 69 in 1988 to 160+ in 1993. With the incorporation of colleges in 1992, the local authority determined that the smaller colleges might not be economically viable on their own and decided that all six colleges should be amalgamated into one Sheffield College. This amalgamation took effect in 1993. During the 1990s the school sixth forms in the south west of the city proved attractive to pupils whilst the college did not. Consequently, sixth form provision at the Parkwood Centre closed and was transferred to the Parson Cross Centre of the Sheffield College. The Parkwood Centre closed altogether shortly afterwards. The 11-16 schools were not immune to change. Herries School was deemed to be failing and re-opened under the 'fresh start' initiative as Parkwood Springs. Relatively low levels of attainment persisted in all of the schools throughout the 1990s. The drift to the south-west, the relatively narrow 16-19 provision and the relative geographical isolation of the Parson Cross Centre with poor transport links, all contributed to a sense of dissatisfaction amongst Brightside residents with local post-16 education. South Yorkshire Learning and Skills Council and the local authority undertook a review, the outcome of which was the development of Longley Park Sixth Form College. This took place on the site of the former Firth Park upper school buildings. The Sheffield College also took the decision to close the Parson Cross and Loxley Centres and open a new centre at Hillsborough to serve the north of the city. Longley Park opened in September 2004 and Hillsborough in September 2005.

60


Secondary School Provision There are five 11 to 16 schools in the Sheffield Brightside constituency. The schools are as follows:

• Chaucer School • Firth Park Community College • Hinde House 3-16 School • Parkwood High School • Yewlands School Technology College

Information on the performance and progression of young people in these schools has been extracted from the DfES - School and College Achievement and Attainment Tables 200544 and the Moving on Activity Survey Reports 2003, 2004 and 2005. These data have been compared with those for the schools in the Sheffield Hallam constituency (excluding the independent schools) and are described in the following sections. The Ofsted reports for each of the schools in Sheffield Brightside have also been review to provide an overview of the quality of 11 -16 provision in the constituency. The location of the Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam schools are shown in Figure 5.25. Figure 5.25 – Location of the Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam Schools



High Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale School

Notre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High School

Parkwood High SchoolParkwood High SchoolParkwood High SchoolParkwood High SchoolParkwood High SchoolParkwood High SchoolParkwood High SchoolParkwood High SchoolParkwood High School

Hinde House 3-16 SchoolHinde House 3-16 SchoolHinde House 3-16 SchoolHinde House 3-16 SchoolHinde House 3-16 SchoolHinde House 3-16 SchoolHinde House 3-16 SchoolHinde House 3-16 SchoolHinde House 3-16 School

Firth Park Community Arts CollegeFirth Park Community Arts CollegeFirth Park Community Arts CollegeFirth Park Community Arts CollegeFirth Park Community Arts CollegeFirth Park Community Arts CollegeFirth Park Community Arts CollegeFirth Park Community Arts CollegeFirth Park Community Arts College

Chaucer Community SchoolChaucer Community SchoolChaucer Community SchoolChaucer Community SchoolChaucer Community SchoolChaucer Community SchoolChaucer Community SchoolChaucer Community SchoolChaucer Community School

Yewlands School Technology CollegeYewlands School Technology CollegeYewlands School Technology CollegeYewlands School Technology CollegeYewlands School Technology CollegeYewlands School Technology CollegeYewlands School Technology CollegeYewlands School Technology CollegeYewlands School Technology College

Abbeydale Grange SchoolAbbeydale Grange SchoolAbbeydale Grange SchoolAbbeydale Grange SchoolAbbeydale Grange SchoolAbbeydale Grange SchoolAbbeydale Grange SchoolAbbeydale Grange SchoolAbbeydale Grange School

King Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton School

King Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert School

44 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables/

61


Special Education Needs (SEN) Generally, the percentages of pupils at Key Stage 3 (KS3) and Key Stage 4 (KS4) on the Sheffield Brightside school rolls in 2005 with SEN who have statements are lower than the percentages for Sheffield Hallam schools and the averages for Sheffield and England, Tables 5.2 and 5.3. Conversely, the percentages of pupils with SEN but without statements are much higher than those for Sheffield Hallam schools, Sheffield and England, Tables 5.4 and 5.5. The exception in Sheffield Hallam is the Abbeydale Grange School. Here the percentage of pupils at KS3 and KS4 with SEN but with no statement is actually higher than all the Sheffield Brightside schools except Chaucer. Table 5.2 – Percentage of Pupils on Roll with SEN and with Statement (Sheffield Brightside)

Key Stage

Cha

ucer

S

choo

l

Firth

Par

k C

omm

unity

A

rts C

olle

ge

Hin

de H

ouse

3-

16 S

choo

l

Par

kwoo

d H

igh

Scho

ol

Yew

land

s S

choo

l Te

chno

logy

C

olle

ge

She

ffiel

d

Eng

land

KS3 0.00% 3.00% 4.10% 0.70% 1.10% 3.80% 4.00%

KS4 0.50% 0.80% 0.60% 1.70% 0.00% 2.50% 3.80% Table 5.3 – Percentage of Pupils on Roll with SEN and with Statement (Sheffield Hallam)

Key Stage

Abb

eyda

le

Gra

nge

Sch

ool

Hig

h S

torrs

S

choo

l

Kin

g E

cgbe

rt S

choo

l

King

Edw

ard

VII

Sch

ool

Not

re D

ame

Cat

holic

Hig

h S

choo

l

Silv

erda

le

Sch

ool

Tapt

on

Sch

ool

KS3 5.20% 2.10% 3.20% 2.70% 2.30% 1.60% 0.90% KS4 1.40% 2.20% 2.60% 0.90% 1.00% 1.10% 3.00% Table 5.4 – Percentage of Pupils on Roll with SEN and No Statement (Sheffield Brightside)

Key Stage

Cha

ucer

S

choo

l

Firth

Par

k C

omm

unity

A

rts C

olle

ge

Hin

de H

ouse

3-

16 S

choo

l

Par

kwoo

d H

igh

Scho

ol

Yew

land

s S

choo

l Te

chno

logy

C

olle

ge

She

ffiel

d

Eng

land

KS3 49.50% 24.40% 22.30% 28.20% 22.80% 16.90% 14.80% KS4 49.20% 22.30% 26.30% 27.60% 19.60% 17.10% 12.20%

62


Table 5.5 – Percentage of Pupils on Roll with SEN and No Statement (Sheffield Hallam)

Key Stage

Abb

eyda

le

Gra

nge

Sch

ool

Hig

h S

torrs

S

choo

l

King

E

cgbe

rt S

choo

l

King

E

dwar

d V

II S

choo

l

Dam

e C

atho

lic

Hig

h S

choo

l

Silv

erda

le

Sch

ool

Tapt

on

Sch

ool

KS3 31.10% 2.90% 12.80% 17.30% 17.00% 8.60% 10.00% KS4 28.10% 3.50% 5.70% 10.30% 12.30% 10.10% 10.80% Key Stage 3 Performance The 2005 Key Stage 3 results for the Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam schools are given in Tables 5.6 and 5.7. The proportions of pupils in the cohort achieving level 5 or above in English is consistently lower in the Sheffield Brightside schools, with the exception of Yewlands School, when compared with the average for Sheffield. The percentage of pupils achieving level 5 or above at Yewlands School is higher than the Sheffield average but lower than that of England. The average for Sheffield Brightside schools is 18 percentage points lower than the average for Sheffield, which is equivalent to a difference of 27 per cent. The average percentage of pupils achieving level 5 or above in English at KS3 in Sheffield Hallam schools was higher than those of both Sheffield and England. However, only 33 per cent of KS3 pupils at Abbeydale Grange School achieved level 5 or above, which is lower than all of the schools in Sheffield Brightside. The percentages of pupils achieving level 5 or above in Maths in all the Sheffield Brightside schools are below the averages for Sheffield and England, Table 5.6. The average for Sheffield Brightside schools is 16 percentage points lower than the average for Sheffield, which is equivalent to a difference of 23 per cent. The average percentage for Sheffield Hallam was higher than the Sheffield and England average percentages. However, only 41 per cent of pupils at Abbeydale Grange School achieve level 5 or above in Maths, which again is lower than all the Sheffield Brightside schools. The achievement in science is also consistently lower in the five Sheffield Brightside schools when compared with Sheffield and England. The average percentage of pupils achieving level 5 or above was 48 per cent in Sheffield Brightside. This is 16 percentage points below the average for Sheffield which itself is 6 percentage points below the average for England. The average percentage for science for Sheffield Hallam was higher than the Sheffield and England average percentages. However, as for English and Maths, the proportions of pupils who achieved level 5 or above in science was considerably below the Sheffield Hallam average and the percentages in each of the Sheffield Brightside schools. The Average Point Scores (APS) for Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam schools followed similar patterns to those described above.

63


Table 5.6 – Key Stage 3 Results (Sheffield Brightside)

% achieving Level 5

or above C

hauc

er

Sch

ool

Firth

Par

k C

omm

unity

A

rts C

olle

ge

Hin

de

Hou

se 3

-16

Sch

ool

Par

kwoo

d H

igh

Sch

ool

Yew

land

s S

choo

l Te

chno

logy

C

olle

ge

She

ffiel

d B

right

side

She

ffiel

d

Eng

land

English 51% 43% 37% 42% 71% 48% 66% 74% Maths 51% 54% 50% 46% 62% 53% 69% 74%

Science 45% 46% 49% 41% 59% 48% 64% 70%

APS 30.1 30.5 29.9 30.1 32.1 30.5 33.5 34.5 Table 5.7 – Key Stage 3 Results (Sheffield Hallam)

% achieving Level 5

or above Abb

eyda

le

Gra

nge

Sch

ool

Hig

h S

torrs

S

choo

l Ki

ng

Ecg

bert

Sch

ool

Kin

g E

dwar

d V

II S

choo

l

Not

re D

ame

Cat

holic

H

igh

Sch

ool

Silv

erda

le

Sch

ool

Tapt

on

Sch

ool

English 33% 83% 75% 83% 84% 92% 88% 79% Maths 41% 86% 81% 82% 85% 91% 87% 81%

Science 31% 79% 76% 81% 84% 88% 88% 78%

APS 28.5 37.7 35.8 37.5 36.8 38.5 38.3 36.6 Absenteeism or the inability to attend the KS3 tests varies across the five schools in Sheffield Brightside, Table 5.5. Yewlands School had the smallest percentage of pupils missing from the tests. Yewlands School achieved the highest APS and had the highest percentage of pupils achieving level 5 or above in English, Maths and Science when compared with the other schools, Table 5.8. The percentages of absenteeism or the inability to attend the KS3 tests for the Sheffield Hallam schools is given in Table 5.9. Generally, these were lower than those in Sheffield Brightside schools, but comparable with Sheffield Brightside's Yewlands School. The percentage at Abbeydale Grange Schools is, however, substantially higher than the other schools in Sheffield Hallam and similar to the higher levels of absenteeism or the inability to attend observed in Sheffield Brightside's schools. Table 5.8 – Percentage of Pupils Absent or Unable to Attend KS3 Tests (Sheffield Brightside)

Cha

ucer

S

choo

l

Firth

Par

k C

omm

unity

A

rts

Col

lege

Hin

de

Hou

se 3

-16

Sch

ool

Par

kwoo

d H

igh

Sch

ool

Yew

land

s S

choo

l Te

chno

logy

C

olle

ge

English 6% 12% 13% 11% 2%Maths 6% 11% 10% 9% 1%

Science 3% 11% 10% 9% 2%

64


Table 5.9 – Percentage of Pupils Absent or Unable to Attend KS3 Tests (Sheffield Hallam)

A

bbey

dale

G

rang

e S

choo

l

Hig

h S

torrs

S

choo

l

Kin

g E

cgbe

rt S

choo

l

Kin

g E

dwar

d V

II S

choo

l

Not

re D

ame

Cat

holic

Hig

h S

choo

l

Silv

erda

le

Sch

ool

Tapt

on

Sch

ool

English 13% 6% 3% 4% 0% 3% 1% Maths 10% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0%

Science 7% 4% 2% 3% 0% 2% 1% Key Stage 4 Performance The percentage of KS4 pupils achieving level 2 (5 or more A* - C grade GCSEs or equivalent) in the Sheffield Brightside schools is far lower than the average percentage for Sheffield and England, Table 5.10. The average percentage of pupils achieving Level 2 in Sheffield Brightside is 15 percentage points lower than the average for Sheffield and equivalent to a 32 per cent difference. The difference between the percentages of pupils achieving Level 2 in Sheffield Brightside’s schools compared with those in the Sheffield Hallam constituency is considerable. The difference is 37 percentage points, which means the Sheffield Brightside average is over 50 percent lower than Sheffield Hallam average. The Abbeydale Grange School had a percentage of pupils achieving level 2 that was substantially lower than the other schools in the Sheffield Hallam constituency, Table 5.11, but the percentage was higher than all the schools in Sheffield Brightside. The percentage of pupils achieving Level 1 (5 or more A* - G grade GCSEs or equivalent) in Sheffield Brightside’s schools ranges between 78 and 87 per cent with an average of 82 per cent. The average for Sheffield Brightside is lower than that for Sheffield, although Yewlands School’s performance is slightly higher than the average for Sheffield, which in turn is 4 percentage points lower than the average achievement for England. The difference in the averages for Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam is 12 percentage points. The percentage of pupils who gained a level 1 at Abbeydale Grange School is substantially lower than the other schools in Sheffield Hallam. The percentage was comparable to those of Chaucer, Firth Park and Parkwood schools in Sheffield Brightside but lower than Hinde House and Yewlands schools. The percentage of pupils not gaining any qualifications varies between 12 per cent and 7 per cent in the Sheffield Brightside schools, with an average of 9 per cent. This compares with 6 per cent for Sheffield, 3 percent for England and 2 per cent for Sheffield Hallam. The KS4 APS for the schools in Sheffield Brightside range between 248.0 and 275.1, they are considerably lower than the APS for Sheffield, 320.9, and England, 355.2. The APS in the Sheffield Hallam schools range between 308.4 and 452.6 with an average of 405.9. The differences in the scores are stark. The best APS performance in Sheffield Brightside, Yewlands School, is still considerably below the lowest performing school in Sheffield Hallam, which was Abbeydale grange School at 308.4.

65


Table 5.10 – Key Stage 4 Results (Sheffield Brightside)

% achieving

Cha

ucer

Sch

ool

Firth

Par

k C

omm

unity

Arts

C

olle

ge

Hin

de H

ouse

3-

16 S

choo

l

Par

kwoo

d H

igh

Sch

ool

Yew

land

s S

choo

l Te

chno

logy

C

olle

ge

She

ffiel

d B

right

side

She

ffiel

d

Eng

land

Level 2 27% 32% 32% 33% 36% 32% 47% 57% Level 1 79% 78% 85% 81% 87% 82% 86% 90%

No Qualifications 8% 12% 11% 7% 7% 9% 6% 3% APS 272.4 248.0 265.6 251.2 275.1 261.8 320.9 355.2

Table 5.11 – Key Stage 4 Results (Sheffield Hallam)

% achieving

Abb

eyda

le

Gra

nge

Sch

ool

Hig

h S

torrs

S

choo

l

Kin

g E

cgbe

rt S

choo

l

King

Edw

ard

VII

Sch

ool

Not

re D

ame

Cat

holic

Hig

h S

choo

l

Silv

erda

le

Sch

ool

Tapt

on S

choo

l

She

ffiel

d H

alla

m

Level 2 42% 75% 62% 67% 74% 83% 72% 69% Level 1 80% 97% 92% 93% 98% 98% 94% 94%

No Qualifications 6% 0% 3% 3% 0% 1% 3% 2% APS 308.4 416.9 348.9 395.7 434.6 449.3 452.6 405.9

Secondary School Absence The absence levels in the Sheffield Brightside schools are shown in Table 5.12. Whilst Parkwood High and Yewlands schools have authorised absences lower than the averages for Sheffield and England, the other three schools have absence rates that are considerably higher than the Sheffield and England averages, particularly Firth Park Community Arts College at 9.0 per cent. The percentage of unauthorised absences in Sheffield Brightside’s schools is above the average for England, however, Firth park and Yewlands schools exhibit rates below the average for Sheffield. Hinde House and Parkwood High schools have particularly high unauthorised absence rates that are twice the Sheffield average and three times the national average. In comparison, the absence rates are generally lower for both authorised and unauthorised absences at schools in the Sheffield Hallam constituency, Table 5.13. However, Abbeydale Grange School has absence rates more in keeping with those of Sheffield Brightside.

66


Table 5.12 – Percentage of Half Days Missed Due to Absence

2005

Cha

ucer

Sch

ool

Firth

Par

k C

omm

unity

Arts

C

olle

ge

Hin

de H

ouse

3-

16 S

choo

l

Par

kwoo

d H

igh

Sch

ool

Yew

land

s S

choo

l Te

chno

logy

C

olle

ge

She

ffiel

d B

right

side

Ran

ge

She

ffiel

d

Eng

land

Authorised 8.0% 9.0% 7.1% 5.7% 6.4% 5.7 to 9.0% 6.6% 6.7%

Unauthorised 2.9% 2.1% 4.5% 5.0% 2.0% 2.0 to 5.0% 2.4% 1.3%

Table 5.13 – Percentage of Half Days Missed Due to Absence

2005

Abb

eyda

le

Gra

nge

Sch

ool

Hig

h S

torrs

S

choo

l

Kin

g E

cgbe

rt S

choo

l

Kin

g E

dwar

d V

II S

choo

l N

otre

Dam

e C

atho

lic H

igh

Sch

ool

Silv

erda

le

Sch

ool

Tapt

on S

choo

l

She

ffiel

d H

alla

m

Authorised 7.2% 5.2% 5.3% 6.0% 4.5% 4.0% 4.9% 4.0 to 7.2%

Unauthorised 3.8% 1.0% 2.5% 1.5% 0.4% 1.0% 1.2% 0.4 to 3.8%

Post Compulsory Education Destinations The destinations of Year 11 pupils45, after completing their compulsory education, from the schools in Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam are shown in Tables 5.14 and 5.15. This shows that very few young people from the Sheffield Brightside schools decide to progress to school sixth forms. In Sheffield Hallam, where all the schools except Abbeydale Grange have sixth forms, approximately 60 to 70 per cent of Year 11 pupils progress to school sixth forms. Abbeydale Grange School is unusual, as progression tends to be to FE (approximately 60 per cent) rather than to a school sixth form. Progression to a school sixth form is still substantially higher from Abbeydale Grange when compared with the progression from schools in Sheffield Brightside. Progression from Sheffield Brightside’s schools to FE ranges from approximately 40 to 70 per cent, with an increase in the percentages from some schools being seen in 2004 and 2005. Abbeydale Grange School, in Sheffield Hallam, has progression rates to FE that fit in with the higher end of the range exhibited by the Sheffield Brightside’s schools. Progression to FE from other schools in Sheffield Hallam is generally in the range 15 to 30 per cent. Progression from compulsory education into employment or training from Sheffield Brightside’s schools ranges from approximately 20 to 30 per cent, compared with a range of 2 to 15 per cent from Sheffield Hallam schools. Similar proportions appear to progress 45 Source: Moving On Activity Survey Report 2003, 2004 and 2005, produced by Nord Anglia Lifetime Development - North East Region and Sheffield Futures on behalf of South Yorkshire Connexions Partnership.

67


into employment and training from each school in Sheffield Brightside, whereas proportionally more pupils progress to employment and training from Abbeydale Grange and Notre Dame schools compared with the other schools in Sheffield Hallam. The proportions of pupils described as not settled or unemployed are considerably higher from Sheffield Brightside schools (approximately 5 to 20 per cent) compared with those from Sheffield Hallam schools (approximately 1 to 9 per cent). Table 5.14 - Year 11 Destinations for Sheffield Brightside Schools

Cha

ucer

S

choo

l

Firth

Par

k C

omm

unity

C

olle

ge

Hin

de H

ouse

3-

16 S

choo

l

Par

kwoo

d

Hig

h Sc

hool

Yew

land

s S

choo

l Te

chno

logy

C

olle

ge

She

ffiel

d B

right

side

R

ange

2003 3.9% 2.7% 1.6% 1.4% 6.0% 1.4 – 6.0 2004 0.0% 0.8% 2.2% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0 – 3.5 Remaining

at school 2005 1.0% 1.5% 1.1% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0 – 5.1 2003 47.1% 50.8% 44.2% 43.3% 47.3% 43.3 – 50.82004 42.8% 58.6% 70.1% 64.8% 45.1% 42.8 – 70.1Further

Education 2005 47.5% 52.6% 68.2% 55.8% 60.3% 47.5 – 68.22003 25.2% 24.2% 31.6% 31.9% 28.1% 24.2 – 31.92004 30.6% 22.3% 20.1% 19.5% 34.1% 19.5 – 34.1Employment

or training 2005 25.5% 26.3% 22.8% 30.0% 23.7% 22.8 – 30.02003 18.9% 13.1% 12.1% 14.9% 15.0% 12.1 – 18.92004 16.3% 12.5% 5.4% 11.7% 13.9% 5.4 – 16.3 Not settled/

unemployed 2005 18.0% 17.7% 5.7% 10.8% 10.9% 5.7 – 18.0

Table 5.15 - Year 11 Destinations for Sheffield Hallam Schools

Abb

eyda

le

Gra

nge

Sch

ool

Hig

h S

torrs

S

choo

l

Kin

g E

cgbe

rt

Sch

ool

Kin

g E

dwar

d V

II S

choo

l

Not

re D

ame

Cat

holic

Hig

h S

choo

l

Silv

erda

le

Sch

ool

Tapt

on S

choo

l

She

ffiel

d H

alla

m

Ran

ge

2003 10.3% 68.8% 62.6% 61.2% 60.3% 79.1% 61.8% 10.3 – 79.1

2004 11.0% 69.7% 59.5% 54.2% 55.5% 71.5% 67.0% 11.0 – 71.5

Rem

aining at school

2005 15.0% 69.2% 56.4% 60.1% 52.0% 77.9% 61.3% 15.0 – 77.9

2003 61.5% 21.1% 29.4% 30.0% 23.9% 17.1% 26.2% 17.1 – 61.5

2004 64.4% 20.2% 24.2% 30.7% 22.3% 23.1% 20.8% 20.2 – 64.4

Further E

ducation 2005 60.2% 24.6% 28.7% 24.5% 33.2% 14.4% 23.0% 14.4 – 60.2

68


2003 11.1% 5.9% 2.1% 3.8% 11.0% 2.7% 8.1% 2.1 – 11.1

2004 10.3% 5.1% 6.8% 10.2% 15.6% 3.7% 6.4% 3.7 – 15.6

Em

ployment

or training

2005 15.1% 3.0% 9.2% 9.4% 13.4% 4.5% 9.1% 3.0 – 15.1

2003 8.6% 2.1% 2.1% 2.9% 4.3% 1.1% 2.1% 1.1 – 8.6

2004 5.5% 3.4% 5.8% 3.1% 4.3% 0.5% 3.2% 0.5 – 5.8

Not settled

unemployed 2005 6.8% 2.9% 2.6% 5.6% 1.5% 2.8% 1.7% 1.5 – 6.8

Sheffield Brightside Secondary Schools Ofsted Reports The most recent Ofsted reports for the five 11-16 schools in the Sheffield Brightside parliamentary constituency were reviewed and are summarised in Appendix 12. At the time of the Ofsted inspections, several were designated as facing "challenging circumstances". It was reported that the proportion of pupils across each provider known to be eligible for free school meals was "well above average", as was the percentage of pupils identified as having special educational needs. Attainment of pupils on entry was consistently described as "very low". The rate of pupil mobility at some of the schools was also "well above average", with many arriving or leaving during the school year. There were also reports of concentrations of pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds and refugees or asylum seekers in some of the schools. Ofsted described the schools' achievement overall as "satisfactory" in relation to attainment on entry. However, overall performance in GCSE/GNVQ examinations at the end of Year 11 was found to be "well below average" in comparison with results in all schools and "below average" for schools in similar circumstances. There are variations between providers but, generally, for pupils in Years 9 and 11, standards of work were stated as being "below average" in English and "well below average" in Science and Mathematics. Overall, literacy and numeracy levels were described as being "low" and the standards of attainment depressed. Many pupils were said to have a reading age well below their actual age but most spoke with confidence. Pupils’ writing was cited as particularly weak; many had difficulty writing in a clear, fluent style. Ofsted acknowledged that standards of literacy were improving due to providers focusing on the development of appropriate speaking, listening, reading and writing skills to enhance learning. Low levels of numeracy were also a key issue and many pupils were described as not handling numbers and calculations confidently. One particular weakness across a number of the schools was that they had no whole-school policy for the teaching of numeracy skills. Although new strategies were less successful than those for literacy, Ofsted found that some providers who had adopted the government's numeracy approaches were beginning to raise standards. For all providers, the quality of teaching was described as "satisfactory" or "good". In several instances, it had improved considerably since previous inspections. Teachers' planning to meet individual needs, their management of behaviour and the care afforded to pupils were identified as particular strengths. The quality and range of the curricula was

69


also "satisfactory" or "good" and there were many particularly strong features identified such as work-place learning, extra-curricular activities and some of the vocational courses. Leadership and management across all of the schools were rated as "good" or better and were seen as having had a significant impact on standards. The work of some headteachers/principals was described as "outstanding" and "excellent". Support from senior staff and governing bodies to provide a clear agenda for continued improvement was also described as positive. Ofsted identified many areas of improvement, including better planning and monitoring and curriculum breadth and balance. There was an upward trend in results in National Curriculum tests and at GCSE level, with related targets. However, attendance was described as remaining "poor" and was holding back standards. Efforts to improve it were described as being hindered by a lack of support from families despite evidence which linked achievement with attendance. Punctuality to school and lessons was also identified as being "unsatisfactory". In spite of the good progress made, Ofsted stated that there was "still much more to be achieved". Post Compulsory Education Location and Institution Type The post compulsory education provision available to young people in the Sheffield Brightside constituency includes the following: • The Sheffield College, which currently has four campuses:

o Castle o Hillsborough o Norton o Peak

• Longley Park Sixth Form College • School Sixth Forms

o All Saints’ Catholic High School o High Storrs school o King Ecgbert School o King Edward IIV o Notre Dame Catholic High School o Silverdale School o Tapton School o Birkdale School [Independent] o Sheffield High School Girls Day Trust [Independent]

The locations of the provision across Sheffield are shown in Figure 5.26. All of the school sixth forms, with the exception of All Saints’ Catholic High School, are in the Sheffield Hallam constituency. The new Longley Park Sixth Form, which opened in 2004, is located in the centre of the Sheffield Brightside constituency. One of the Sheffield College campuses (Hillsborough) is located at the western edge of the constituency, the Castle campus is in the centre of Sheffield, whilst the Norton and Peak campuses are to the south of Sheffield some considerable distance from Sheffield Brightside.

70


The range, level and mode of provision available at the Sheffield College and Longley Park Sixth Form College are given in Appendices 13 and 14 respectively. Figure 5.26 – Location of Post-Compulsory Education in Sheffield





King Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII SchoolKing Edward VII School

Sheffield High School Girls Day Trust [Ind]Sheffield High School Girls Day Trust [Ind]Sheffield High School Girls Day Trust [Ind]Sheffield High School Girls Day Trust [Ind]Sheffield High School Girls Day Trust [Ind]Sheffield High School Girls Day Trust [Ind]Sheffield High School Girls Day Trust [Ind]Sheffield High School Girls Day Trust [Ind]Sheffield High School Girls Day Trust [Ind]

All Saints' Catholic High SchoolAll Saints' Catholic High SchoolAll Saints' Catholic High SchoolAll Saints' Catholic High SchoolAll Saints' Catholic High SchoolAll Saints' Catholic High SchoolAll Saints' Catholic High SchoolAll Saints' Catholic High SchoolAll Saints' Catholic High School

Birkdale School [Ind]Birkdale School [Ind]Birkdale School [Ind]Birkdale School [Ind]Birkdale School [Ind]Birkdale School [Ind]Birkdale School [Ind]Birkdale School [Ind]Birkdale School [Ind]

The Shefffield College - CastleThe Shefffield College - CastleThe Shefffield College - CastleThe Shefffield College - CastleThe Shefffield College - CastleThe Shefffield College - CastleThe Shefffield College - CastleThe Shefffield College - CastleThe Shefffield College - Castle

The Shefffield College - PeakThe Shefffield College - PeakThe Shefffield College - PeakThe Shefffield College - PeakThe Shefffield College - PeakThe Shefffield College - PeakThe Shefffield College - PeakThe Shefffield College - PeakThe Shefffield College - Peak

Sheffield College - Hillsborough CentreSheffield College - Hillsborough CentreSheffield College - Hillsborough CentreSheffield College - Hillsborough CentreSheffield College - Hillsborough CentreSheffield College - Hillsborough CentreSheffield College - Hillsborough CentreSheffield College - Hillsborough CentreSheffield College - Hillsborough CentreLondgley Park Sixth Form CollegeLondgley Park Sixth Form CollegeLondgley Park Sixth Form CollegeLondgley Park Sixth Form CollegeLondgley Park Sixth Form CollegeLondgley Park Sixth Form CollegeLondgley Park Sixth Form CollegeLondgley Park Sixth Form CollegeLondgley Park Sixth Form College

The Shefffield College - NortonThe Shefffield College - NortonThe Shefffield College - NortonThe Shefffield College - NortonThe Shefffield College - NortonThe Shefffield College - NortonThe Shefffield College - NortonThe Shefffield College - NortonThe Shefffield College - Norton

King Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert SchoolKing Ecgbert School

Notre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High SchoolNotre Dame Catholic High School

Tapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton SchoolTapton School

High Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs SchoolHigh Storrs School

Silverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale SchoolSilverdale School


Post Compulsory Achievement and Attainment The achievement and attainment of people studying for General Certificate of Education (GCE) and Vocational Certificate of Education (VCE) level 3 qualifications in Sheffield in 200546 are given in Table 5.16. The data shows that there is a considerable difference in the average levels of achievement, (Average Point Scores – APS), between those educated in the school sixth forms, in the southwest of Sheffield, and those who attended the Sheffield College. Because the Longley Park Sixth Form College did not open until 2004, the first cohort of students had not completed their studies and consequently there was no data on their performance.

46 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables/

71


Table 5.16 - GCE and VCE Results - 2005

GCE and VEC results Number of

studentsaged 16-18

Number entered

Average point score per student

Average point score

per examination

entry LA average � 252.8 78.8 LSC average� 254.9 73.9 England average� 277.8 79.9 All Saints' Catholic High School� 168 87 284.8 74.4

Birkdale School� 182 88 415.0 92.8 High Storrs School� 416 195 272.5 78.9 King Ecgbert School� 226 98 250.1 73.9 King Edward VII School� 508 239 335.9 85.3 Longley Park Sixth Form College� 641 - - -

Notre Dame Catholic High School� 274 132 328.6 84.7

The Sheffield College� 5241 814 180.9 70.1 Sheffield High School� 168 102 365.4 101.3 Silverdale School� 316 166 297.3 87.8 419 204 326.1 88.4 5.6 Progression to Higher Education Data relating to candidates who were successful in their attempt to secure a place in Higher Education through the Universities and Colleges Applications Service (UCAS) were analysed. These candidates are referred to as 'accepted' applicants. To obtain a data set of adequate size for analysis at constituency and ward levels, data relating to 'accepted' applicants entering Higher Education in September 2002, 2003 and 2004 were aggregated. The data set contained a range of variables referenced to each of the 'accepted' applicants. The variables included:

• Age • Gender • Ethnic Group • Disability • Socio-Economic Group • Previous Educational Establishment attended • Government Region of the accepting Institution • Type of accepting Institution

The home postcodes of the 'accepted' applicants had been matched by UCAS to the corresponding LSOA in the Sheffield Metropolitan District using standard lookup tables. This enabled the 'accepted' applicants from the Sheffield Brightside constituency and Sheffield Hallam to be identified and compared.

72


Age of 'Accepted' Applicants Eight per cent of all 'accepted' applicants, whose home addresses were in the Sheffield district, were from the Sheffield Brightside constituency compared with 20 per cent from the Sheffield Hallam constituency. Approximately 15 per cent of the total population of Sheffield live in Sheffield Brightside and the same percentage in Sheffield Hallam47. When those who were aged 18 in the September of the year of entry were considered, the proportion from Sheffield Brightside was only 6 per cent, whilst 33 per cent were from Sheffield Hallam. The age distribution of the 'accepting' applicants from Sheffield Brightside, Sheffield Hallam and the Sheffield district are shown in Figure 5.27. It shows that approximately 60 per cent of 'accepted' applicants from the Sheffield Hallam constituency were aged 18 compared with about 45 per cent of those from Sheffield and only 35 per cent of those from Sheffield Brightside. The proportion of those from Sheffield Hallam who were aged 19 is only slightly higher than those from Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield. The proportions of 'accepted' applicants places who were older than 18/19 were higher in Sheffield Brightside when compared with Sheffield Hallam. This suggests that a higher proportion of the population progress to HE from Sheffield Hallam and this progression occurs at a younger age. Figure 5.27 - The Age Distribution of 'Accepted' Applicants

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Under 18 18 19 20 21-24 25-29 30 and overAge Range

Sheffield

Sheffield BrightsideSheffield Hallam

47 Source: 2001 Census http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census/

Perc

enta

ge

73


Sex of 'Accepted' Applicants The ratios of those accepting places by sex are the same for Sheffield Brightside, Sheffield Hallam and the district of Sheffield, Table 5.17. However, at ward level the proportions vary considerably. Proportionally fewer females progress to Higher Education from the Brightside and Firth Park wards, whereas proportionally more females progress from Nether Shire, Owlerton and Southey Green wards. Table 5.17 - Sex of 'Accepted' Applicants Female Male Brightside 45% 55% Firth Park 43% 57% Nether Shire 60% 40% Owlerton 61% 39% Southey Green 56% 44% Sheffield Brightside 52% 48% Sheffield Hallam 52% 48% Sheffield 52% 48% The Ethnic Group of 'Accepted' Applicants The proportion of 'accepted' applicants in each ethnic group is given in Table 5.18. This indicates that a relatively high proportion of 'accepted' applicants from Sheffield Brightside are from ethnic minority groups, 28 per cent, when compared with the proportions in the total population, 9 per cent. Comparing the ward level ethnic minority populations, Figure 5.2, Section 5.2, with those for 'accepted' applicants, it appears that whilst a higher proportion of ethnic minorities progress to HE in Sheffield Brightside, proportionally less progress in Sheffield Hallam . The proportion of Asian/Asian British 'accepted' applicants in the Firth Park ward is actually higher than the White British proportion. Table 5.18 - Proportion of 'Accepted' Applicants by Ethnic Group

Asi

an/A

sian

B

ritis

h

Bla

ck/B

lack

B

ritis

h

Chi

nese

Mix

ed R

ace

Whi

te /W

hite

B

ritis

h

Eth

nic

Min

ority

To

tal

Brightside Ward 8% 9% 2% 7% 75% 25% Firth Park Ward 44% 8% 0% 7% 41% 59% Nether Shire Ward 2% 5% 2% 7% 84% 16% Owlerton Ward 3% 4% 2% 1% 90% 10% Southey Green Ward 0% 11% 0% 4% 85% 15% Sheffield Brightside 14% 7% 1% 5% 72% 28% Broomhill Ward 2% 1% 2% 3% 93% 7% Dore Ward 2% 1% 0% 3% 94% 6% Ecclesall Ward 2% 0% 1% 2% 95% 5% Hallam Ward 2% 1% 2% 3% 92% 8% Sheffield Hallam 2% 1% 1% 3% 94% 7% Sheffield District 8% 5% 2% 3% 83% 17%

74


'Accepted' Applicants with Disabilities The proportion of 'accepted' applicants who declared a disability on their UCAS application form was 6 per cent in both the Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam constituencies. This compares with 5 per cent for the district of Sheffield. The Socio-Economic Group (NS-SEG) of 'Accepted' Applicants The total population of Sheffield comprises 48 per cent from the higher socio-economic groups but sixty-nine per cent of the 'accepting' applicants from the Sheffield district were from the higher socio-economic groups48, Figure 5.28. Thirty two per cent of the total population living in the Sheffield Brightside constituency were from the higher socio-economic groups, 46 per cent of the 'accepted' applicants were from the higher socio-economic groups. Sixty per cent of the total population living in Sheffield Hallam were from the higher socio-economic groups, eighty-eight per cent of 'accepted' applicants were from the higher socio-economic groups. This shows that in each case the proportion of the higher socio-economic is higher in the 'accepted' applicant populations when compared with the total population living in the area. Figure 5.28 - Socio-Economic Group (NS-SEG) of 'Accepted' Applicants

46%

54%

88%

12%

69%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SheffieldBrightside

SheffieldHallam

Sheffield

LowerSocio-EconomicGroups (4-7)

HigherSocio-EconomicGroups (1-3)

Previous Educational Establishment Attended The proportions of 'accepted' applicants indicating that they had attended a Sheffield school sixth form49 or a local FE college50 are given in Figure 5.29. This shows that over 60 per cent of 'accepted' applicants from Sheffield Brightside indicated that they had attended a local Further Education college, compared with 35 per cent for the whole district of Sheffield and 14 per cent for Sheffield Hallam. Conversely, 50 per cent of 'accepted' applicants from Sheffield Hallam indicated that they had attended a Sheffield

48 The higher socio-economic groups are defined as National Statistics Socio-Economic Groups 1 to 3 and the lower socio-economic groups are defined as National Statistics Socio-Economic Groups 4 to 7. 49 All Saints R C School, High Storrs School King Ecgbert School, King Edward VII School, Notre Dame High School, Silverdale School and Tapton School (note: independent schools were not included) 50 Barnsley College, Chesterfield College, Dearne Valley College, Northern College, Rother Valley College, Rotherham College of Arts and Technology and The Sheffield College

75


school sixth form, compared with 28 per cent for Sheffield and 12 per cent for Sheffield Brightside. Figure 5.29 - Previous Educational Establishment Attended

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Sheffield Brightside Sheffield Sheffield Hallam

Pece

ntag

e of

'acc

epte

d' a

pplic

ants

Local FE CollegesSheffield Sixth FormsOther

The Government Region of the Accepting Institution Figure 5.30 shows the proportions of 'accepted' applicants securing places in institutions in the Yorkshire and the Humber government region and the proportion who have accepted places in other regions. It shows that the proportion of those progressing to HE from Sheffield Hallam were nearly three times more likely to study outside the region than those from Sheffield Brightside and one and a half times more than those from Sheffield as a whole. Figure 5.30 - The Government Region of the Accepting Institution

81%

19%

44%

56%

63%

37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SheffieldBrightside

Sheffield Hallam Sheffield

OtherRegions

Yorkshire &the Humber

76


Type of Accepting Institution Figure 5.31 shows that 40 per cent of those living in Sheffield Hallam were offered and accepted a place at a Russell Group University whereas only 14 per cent and 25 per cent of 'accepted' applicants from Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield, respectively, were offered and accepted a place at a Russell Group University. When younger applicants (18-19 year-olds) are considered, Figure 5.32 shows that there is a five percentage point increase in the proportions of those from Sheffield Hallam and Sheffield and a two percentage point increase for those from Sheffield Brightside. However, this still means that the percentage of 'accepted' applicants progressing to the Russell Group Universities from Sheffield Brightside is roughly 50 per cent of that for Sheffield as a whole and approximately 30 per cent of that for Sheffield Hallam. Figure 5.31 - Type of Accepting Institution (All 'Accepted' Applicants)

84%

16%

55%

45%

70%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SheffieldBrightside


RussellGroupInstitution

OtherInstitutions

Figure 5.33 - Type of Accepting Institution ('Accepted' Applicants Aged 18 & 19)

84%

16%

55%

45%

70%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SheffieldBrightside


RussellGroupInstitution

OtherInstitutions

77


6 Qualitative research 6.1 Introduction The aim of the qualitative element of the research was to gain an understanding of the attitudes, perceptions and experiences of the local communities of Sheffield Brightside. To this end, students at Sheffield Hallam University with Sheffield Brightside home addresses completed questionnaires and semi-structured interviews and focus groups were held with people living and/or working in the local area. 6.2 Analysis of Questionnaire Data 6.2.1 Introduction Students with home addresses in the pre-2004 Sheffield Brightside constituency, studying on undergraduate courses at Sheffield Hallam University in academic session 2005/06 were identified using postcode look-up tables. In total, 421 full-time and part-time students were identified. Questionnaires were posted to the students' home addresses in August 2006 and a follow up was sent out in September 2006 to those identified as not responding. The next section reports on the overall sample of 421 students before reporting on the sample of students who returned completed questionnaires. 6.2.2 Sheffield Hallam University Students Living in Sheffield Brightside Four hundred and twenty-one undergraduate students were identified as having home addresses in the Sheffield Brightside constituency, i.e. the addresses where they permanently live. Two-thirds (67 per cent) were full-time and one-third (33 per cent) part-time. The age (on entry) distribution of the students by attendance mode is given in Table 6.2.1. There is an obvious difference between the two groups of students, with almost 60 per cent of the full-time students being 20 years of age or younger and only 6 per cent of the part-time cohort being in the young category. The proportion of young full-time students from Sheffield Brightside at Sheffield Hallam University is slightly lower than that exhibited by all students progressing to higher education via UCAS between 2002 and 2004, Figure 5.27. Table 6.2.1 Age of Sheffield Brightside Students by Mode of Attendance Young (20 and Under) Mature (21 and above) Full-time 59% 42% Part-time 6% 94% All 41% 59% Proportionally more of the students were female (61 per cent) than male (39 per cent). The proportions by mode of attendance are given in Table 6.3.2. Table 6.2.2 Sex of Sheffield Brightside Students by Mode of Attendance Female Male Full-time 57% 43% Part-time 70% 30% All 61% 39%

78


The proportions of the Sheffield Brightside students studying at Sheffield Hallam University by ethnic group are shown in Table 6.2.3. Approximately one third of the full-time students are from an ethnic minority group, whereas just under a quarter of part-time students are from ethnic minority groups. The largest ethnic minority group studying full-time is the Asian/Asian British group at 15.9 per cent, followed by the Black/Black British group at 10.2 per cent. The largest ethnic minority group studying part-time is the Black/Black British group at 10.8 per cent, which is slightly higher than the Asian/Asian British group at 8.2 per cent. The proportion of ethnic minority students from Sheffield Brightside studying full-time at Sheffield Hallam University is slightly higher than that exhibited by all students progressing to higher education via UCAS between 2002 and 2004, Table 5.18. Table 6.2.3 Ethnicity of Sheffield Brightside Students by Mode of Attendance

Asi

an/A

sian

B

ritis

h

Bla

ck/B

lack

B

ritis

h

Chi

nese

Mix

ed R

ace

Whi

te /W

hite

B

ritis

h

Eth

nic

Min

ority

To

tal

Per

cent

age

Know

n

Full-time 16% 10% 2% 5% 67% 33% 94% Part-time 8% 11% 0% 3% 78% 23% 86% All 14% 10% 1% 5% 70% 30% 91%

The socio-economic groups of those studying on both full-time and part-time courses are shown in Table 6.2.4. The table shows that more full-time students from Sheffield Brightside are from National Statistic-Socio-Economic Groups (NS-SEG) 4 to 7 compared with NS-SEG 1 to 3. In contrast, the majority of the part-time students originate from the higher socio-economic groups. The socio-economic characteristics of the full-time students at Sheffield Hallam University are identical to those exhibited by all students progressing to higher education via UCAS between 2002 and 2004, Figure 5.28. Table 6.2.4 Socio-Economic Group of Sheffield Brightside Students by Mode of Attendance Higher Socio-

economic groups

(NS-SEG 1-3)

Lower Socio-economic

groups (NS-SEG 4-7)

Percentage known

Full-time 46% 54% 70% Part-time 84% 16% 56% All 57% 43% 66% The postcodes of all the undergraduate students studying at Sheffield Hallam University from the Sheffield Brightside were mapped using GIS mapping software to show their distribution across the constituency, Figure 6.2.1. The map shows that each of the five wards has a broadly similar distribution of students.

79


Figure 6.2.1 The Distribution of Sheffield Hallam University Student across Sheffield Brightside based on their Home Postcodes.


6.2.2 The Questionnaire Respondents Two hundred and five questionnaires were returned representing 49 per cent of the original population. Not all of these respondents, however, completed every question on the questionnaire. Therefore, in some cases the frequencies and percentages shown in the tables in the results section equate to a slightly smaller group of respondents. The age, sex and geographical distribution of the home addresses of the 205 questionnaire respondents were analysed to determine if they were a reasonably representative sample of the Sheffield Brightside population studying at Sheffield Hallam University. The analysis indicated that 62 per cent of the respondents were mature students when they started their studies and 67 per cent were female. This compared with 59 and 61 per cent respectively of the undergraduate population living in Sheffield Brightside. The distribution of the home addresses of the respondents is shown in Figure 6.2.2. This compares favourably with that shown in Figure 6.2.1. Figure 6.2.2 The Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents across Sheffield Brightside based on their Home Postcodes


80


Table 6.2.5 shows that 50 percent of the respondents lived in the pre-2004 ward areas of Firth Park and Brightside, 39 percent lived in the pre-2004 ward areas of Nethershire and Owlerton and 11 percent lived in the pre-2004 ward area of Southey. Table 6.2.5 Frequency and Percentage of respondents by Ward

WARDS Young Mature All Firth Park 21 29% 31 25% 52 26% Brightside 12 24% 27 23% 39 23%

Nethershire 18 16% 28 22% 46 20% Owlerton 4 26% 18 15% 22 19% Southey 19 5% 19 15% 38 11%

All 74 38% 123 62% 197 100% Ward data for eight respondents missing Table 6.2.6 shows that whilst the young students predominately lived with their parents, the mature students lived on their own, with friends or with a partner either with or without children. Table 6.2.6 Who students lived with by Age (Frequencies and Percentages) On my own My parents My partner My partner &

children Friends n=

Young 4 5% 56 74% 5 7% 5 7% 6 8% 76 Mature 21 17% 17 9% 28 23% 35 28% 23 19% 124 All 27 13% 73 36% 34 17% 40 20% 29 14% 200 2 mature students did not answer this question, and 3 answered but kept their age anonymous To enable comparisons to be made between respondents who had been educated within the Sheffield Brightside constituency and respondents who had been educated elsewhere the responses were coded into the three categories shown in Table 6.2.7. As shown in Table 6.2.7, 48 per cent of the respondents had received their secondary education inside the Sheffield Brightside constituency and lived there for more than 5 years, 34 per cent had received their education outside of the Sheffield Brightside constituency and lived there for more than five years, whilst 18 per cent had received their education outside of the Sheffield Brightside constituency and lived there for less than five years. Table 6.2.7 Previous education by Age (Frequencies and Percentages) Young Mature All Secondary education inside SB, lived in SB for more than 5 years 46 23% 49 25% 95 48%

Secondary education outside of SB, lived in SB for more than 5 years

22 11% 45 23% 67 34%

Secondary education outside of SB, lived in SB for 5 years or less 7 4% 29 15% 36 18%

All 75 38% 123 62% 198 100%Age on entry for 7 students missing

81


6.2.3 Questionnaire Responses This section is divided into the three main topic areas: - (1) perceptions of the Sheffield Brightside area (2) priorities for Sheffield Brightside residents, and (3) educational progression. 6.2.3.1 Perceptions of the Sheffield Brightside Area Question - How would you describe the area of Sheffield Brightside in which you live? a) A brilliant area to live in b) An okay area to live in c) A not very good area to live in d) A bad area to live in e) A really bad area to live in As shown in Table 6.2.8, overall 73 per cent of respondents rated their area as an okay or brilliant area to live in with only 6.4 per cent rating their area as bad or really bad. There were differences between wards with a higher percentage of the respondents living in the Brightside and Owlerton wards rating their area as okay or brilliant compared to respondents living in the other three wards. All wards received some ratings for not very good but only Firth Park and Nethershire received ratings of really bad. Table 6.2.8 How would you describe the area of Sheffield Brightside in which you live? (Frequencies and Percentages)

Brilliant Okay Not very

good Bad Really bad

Firth Park 4 8% 27 53% 15 29% 2 4% 2 4%

Nethershire 3 8% 23 62% 6 16% 3 8% 2 5%

Brightside 3 7% 32 74% 7 16% 1 2% 0 0%

Southey 2 10% 13 62% 4 19% 2 10% 0 0%

Owlerton 4 11% 26 70% 7 19% 0 0% 0 0%

All 16 9% 121 64% 39 21% 8 4% 4 2%

17 students did not answer the question 6.2.3.2 Priorities for Sheffield Brightside residents Question - When considering an area to live in, which of the following is the most important to you? Low crime rates, Availability of suitable employment, Quality of environment, Availability of good quality healthcare services, Availability of good quality housing at affordable prices, Opportunity for developing knowledge and skills, Good transportation links, Closeness to family As shown in Table 6.2.9, irrespective of ward, low crime rate and availability of suitable quality housing at affordable prices were consistently nominated as the two most important high priority issues. There were differences between wards with regard to the issue considered as the third most important priority. In Firth Park and Nethershire it was

82


83

closeness to family, in Brightside it was good transportation links, in Southey it was both closeness to family and good transportation links, whilst in Owlerton it was availability of suitable employment. In regards to low priority issues, opportunity for developing knowledge and skills, availability of suitable employment, and quality of environment were nominated most frequently. However, there were differences between wards, with respondents from the Firth Park ward nominating good transportation links as their lowest priority, respondents from the Nethershire ward nominating opportunity for developing knowledge and skills and good transportation links as equally lowest, respondents from the Brightside ward nominating opportunity for developing knowledge and skills as their lowest priority, respondents from the Southey ward nominating availability of good quality healthcare services as their lowest priority and respondents from the Owlerton ward nominating quality of the environment as their lowest priority. Table 6.2.9 Nominations for High and Low Priority Categories by Ward

High priority Low priority Ward A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H Firth Park 35 15 15 14 35 9 14 23 3 20 22 13 8 21 23 16

Nethershire 23 11 10 12 23 8 10 20 8 16 15 10 7 19 19 13

Brightside 28 11 19 10 33 6 22 17 5 22 14 18 3 27 14 16

Southey 14 5 5 2 14 2 9 9 3 9 6 13 1 12 8 7

Owlerton 30 15 9 10 20 6 10 7 3 13 22 16 8 18 11 17

All 130 57 58 48 125 31 65 76 22 80 79 70 27 97 75 69

Key: A = Low crime rates, B = Availability of suitable employment, C = Quality of environment, D = Availability of good quality healthcare services, E = Availability of good quality housing at affordable prices, F = Opportunity for developing knowledge and skills, G = Good transportation links, H =Closeness to family To find out if the age of the student and where they where educated would have an effect on their priorities when choosing an area in which to live, the above question was also analysed using the previous education categories. As shown in Table 6.2.10, low crime rate and availability of good quality housing at affordable housing remained important considerations for all groups. However, young students also nominated closeness to family as a high priority whilst mature students were divided between quality of the environment, transportation links and closeness to family. With regard to low priority considerations, as shown in Table 6.2.11, whilst the mature students nominated the opportunity for developing knowledge and skills as their lowest priority, young students nominated quality of the environment as a lower priority than developing knowledge and skills. Mature students also nominated closeness to family and availability of suitable employment as low priorities whilst young students nominated availability of good quality healthcare.


84

Table 6.2.10 Nominations for High Priority Categories by Previous Education

Young Mature All

A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H

Secondary education inside SB, lived in SB for more than 5 years

25 18 10 10 30 9 17 20 32 11 19 14 34 13 19 15 57 29 9 24 58 25 36 35


14 8 8 6 11 5 5 12 31 10 13 11 27 6 13 20 45 18 21 20 32 11 18 32

Secondary education outside of SB, lived in SB for 5 years or less

5 2 0 0 7 2 1 4 24 9 9 9 16 2 11 7 29 11 9 9 23 4 12 11

All 44 28 18 16 48 16 23 36 87 30 41 34 77 21 43 42 131 58 39 53 113 40 66 78

Table 6.2.11 Nominations for Low Priority Categories by Previous Education

Young Mature All

A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H


6 14 27 18 8 20 14 11 6 24 12 17 7 23 18 20 12 38 39 35 15 43 32 31


4 10 9 11 3 9 11 3 4 22 14 13 9 23 23 16 8 32 23 24 12 32 34 19


0 3 6 3 0 5 1 3 2 7 12 8 2 16 8 17 2 10 18 11 2 21 9 20

All 10 27 42 32 11 34 26 17 12 53 38 38 18 62 49 53 22 80 80 70 29 96 75 70


85

6.2.3.3 Educational Progression Question- Do you feel that you were given good advice about progressing to Higher Education whilst at secondary school? Table 6.2.13 shows that whilst, overall, 47 per cent of the respondents felt that they had not received good advice about progressing to higher education, mature respondents were more negative than young respondents. When the young respondents who received their secondary education within Sheffield Brightside are compared with the other young groups, it can be seen that, whilst they were a lot less positive than the respondents who had come to live in the area in the last 5 years, they were more positive than the students who had received their education outside of Sheffield Brightside but had lived in the area for more than 5 years.


86

Table 6.2.12 Was good advice given about progression to Higher Education at Secondary School?

Young Mature All

Yes No Not sure Yes No Not

sure Yes No Not sure

Secondary education inside SB, lived in SB for more than 5 years 22 17 7 12 26 10 34 43 17 Secondary education outside of SB, lived in SB for more than 5 years 5 1 1 13 13 1 18 14 2

Secondary education outside of SB, lived in SB for 5 years or less8 9 4 10 21 5 18 30 9

All 35 26 12 35 61 16 70 87 28 Table 6.2.13 Percentages for was good advice given about progression to Higher Education at Secondary School?

Young Mature All Yes No Not

sure Yes No Not

sure Yes No Not

sure Secondary education inside SB, lived in SB for more than 5 years 48% 37% 15% 25% 54% 21% 36% 46% 18% Secondary education outside of SB, lived in SB for more than 5 years 71% 14% 14% 48% 48% 4% 53% 41% 6% Secondary education outside of SB, lived in SB for 5 years or less

38% 43% 19% 27% 58% 14% 32% 53% 16% All 48% 36% 16% 31% 55% 14% 38% 47% 15%


Question- Do you think that you were given good advice about progressing to Higher Education whilst at college or sixth form? As the first cohort of students from Sheffield Brightside's new sixth form college would only have progressed to Higher Education in 06/07, respondents would not have had the option of taking their Level 3 qualifications at the new Sixth Form. Sheffield College has had a presence in the constituency but the site has now closed. For this question the responses were therefore analysed in terms of whether the student had received their Level 3 education at a local Further Education College, a Sheffield School Sixth Form or another establishment. Table 6.2.14 shows that overall, twice as many respondents agreed that they been given good advice compared to poor advice. Whilst mature students were more likely than young students to indicate that they had not received good advice, the type of institution which the student had attended did not make a great deal of difference to the response rates. Table 6.2.14 Was good advice given about progression to Higher Education at College and Sixth Form?

Young Mature All n=195 Yes No Not

sure Yes No Not

sure Yes No Not

sure Local Further Education College51

44

6

5

37

25

11

81

31

16

Sheffield Sixth Forms

9

0

4

6

7

4

15

7

8

Other Establishment

6

0

0

13

12

6

19

12

6

All

59

6

9

56

44

21

115

50

30

10 students did not answer this question Table 6.2.15 Percentages for was good advice given about progression to Higher Education at College and Sixth Form?

Young Mature All n=195 Yes No Not

sure Yes No Not sure Yes No Not

sure Local Further Education College52

80% 11% 9% 51% 34% 15% 63% 24% 13%

Sheffield Sixth Forms 69% 0% 31% 35% 41% 24% 50% 23% 27%

Other Establishment 100% 0% 0.0% 42% 39% 19% 51% 32% 16%

All 80% 8% 12% 46% 36% 17% 59% 26% 15%

51 All FE Colleges in South Yorkshire were included in this group 52 All FE Colleges in South Yorkshire were included in this group

87


88

Question - Thinking back to when you decided to go to university, who influenced your decision the most (you can choose more than one)? Tables 6.2.16 and 6.2.17 show that careers advisers and teachers were least frequently cited as having an influence on the respondent's decision to progress to higher education, whilst parents and others were cited most frequently. Age did make a difference in that young respondents were more likely to cite a careers adviser, teacher and/or parent; whilst mature respondents were more likely to cite 'other'. Young respondents who had received their secondary education inside the Sheffield Brightside constituency cited 'teacher' more frequently than any other group.


89

Table 6.2.16 Influencers when making the decision to progress onto University Young Mature All

num

ber o

f po

ssib

le

resp

onse

s Teac

her

Car

eer

advi

sor

Par

ent

Oth

er

Teac

her

Car

eer

advi

sor

Par

ent

Oth

er

Teac

her

Car

eer

advi

sor

Par

ent

Oth

er


46/49 21 8 29 28 8 4 15 48 29 12 44 76


22/45 7 5 5 8 7 3 5 21 14 8 10 29


7/29 1 2 5 0 4 2 8 21 5 4 13 21

All 75/123 29 15 39 36 19 9 28 90 48 24 67 126 Table 6.2.17 Percentages for influencers when making the decision to progress onto University Young Mature All

num

ber

of

poss

ible

re

spon

s

Teac

her

Car

eer

advi

sor

Par

ent

Oth

er

Teac

her

Car

eer

advi

sor

Par

ent

Oth

er

Teac

her

Car

eer

advi

sor

Par

ent

Oth

er


46/49 45% 17% 63% 61% 16% 8% 31% 98% 31% 23% 46% 80%


22/45 32% 23% 23% 36% 16% 7% 11% 47% 21% 12% 15% 43%


7/29 14% 29% 71% 0% 14% 7% 28% 72% 14% 11% 36% 58%

All 75/123 39% 20% 52% 48% 15% 7% 23% 73% 24% 12% 34% 64% The percentages are calculated on the number of possible responses to the question


Question- When you graduate do you expect to continue living in the Sheffield Brightside Constituency? Table 6.2.19 shows that just over half (53 per cent) of the respondents indicated that they would continue to live in the Sheffield Brightside constituency after they had graduated with only 18 per cent saying that they definitely intended to move away. It had been anticipated that respondents who had moved into the area in the last 5 years, most probably to enable them to take part in Higher Education, would be more likely to indicate that once they had graduated that they intended to leave the area. However, this only seemed to be the case for young respondents (57 per cent) as mature respondents were more likely to indicate that after graduation they intended to stay in the area (61 per cent) which probably reflected the fact that many of them had put down roots in the area. Table 6.2.18 Will you continue to live in Sheffield Brightside after graduating?

Young Mature All

Yes No Not sure Yes No Not

sure Yes No Not sure


21 8 16 26 11 10 47 19 26


12 3 7 24 4 16 36 7 23


2 4 1 17 4 7 19 8 8

All 34 14 22 68 18 32 102 34 57 Out of our responded sample 6 mature students and 1 young student left this question blank.

Table 6.2.19 Percentages for will you continue to live in Sheffield Brightside after graduating?

Young Mature All

Yes No Not sure

Yes No Not sure

Yes No Not sure


47%

18%

36%

55%

24%

21%

51%

21%

28%


55%

14%

32%

55%

9%

36%

55%

11%

34%


29%

57%

14%

61%

14%

25%

54%

23%

23%

All 49% 20% 31% 58% 15% 27% 53% 18% 30%

90


Question- Do you feel that living in Sheffield Brightside has had an effect on your education? As shown in Table 6.2.21, when students were asked about the effect that living in Sheffield Brightside had had on their education, 57 per cent said that it had had no effect whilst 27 per cent said the effect had been positive. When the responses for the mature and young respondents are compared, whilst there is very little difference in the overall percentage for negative effect, a higher percentage of young respondents said that living in the constituency had had a positive effect on their education. When the responses for the young respondents who were educated within Sheffield Brightside are compared with the respondents who were educated elsewhere, a larger percentage of the respondents educated within Sheffield Brightside (corresponding to 1 in 5 of this group of respondents,) reported that living in the area had had a negative effect on their education. Table 6.2.20 Do you feel that living in Sheffield Brightside has had an effect on your education?

Young Mature All

Pos

itive

Neg

ativ

e

No

effe

ct

Pos

itive

Neg

ativ

e

No

effe

ct

Pos

itive

Neg

ativ

e

No

effe

ct


15

9

20

10

10

27

25

19

47


8

2

12

7

9

29

15

11

41


2

1

4

9

0

18

11

1

22

All 25 12 36 26 19 74 51 31 110 13 students left this question blank

Table 6.2.21 Percentages for do you feel that living in Sheffield Brightside has had an effect on your education?

Young Mature All

Pos

itive

Neg

ativ

e

No

effe

ct

Pos

itive

Neg

ativ

e

No

effe

ct

Pos

itive

Neg

ativ

e

No

effe

ct


34% 21% 45% 21% 21% 57% 28% 21% 52%


36% 9% 55% 16% 20% 64% 22% 16% 61%


29% 14% 57% 33% 0% 67% 32% 3% 65%

All 34% 16% 49% 22% 16% 62% 27% 16% 57%

91


6.3 Analysis of Focus Group and Interview data Core themes which were common to the interviews and focus groups included:

perceptions of the Sheffield Brightside area; perceptions of the relevance of higher education perceptions of progression routes perceptions of information, advice and guidance (IAG) important issues for young people living in Sheffield Brightside; important issues for adults living in Sheffield Brightside; tuition fees, student loans, maintenance grants and loans parental and peer influences

6.3.1 Perceptions of the Sheffield Brightside Area Adults in the constituency, especially those who had lived there for a long time, felt a strong sense of community loyalty and many of them expressed positive views about the benefits offered by the area including accessibility of shops including the Meadowhall shopping centre, good schools, and strong supportive social and family networks. However, this was marred by a concern about the unacceptable behaviour of a minority of young people and adults. For some of the focus group participants, crime and anti-social behaviour were considered to be major problems and key priorities for improvement. Other participants, however, said that for the area in which they personally lived these issues were not particularly problematic, although they recognized that they were in other areas of the constituency. Young people, often seen as the perpetrators of crime, themselves felt victimised and/or at risk from other young people. They indicated that there were a lot of 'gangs' in the area and that they did not go out at night or feel safe in the local parks. The general feeling was that a lot of the crime, especially that of a more violent nature which included incidents where knives and guns had been used, was drug related. The overwhelming impression gained from the young people of the area was negative, with one young person describing the area in which he personally lived as a ghetto. A summary of these impressions, derived from the focus group activities which explored young people's views of the area, is included in Appendix 15 and shows that the young people viewed the area as boring with nothing to do, with gangs and hooligans, vandalism, violence, and crime. There were a lot more negative views compared to positive. The professional stakeholders, who all worked within educational settings, recognised the impact of crime and anti-social behaviour on young people and how this affected educational attainment and progression. As explained by a school teacher, the impact of crime on education is not so much to do with the fact that crime stops pupils from progression, but because schools are seen as part of the community, residents expect school staff to get involved and sort out problems that occur in the community outside of the school gates. Education welfare officers, school mentors, teachers, etc., therefore spend a large amount of the time that they feel should be giving to educating their pupils to sorting out disagreements, anti-social behaviour acts and criminal activities, that have taken place in the community in the evening and/or at weekends. Poor parenting skills were cited by a number of participants as being a contributing

92


factor to anti-social behaviour. Parent participants in particular were critical of other parents in that they perceived them as taking a too lax approach to disciplining their children and as not spending enough time with them. Professionals felt that it was important to take a positive approach to parenting and “prepare for success” rather than parenting skills being addressed only once something had gone wrong. Residents were very clear that there were separate and distinct communities within Sheffield Brightside but there was a tendency for outsiders to view them as a single homogeneous community. What was particularly problematic was the negative view of the constituency expressed by people who lived outside of the area. It was felt that for the area to really improve it had to first lose its negative reputation. There was a feeling that run down social-housing stock was to blame for the area’s negative reputation. In one adult focus group the participants explained how in their view the “undesirable” areas of Sheffield Brightside had arisen. They said that one “undesirable” family would move into a street and then the neighbours on either side would move out. Their houses would then be taken by other “undesirable” families which would cause the neighbours on either side of them and the neighbours who lived across the road to move out. A snowball effect would happen with the result that the whole street or two or three streets would become a “no go” area for “decent” people. The work currently being carried out to improve the housing stock in various areas of the constituency was welcomed. However, the concern was expressed that in selling off the houses to private landlords Sheffield Council was losing control of the area as the housing corporations were only interested in making money and were therefore letting the houses to ex-criminals, druggies and paedophiles. Some white adult focus group participants who had lived in Sheffield Brightside for a long time commented on the fact that residents with ethnic minority backgrounds tended to be concentrated in areas which had become “no go” areas for other residents. Whilst Sheffield Council were criticised for housing residents with similar ethnic backgrounds together, it was also recognized that housing one or two families with an ethnic minority background in an area which was primary white could also be problematic. Some participants blamed the increase of criminal activities in certain areas of Sheffield Brightside as being due to the ethnic minority population in that area. The lack of available resources within the constituency for young people was cited as a major issue by some adults and young people. However, other participants noted that although resources for young people did exist they were too expensive, especially in an area where money is in short supply. Not all adults and professionals agreed with this view, and cited youth clubs, parks, Council run sports centres, and plans to provide 'youth shelters'. Some of the older participants noted that aspiring, upwardly mobile and academically able young people would go to schools on the other side of the city and then move out of the area leaving the older members of their families behind. However, it was proposed that improvements in secondary education and the provision of the new Longley Park Sixth Form College would halt this movement. The college was highly regarded, representing ‘something to aim at’ and a progression route into post-16 education which did not require the young people of the area to have to travel to other parts of the city. The perception of many of the participants was that the new college had raised aspirations and increased the staying on rates of local young people in

93


post-16 education. Although the impact of the college has not been fully evaluated, it was suggested that the majority of the students came from within a kilometre of the college and as many as 40 per cent were from an ethnic minority. The high level of recruitment led some adults and professionals to claim that overcrowding is or will become an issue. The view of professional stakeholders was that the development of learning and skills in the local population was key to breaking the cycle of deprivation. There was also a general appreciation that the core regeneration priorities were also of fundamental importance. 6.3.2. Perceptions of the Relevance of Higher Education Some professionals perceived higher education as having only limited relevance to the Sheffield Brightside area, relating this to both the historic and current labour market pattern of low-skilled or unqualified employment and the current low skills level in the adult population. The appropriateness of the target of 50 per cent participation of 18-30 year olds in higher education by 2010, the implications for young people encouraged onto “unsuitable” routes which did not have a defined job, the ability of young students to gain places on degree programmes with high entry requirements given the general low achievement exhibited by the local schools, the high debt that is likely to result from the years of study necessary to achieve a degree, and the links between possessing a degree and better employment were all questioned. Examples of local people who had taken degrees and had then come back into the local community and were still employed in the same type to job e.g., taxi driving, that they could have done without a degree were frequently cited. Value for money was of particular importance for parents. Linked to this was the length of courses, the amount of teaching time and the need to pay fees while students were on work placement. There was a suggestion that shorter, perhaps two year degree programmes would be more attractive. Adult participants who had been brought up in the area and were returning to learning after having raised their own families and/or having spent time in employment expressed the view that as teenagers they had not been developmentally ready to progress to further and higher education. They felt that for a lot of young people in the area, the fact that they were raised in families where there was very little surplus money meant that having money was their main priority and that they needed this money immediately, not some time in the distant future. For these students having the opportunity to re-enter education after they had achieved a certain standard of personal living, for example having a decent home, a partner and enough money to provide for their basic needs, was very important. They felt that it was only after these basic needs had been met could they concentrate on developing themselves academically.

94


6.3.3 Perceptions of Progression Routes One of the main priorities for adults living in the area was employment, both for themselves and their children. Some adults indicated that once in employment learning and educational development would follow, whilst others saw education as the means of entering into or changing careers. For professionals, discussions on employment were generally focussed on the low skill requirements of local employers and the consequent impact of this on perceptions of the relevance of further and higher education. The discussions of both adults and professionals indicated some awareness of changes in vocational education and curriculum including apprenticeship and foundation degrees. Whilst recognised as valid and necessary, some participants were concerned about a perceived lack of work based learning/training relating to the trades, e.g. the electrical and plumbing trades. Others indicated that the curriculum offered did not appeal to some young people and suggested that for young people to see their relevance the subjects that were studied needed to be explicitly linked to careers/jobs. It was very noticeable that apprenticeships were viewed as something that non-academic students would take with the emphasis being on the practical work-based skills that would be acquired rather than the academic-related skills. Whilst professional stakeholders recognised that a modern apprenticeship could provide a route into higher education, it was felt that at the moment it was too soon to identify the impact of the programme. The Headteacher of one of the area’s secondary schools described the school as having a diverse pathways orientated KS4 curriculum. The school had a total of seven potential pathways which included the provision of the core GCESs, traditional GCES subjects, vocational qualifications and off site learning. Pupils progressing into KS4 were said to be guided onto appropriate pathways according to their aptitudes and abilities. Some pupils took a pathway of 10 GCSEs whilst others took a mixture of traditional GCSEs and vocational qualifications, a NVQ programme of study, a special educational needs programme which required pupils to study the core GCSE subjects and an entry to employment programme, or studied vocational qualifications through the week and two days a week worked after school on the core GCSEs. Professionals recognised the need for opportunities for adults to return to education but also highlighted the funding issues for those over 25 years of age. They also highlighted the need for the teaching of basic literacy, numeracy and ICT skills to be continued within the community as many Sheffield Brightside adult residents would be unable to advance onto higher level skills programmes until they had acquired the basic skills. The point was made that the more adults engage in education and learning in Sheffield Brightside the greater the chance that a larger number of young people would progress as the adults would become role models and influencers for the young people. Peer support was seen as very important in helping adult achievement and progression. There was also a need to bring students from similar backgrounds together for mutual support and attendance barriers needed to be removed, e.g. the provision of childcare. Anecdotal evidence, from community tutors delivering core skills for employability as opposed to educational development, suggests that progress is being made, but that it is very slow in that residents first attend other courses such as Healthy Eating, which

95


does not carry the same stigma as basic skills courses, before progressing to take the national test in literacy and numeracy. One of the big challenges for community groups who are involved in the delivery of basic skills training is that they are often dependent upon short-term funding. This prevents them from getting on with the job which they are trying to do as they have to spend time trying to secure funding for their next short-term project, and that the funding that they do get, often includes restrictions which means that they don’t have access to the groups of people whom they feel would benefit most from their services. An example which was given was of level 2 and 3 programmes being a free entitlement only for full-time learners whilst most of the residents who were interested in taking this qualification only wanted to study on a part-time basis. The issue was also raised that there may be too many projects all trying to target the same group of people, for example, ICT skill training, and that there is a need for a more co-ordinated approach to community education. 6.3.4 Perceptions of Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) When asked, young people appeared ambivalent or unenthusiastic about the IAG services available. The adults showed concern, wondering how young people were supposed to get the information they need to find out about jobs, careers and educational pathways. However, they were aware that schools, universities and the internet would be useful places to get information. Some outreach programmes delivered by the local universities were specifically mentioned as providing activities linked to professions which operated across the city. They were Sheffield Hallam University's 'Medical Emergency Scenario Day53' and Sheffield University's

53 These interactive day's are aimed at Year 9 students with an interest in Health and Social Care and have been running since 2002. Approximately 100 pupils are invited to the events held at Sheffield Wednesday Football Club in Hillsborough, Sheffield. The day provides them with an outline of some of the professional roles within the Health and Social Care arena and is delivered through a scenario of a patient entering hospital as an emergency admittance. The attendees have the opportunity to use some of the equipment used by professional staff as they move through the scenario and to meet with health and social work professionals and University students. They are also given the opportunity to explore one of the professions through work with actors. Towards the end of the event parents are invited to attend to see the work prepared by the pupils.

96


Professions Progression Programme54'. Another Aimhigher outreach project singled out in the interviews was the 'Graduation Project'55. A Headteacher of a local school explained how the school was working closely with Aimhigher to develop approaches for maintaining careers advice and guidance. Aimhigher activities were particularly noted by parents of pupils identified as “gifted and talented” in that the activities supported planning and understanding of the financial issues associated with progression to higher education. However, there was a concern that the “gifted and talented” scheme marginalised and excluded pupils who did not reach the necessary criterion for selection or who were not attending the school at the time of selection. The embedded programme funded by the school was the only careers guidance recognised as such by the pupils and only by those who had clear ideas about their future. It was noted that there was a need for the strategic linking of employment opportunities and the development of skills in the local population. Whilst many of the adults who look part in the focus groups expressed the view that what young people in Sheffield Brightside needed was the opportunity to take apprenticeships, awareness of Apprenticeship programmes was very variable. Parents complained that the information that was available on the internet was unhelpful and furthermore was not accessible to parents who did not have access to the internet and/or were not internet literate. In particular, there was confusion about the amount of money the apprentice would be paid, the level of qualifications needed to get onto an apprenticeship, the length of time an apprenticeship would last and if there was a guaranteed job at the end of it. There was also a perception that apprenticeships were in such short supply that very few young people would have a chance of getting one.

54 Professions Progression Partnership

Building on the success of the Sheffield Outreach and Access to Medicine Scheme (SOAMS), in which students from disadvantaged backgrounds are encouraged to enter higher education and study medicine, the University has piloted outreach activities in four other professions where there is under representation in terms of parental occupation and social class: accountancy, architecture, journalism and law.

Students in Years 11 and 12 at selected regional schools were invited to take part in the Professions Progression Partnership, which ran over a seven-month period. Activities included talks and presentations by staff working in the four areas, visits by staff from associated professional bodies, and educational visits to the places of work in each of the areas.

Students interested in studying law, for example, sat through cases being tried in the Sheffield Law Courts, while those considering architecture as a career were taken on a site visit to meet the architect concerned with the project. Opportunities were also provided for the school pupils to meet up with undergraduate students from the University to gain first-hand knowledge about their courses. 55The Graduation Project involves the production of case studies of local graduates which are produced as posters. The posters are then distributed to the former primary and secondary schools or colleges which the graduate attended. The posters are designed to get across the message 'If I can, you can' and are part of an overall strategy of raising aspirations and awareness of higher education. The posters include photos of the graduates taken at their graduation ceremonies and information about the course they studies together with some tips on how to succeed.

97


6.3.5 Important issues for young people living in Sheffield Brightside The focus group learning tree and acid rain activities (which explored young people’s influencers, priorities, aspirations and barriers to achievement) and discussions were evaluated. A summary of the analysis is given in Appendix 16. This analysis revealed that key influencers for young people were their families and friends followed by their schools and teachers. Although not cited as frequently, the area they lived in was also seen as an important influencer. Whilst not a large group, young people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds cited religion as a major influencer. It was said to provide discipline and focus in their lives and support for their educational ambitions. Current priorities for young people included school, families and friends and social lives and hobbies. The young people’s main aspirations for the future related to having a good education, securing a good career/ profession, enjoying a good standard of living, and having family, friends and relationships. Personal fulfilment, hobbies, travel and moving away from the area were important aspirations for some young people. Perceived barriers to education and achievement were mainly related to the self management of learning and assessment; low self esteem and confidence, lack of support and encouragement and peer pressure. Whilst one group cited teenage pregnancy as a potential issue, this was not mentioned in the other groups. As demonstrated by the poems, raps and diagrams in Appendix 17, whilst the young people railed against the effort and pressure necessary to achieve positive outcomes in their studies they could see the ultimate benefits education could bring them 6.3.6 Important issues for Adults living in Sheffield Brightside The focus group learning tree and acid rain activities (which explored adults' influencers, priorities, aspirations and barriers to achievement) and discussions were evaluated. A summary of the analysis is given in Appendix 16. The analysis revealed that the influencers for the adults were mainly friends and family, their priorities were parenthood, family and relationships, with higher education, the future and self-motivation being priorities for some adults but not for others. Future hopes related to family, friends and relations, self-motivation and aspirations, good career and education and good standard of living and financial stability. It should be noted that the majority of those who attended the focus groups were involved personally in their own learning and/or employed by Sure Start which has probably skewed the findings towards family issues. Some of the parents, who were mature students at the university, said that they had only recently been diagnosed themselves as being dyslexic. Some parents also said that their child’s teacher had recommended that the parents should pay for a dyslexia assessment for their own child. This was quoted as costing the parents £350 which was considered to be outside the reach of many families within the area. 6.3.7 Tuition Fees, Student Loans, Maintenance Grants and Loans Education Maintenance Allowances were said to have had an impact on the proportion of young people staying on post-16 although one headteacher expressed the view that locally the increase in post-16 progression rates was more due to the opening of

98


Longley Park than to the introduction of the allowance. Whilst young people said that receipt of the allowance motivated them to keep studying, those involved in the delivery of post-16 education expressed the view that many young people were only attending because if they didn’t they knew that they would not receive the allowance. There seemed to be some confusion over the difference between student fees, loans and maintenance grants. Young people who participated in focus groups after the start of the Aimhigher advertisements on television were clearer on the nature of the loans, as one young person said 'you only pay it back once you’re earning £15,000'. Parents, particularly those from areas where home ownership is higher or those who have returned to learning, recognised the concept of long-term investment and saw the system as an “enabler”. It was also noted that the provision of a loan to cover the tuition fees had removed a barrier to progression as the responsibility for paying the fees had moved from the parents to the student. However, it was suggested that the way in which the media constantly referred to student debt and especially the figures that were quoted, had a particularly negative impact in areas such as Sheffield Brightside where household income is low. The need for clear information which parents who were not computer literature and/or who did not know much about loaning money could understand was also discussed. One of the consequences of the high cost of higher education, noted by some of the parents, was that their daughters and sons were limiting their choice of university to local universities, as they did not want to incur the added expense of living away from home. Whilst this was considered to be a wise choice from a financial viewpoint, it was noted as having the potential to limit the student’s choice of degree and therefore their career pathway, in that if their chosen course of study was not offered locally then they had to modify their choice. 6.3.8 Parental and peer influences Whilst parents were described by other parents as taking a too lax approach to disciplining their children and as not spending enough time with them, school teachers described parents as being overly protective in that they did not encourage their children to go outside of the area in which they lived and they used the mobile phone system as a means of constantly checking on their children's whereabouts. Teachers saw this over protectiveness in a negative light and suggested that it was due to the parents' lack of experience in the "wider world". An interesting perception raised within one parent focus group, was that many of the parents of the young people who were currently in the education system would have had very negative experience when they themselves were entering the workplace as this would have coincided with the closure of the steelworks and the resulting mass unemployment. Parents who had had these negative experiences would most likely have low self-esteem and low self-worth in relation to employment and may therefore not be the best influencers for their children as they would wish to protect them from the pain, frustration and humiliation which they themselves had experienced when trying to enter the workplace and would therefore not encourage them to take the more challenging routes.

99


Peers, both girls and boys were seen as negative influencers who stopped their friends from studying. A headteacher described how in some peer cultures it was not good to be seen as participating in the education experience and that pupils who wanted to study would tell their friends that their mothers were making them stay in and revise as a way of saving face, even though it wasn't true. Some adults and professionals expressed the view that people from Sheffield Brightside did not perceive themselves, and were not seen by others, as potential university students or people who had professional careers and that it was this limited perception that explained why so few students progressed to higher education

100


7. Discussion 7.1 Introduction The Young participation in higher education report (HEFCE 2005/03)56 identified that Sheffield Brightside had the lowest participation in higher education rate in the country, whilst the Sheffield Hallam constituency had the third highest participation rate. This report represents an evaluation of quantitative and qualitative evidence about the attitudes, perceptions and experience of people living Sheffield Brightside to the area, the educational offer and influences on progression. The study has attempted to identify which factors contribute to the very low rates of progression experienced by those living in Sheffield Brightside, and where appropriate comparing them to the experiences of those living in Sheffield Hallam. 7.2 Context This research has been primarily focused on identifying the factors which prevent young people progressing to higher education. However, it is important to consider the economic rationale for improving progression to higher level skills and learning and the social implications for widening participation in places like Sheffield Brightside. Raising aspirations, attainment and progression into post-compulsory education, including further and higher education, and into employment is critical to the social and economic regeneration of Sheffield and the wider sub-region of South Yorkshire. 7.3 Young participation in Higher Education in Sheffield Progression to Higher Education in the east of Sheffield has been shown to be markedly lower than progression in the west of the city, see Section 5.1. What has set Sheffield Brightside apart from the other constituencies which existed in the east of the city, is that all the wards that comprised Sheffield Brightside had participation rates in the lowest quintile. The constituencies of Sheffield Central, Heeley and Attercliffe, whilst containing wards with participations rates in the lowest quintile also contained wards with higher participation rates. In stark contrast the wards in the Sheffield Hallam constituency all had participation rates in the highest quintile. The wards contained within the Sheffield Brightside area are more typical of Sheffield's participation rates than those of Sheffield Hallam. Nearly half of the wards in Sheffield (45 per cent) had participation rates in the lowest quintile, whilst less than a fifth (17 per cent) had participation rates in the highest quintile. All but one of the wards with the highest progression rates are in Sheffield Hallam. 7.4 Attitudes, Perceptions and Experiences of Sheffield Brightside 7.4.1 The Place Sheffield Brightside contains one of the largest social housing estates in Europe flanked to the east and south-west by areas of predominately privately owned housing, see Section 2. The area is undergoing massive regeneration of its physical infra- 56 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_03/

101


structure with investment being made in housing redevelopment and refurbishment; the creation of community 'hub' buildings and neighbourhood centres; the development, maintenance and management of open spaces; and investment in school buildings, see Sections 3.2 and 3.3. It is clear that there are separate and distinct neighbourhoods within the area, see Sections 3.3 & 6.3.1. However, residents feel that the area is often viewed by outsiders as one homogenous community. Evidence indicates that residents are generally very positive about living in the area and consider their homes, local schools, community centres and green spaces as assets, see Sections 3.3, 6.2.3.1 & 6.3.1, although there are some residents who express less positive views, see Section 6.3.1. The strongest negative perceptions of the area tended to relate to the unacceptable behaviour of a minority of people rather that place, although there was a feeling that rundown housing stock was to blame for the area's poor reputation, see Section 6.3.1. It was felt that improvements were needed to make the area appear less 'tatty'. More and improved indoor and outdoor facilities, for children, young people and community groups, were a priority. Childcare facilities and the provision of centres for learning, training and community activities were also identified as needs. Schools were acknowledged as physical resources in the neighbourhoods which could be used for the delivery of a wider range of learning, training and community activities, see Section 3.3. The young people who attended the focus groups had a much more negative view of the area than the adult attendees, see Section 6.3.1. They described the area as boring with nothing to do and being a ghetto, this links to the priority identified by the Neighbourhood Strategies that more facilities were needed for young people in the area, see Section 3.3. A relatively small number (17.6 per cent) of the questionnaire respondents indicated that they were planning to leave the area when they graduated. Whilst it is recognised that for mature students a reluctance to leave the area may be due to a range of factors. These include: that they have already bought houses within the area and would not be able to afford to move to other areas of the city where the cost of housing is considerably higher57; that their families are settled and they do not wish to uproot them; that they have jobs in the area and/or a settled lifestyle, this is not necessarily true for respondents who still lived at home with their parents and/or who had fewer barriers to moving. This positive response suggests that people have close affiliations with the area. Good quality housing at affordable prices was nominated as a main priority when choosing an area in which to live, see Section 6.2.3.2. Given that the respondents were already living in the Sheffield Brightside area so in effect had chosen to live there, if good quality housing at affordable prices is a top priority when choosing somewhere to live, then it would seem logical to conclude that the area fulfils this criterion. However, whilst house prices and rents in Sheffield Brightside are some of the lowest in Sheffield58, the fact that the area is undergoing massive regeneration and redevelopment (including the demolition of a large number of houses and extensive modernisation of others) suggest that at present a lot of the housing may not be of a good standard. Therefore, for some the priority is good quality housing at affordable

57 (www.blundells.com/lettings, last accessed 5/11/06) 58 (www.blundells.com/lettings, last accessed 5/11/06)

102


prices. This reflects the area they live in, whilst for others this is what they would like rather than what they currently have. It is possible that some people are caught in a trap with the area they live in not fulfilling their main priorities, but other reasons such as financial considerations and/or family commitments are keeping them in the area. Another high priority identified by residents was a desire to be close to family and friends, see Sections 3.3 and 6.2.3.2. This was a particular feature of the questionnaire responses with 74 per cent of the young respondents currently living with their parents. It is not clear whether these students do so because they enjoy living with their families, do not wish to live independently or because of financial considerations. 7.4.2 The People 7.4.2.1 Social Class There is a striking correlation between the proportions of the population in the higher socio-economic groups and the young participation in higher education rates, see Sections 5.1 & 5.3. Those areas with high proportions of people from the high socio-economic groups have correspondingly high progression rates to higher education. Those areas with fewer people in the higher socio-economic groups have lower rates of progression. The exceptions are Burngreave, Handsworth and Norton - see possible explanation below. 7.4.2.2 Social Housing The areas with high proportions of households living in social housing generally correspond to the areas of low participation in higher education and lower proportions of those from the higher socio-economic groups, Sections 5.1& 5.3. The obvious exceptions in Sheffield are Burngreave, Handsworth and Norton wards. The Burngreave area has a higher proportion of those from the higher socio-economic groups and yet significant areas dominated by social housing. However, the area is typified by lower levels of social housing corresponding to the areas around the Northern General Hospital, which are home to some of the health care professionals working at the hospital. The presence of the hospital in this area could partly account for the higher proportion of people from the higher socio-economic groups. Handsworth has higher proportions of people in the higher socio-economic groups and low percentage of households in privately rented housing, although this area does contain a significant amount of ex-social-housing acquired by tenants through the right to buy programmes. Norton has two social housing estates at either end of the ward which could account for there being a relatively low proportion of people from the higher socio-economic groups, whilst the centre of the ward has high proportions of households living in privately owned or rented accommodation which may account for the participation rates being in the second quintile. 7.4.2.3 Deprivation

103


When comparing the levels of deprivation exhibited by the Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam constituencies, it is evident that there are strong correlations between low participation in higher education, the proportions of households living in social housing and most of the deprivation indices (income; health; education, skills and training; and multiple deprivations). Crime deprivation appears to be a more localised phenomenon, whilst living environment and barriers to housing and services are more difficult to relate, see Sections 5.1 & 5.3. It is also evident that if there is a relationship between low participation in higher education and the socio-economic / deprivation characteristics of a population, then the use of ward/constituency level statistics are at too high a level to enable meaningful identification of pockets of low participation. This is demonstrated by the area of social housing in the south-eastern corner of the Sheffield Hallam constituency - Dore ward. This area experiences similar levels of deprivation as much of Sheffield Brightside, see Section 5.3. Similarly, there are neighbourhoods within Sheffield Brightside which are not 'very' deprived and compare with areas within the 'very' affluent Sheffield Hallam constituency. This supports the argument that low progression to higher education is not a function of 'place' but the 'social and material deprivations' experienced by people, who because of these deprivations are concentrated in areas of social housing. 7.4.2.4 Ethnicity The population of both Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam are predominantly white (less than ten per cent are non-white) although some wards have higher proportions of ethnic minority people, see Section 5.2. Closer examination of the Sheffield Brightside area reveals that the ethnic minority populations are concentrated in pockets/communities, the largest of which is in the south of the Firth Park ward. 7.4.2.5 Employment The employment deprivation index shows that, in Sheffield Brightside, a significant proportion of the working population is excluded from the world of work with approximately 30 per cent of the population on income support, see Sections 2 & 5.3. Much of the unemployment in the area is attributed to the decline in the manufacturing and steel industries in the 1980s. When the large social housing estates were completed in the inter- and post-war periods, whole communities were moved into Sheffield Brightside. The heads of households in these communities worked in the dominant steel and associated manufacturing industries in the adjacent Don Valley, see Section 3.3. Until the 1980s job prospects for residents were good and it was a prosperous working class area. Educational attainment was not a necessity, as after compulsory education, time served apprenticeships in paid employment could be obtained. In the 1980s, the area was hit by the decline in manufacturing industries particularly the steel industry and what followed was large scale unemployment. As a result of this decline in the 1980s, the parents of many young people have had very negative experiences of employment. It may be that the 'grandparent' generation is the only one with a positive experience of employment.

104


One of the many priorities for adults living in the area was gaining employment both for themselves and their young people, see Section 6.3.3. A strong theme within the Neighbourhood Strategies was the need for learning and training provision linked to local job opportunities. The focus was very much about achieving job readiness, see Section 3.3. Interestingly, the availability of suitable employment did not come out as a high priority in the questionnaire survey. However, this finding may reflect the fact that the respondents were students who at the time of survey were not actively seeking change in their employment status as they had not completed their courses, see Section 6.2.3.2. Alternatively, it could reflect the fact that the respondents were confident about finding work once they had graduated because they lived in a city with efficient transportation links which would enable them to travel around the city and to other locations as and when they needed to. After graduating the questionnaire respondents would also have the necessary Level 4 skills which have been identified as necessary for employability in twenty first century Sheffield, see Section 3.1. 7.4.2.6 Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Crime, anti-social behaviour and drug use are considered by residents to be major problems and key priorities are actions to reduce them. However, evidence suggests that crime and poor behaviour are localised and there are neighbourhoods where the issues are not particularly problematic, see Sections 3.3 & 6.3.1. This perception of the localised nature of crime and anti-social behaviour is born out by the statistical evidence provided by the crime deprivation index for 2004, see Section 5.3, and the 2005-06 anti-social behaviour reporting, see Section 3.2. These indicate that these problems are more prevalent in the central/eastern parts of the area which are the less affluent areas where a high proportion of the households live in social housing, see Section 5.3. Given that Sheffield Brightside is an area where a high proportion of Sheffield's registered drug users live, a significant amount of the crime in the area is likely be drug related, Section 3.2. This view is echoed by those living in the area, see Section 6.3.1. Problem households also appear to be concentrated in particular hotspots, not because of any specific policy by the landlords but because their presence results in neighbours moving out to get away from them. The knock-on effect is that micro-areas are created with only other problem households being willing to move into, resulting in a 'ghetto'. It was suggested that landlords in the private sector were driven more by a desire to make money than considerations towards the wider community, see Section 6.3.1. Young people are viewed as perpetrating much of the crime and anti-social behaviour taking place in the area, see Section 6.3.1, with there being a generally negative perception of young people, see Section 3.2. Young people as victims or at risk of being victims of crime and anti-social behaviour has also been identified as an issue which could be having an effect on their attainment and progression, see Section 6.3.1. The criminal and anti-social behaviour of some young people has been attributed to poor parenting. In particular, a lack of discipline and spending time with them, see Section 6.3.1. Criminal behaviour has also been linked to exclusion from school, see

105


Section 3.2. The requirement for facilities for young people has been identified as a particular priority, partly to reduce the numbers 'hanging around'. This lack of things for young people to do is thought to contribute to the instances of anti-social behaviour in the area, see Section 3.3. It has been recognised that community cohesion and the design and management of the physical environment are important factors in mitigating against anti-social behaviour. The extensive regeneration taking place across the area will facilitate the consideration of these issues being built into the regeneration design specifications. Consultation within the local neighbourhoods has shown an aspiration for the neighbourhoods to be made safer, see Section 3.2. 7.4.2.7 Adult Education Attainment Adult education attainment in Sheffield Brightside is very poor and whilst parents with low levels of literacy and numeracy say they help their children with reading and writing and numeracy they are reported to be less confident, see Section 5.4. Significant proportions of the adult populations in Southey Green (27 per cent), Nethershire (24 per cent) and Firth Park (27 per cent) have low levels of literacy equal to or below that which would be expected of an 11 year old, see Section 5.4. The proportions in Owlerton and Brightside are lower at 18 per cent and 19 per cent respectively, nearer to the national average of 16 per cent. In contrast, the Hallam constituency has a much smaller proportion of its population with low levels of literacy, with the wards ranging between 5 and 9 per cent, see Section 5.4. In the Firth Park and Brightside wards, some of the low levels of literacy could be accounted for because English is not the first language of some of the residents. The ethnic minority proportions of the populations are 24 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. However, for much of the Sheffield Brightside the low literacy levels must be a result of poor attainment at school. The comparisons between the Hallam constituency and Sheffield Brightside for the proportions of the adult populations with low levels of numeracy are equally stark. The proportions of those with low level numeracy in Sheffield Brightside are twice that of those in Sheffield Hallam. In the wards in Sheffield Brightside 70 per cent of the population have entry level or below, see Section 5.4. The IT skills of the adult populations in Southey Green, Nether Shire and Firth Park are particularly low, with over 80 percent of the adult population having entry level or lower ICT. The ICT capabilities of the Hallam constituency adult population are at the opposite end of the spectrum, see Section 5.4. Additionally, less than 10 per cent of the adult population in Sheffield Brightside have higher education level qualifications in contrast to Sheffield Hallam where it is over 30 per cent. In some areas of the Hallam constituency approaching half of the adult population has a level 4/5 qualification, see Section 5.4. 7.5 Attitudes, Perceptions and Experiences of the Educational Offer 7.5.1 Educational Infrastructure

106


Secondary level education in Sheffield Brightside is provided through five schools, Chaucer Community School, Firth Park Community College, Hinde House 3-16 School, Parkwood High School, and Yewlands School Technology College, Figure 5.25. DfES money is currently being spent on improving the buildings of three of these five schools, Section 3.3.13. Between the early 1990s and 2004 there was no sixth form provision in Sheffield Brightside for these schools to feed directly into, although there was some post-16 provision at Parson Cross College. Therefore if pupils wanted to progress to a sixth form they had to travel to other parts of the city. In 2004, with the opening of Longley Park Sixth Form College this situation changed. Whilst it is recognised that the opening of Longley Park Sixth Form College will have had a major impact on education in Sheffield Brightside, because a review of the college (due for publication in summer 2006) has not yet been published, Section 3.1, it has not been possible to report on this aspect. 7.5.2 Educational Attainment and Progression The 2005 KS3 results for the Sheffield Brightside constituency showed that the proportion of pupils achieving Level 5 or above in English, Maths and Science was around 50 per cent which was consistently lower compared with the average for the Sheffield Hallam constituency (around 80 per cent) and the average for Sheffield (between 64 and 69 per cent). This finding suggests that by the time Sheffield Brightside pupils are entering secondary education they are already lagging behind their counterparts in other areas of the city. Unsurprisingly, this has a knock-on effect for KS4 attainment levels, with 68 per cent of Sheffield Brightside pupils failing to reach Level 2 (5 or more A* - C grade GCSEs or equivalent), 18 per cent failing to achieve Level 1 (5 or more A* - G grade GCSEs or equivalent) and 9 per cent not gaining any qualifications. This can be compared to the Sheffield Hallam constituency in which 31 per cent of pupils fail to reach Level 2, 8 per cent fail to achieve Level 1 and only 2 per cent do not gain any qualifications. In the same year, progression from Sheffield Brightside’s schools to FE ranged from approximately 40 to 70 per cent, whilst progression into employment and/or training ranged from approximately 20 to 30 per cent. There were also a further 5 to 20 per cent of pupils from schools in Sheffield Brightside who were described at this point as not settled or unemployed. Whilst Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam had approximately the same number of 18-year-olds residents, more than five times as many 18-year-olds from Sheffield Hallam successfully secured ("accepted" applicants) a place in higher education through UCAS compared to 18-year-olds from Sheffield Brightside. Whilst at the age of 19 there was a similar percentage of progression from both constituencies, after this age a larger percentage of Sheffield Brightside residents entered higher education compared to residents of the same age from Sheffield Hallam, which probably reflects the much smaller pool of residents in Sheffield Hallam who after the age of 20 have not been through higher education. To a degree, the fact that compared to Sheffield schools in general many pupils in Sheffield Brightside do not gain the basic qualifications which would allow them entry onto KS4 courses, explains why fewer students from Sheffield Brightside compared to the other Sheffield constituencies progress to further and higher education. However, there also seems to be a high drop out in terms of progression to higher education from further education. In the Ofsted reports for the Sheffield Brightside schools it is acknowledged that teaching standards on the whole are satisfactory to good but that the entry level of

107


many of the pupils is considerable lower than national average, see Appendix 14. In the focus groups, parents did not see the problem with poor attainment levels as being due to poor teaching standards in Sheffield Brightside schools but instead considered the problem to be due to poor parenting skills. Many parents in the area were considered to take a too lax approach to disciplining their children and/or as not spending enough time with their children, see Section 6.3.1. In the Ofsted reports, high absenteeism and poor punctuality are identified as consistent problems within each of the schools, and are considered to be contributory factors to low attainment, see Appendix 14. 7.5.3 Curriculum, Assessment and Pedagogy There was some indication of an improvement in the way in which the five secondary level schools in Sheffield Brightside are being managed and education is being delivered. For example, whilst the most recent Ofsted reports, see Appendix 14, describe literacy and numeracy levels as being "low" and the standards of attainment as depressed, they acknowledge that there were improvements since the last Ofsted visits. Particular strengths were teachers' planning to meet individual needs, the management of behaviour and the care afforded to pupils, work-place learning, extra-curricular activities and some vocational courses. Leadership and management across all of the schools were rated as "good" or better and were seen as having had a significant impact on standards. The work of some head teachers/principals was described as "outstanding" and "excellent". Support from senior staff and governing bodies to provide a clear agenda for continued improvement was also described as positive. Ofsted identified many areas of improvement, including better planning and monitoring and curriculum breadth and balance. Attendance was described as remaining "poor" with lack of support from families being identified as one of the main barriers to improved attendance. Punctuality to school and lessons was also identified as being "unsatisfactory". In spite of the good progress made, Ofsted stated that there was "still much more to be achieved". There was reference in the interviews and focus groups to new and innovative initiatives which had been introduced to some of the secondary schools within Sheffield Brightside in an attempt to increase attainment. For example, one school has introduced a pathways orientated curriculum at KS4 which includes standard GCSEs, vocational qualifications and off site learning. The programme works by matching the pupil to an appropriate pathway according to the pupil’s aptitude and abilities. Some pupils at the age of 14 were working in the workplace for 5 days a week and returning to school for 2 evenings a week to study for core GCSEs, see Section 6.3.3. Schools in Sheffield Brightside are also engaged in the extended schools initiative (see section on extended schools below). 7.5.4 Ethnicity In the 2001 census data, four of the five Sheffield Brightside wards were reported as having 10 per cent or less of the population from an ethnic minority background whilst the Firth Park ward was reported as having 22 per cent of the population from an ethic minority background, see Figure 5.2. These differences are reflected somewhat in the Ofsted reports for the individual schools, see Appendix 14. Hinde House 3-16 school

108


at secondary level was reported as having 25 per cent of pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds, including "a well above average" proportion with refugee or asylum seeker status. Firth Park Community Arts College was reported as having 24 per cent of pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds with approximately 3 per cent having refugee or asylum seeker status. Parkwood High School was reported as having 20 per cent of pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds including some with refugee status. Chaucer Community School and Yewlands School Technology College, which are both in the north west of the constituency, were reported as having “very few” pupils from an ethnic minority background. The challenge for the former schools is that for many of these pupils English is not their first language and is not spoken in their homes. In addition, the standards and expectations of the school may, in some cases, be very different to their previous experiences of school life, and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) citizens in Sheffield are more likely to be unemployed and to live in poor standard housing, see Sections 3.1 & 3.2. However, the 2005 figures for “accepted” applications to Higher Education via UCAS showed that, whilst overall 28 per cent of “accepted” applicants from Sheffield Brightside were from ethnic minority backgrounds, in the Firth Park ward 59 per cent of accepted applicants were from an ethnic minority background, see Table 5.18. These figures suggest that pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds in Sheffield Brightside are progressing to Higher Education in higher proportions than white pupils. However, as only a small number of pupils from Sheffield Brightside progress to Higher Education, it may be that students from both ethnic minority backgrounds and white backgrounds within Sheffield Brightside are under-represented in the “accepted” applications figure. Interestingly, young people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds who took part in the focus groups cited religion as a major influencer, which was said to provide discipline and focus in their lives and support for their educational ambitions, see Section 6.3.5. It is worth noting that none of the secondary schools in Sheffield Brightside are faith schools. 7.5.5 Special Educational Needs (SEN) In 2005 in Sheffield Brightside schools there was a lower than national average percentage of statemented SENs pupils at KS3 and KS4. There was a higher than national average percentage of SENs pupils without statements, see Tables 5.2 & 5.4. The latest Ofsted reports for the individual schools show the percentage of pupils with SEN being between 20 per cent and 50 per cent, see Appendix 14. The fact that the majority of these pupils are not in receipt of a statement suggests that the schools in Sheffield Brightside have either the expertise already within the school to support pupils with a range of SENs without requiring any extra assistance, or that for some reason the pupils with SENs within Sheffield Brightside are not receiving the additional help which they would receive if they were at schools outside of Sheffield Brightside. From the Ofsted reports the former would seem to be the most appropriate conclusion, although there was concern that the more challenging pupils were not receiving sufficient individual support. The challenge for schools with such a high proportion of pupils with SEN is to provide an inclusive education in keeping with the Every Child Matters 59ethos. If pupils are stratified by prior achievement, then pupils with SEN may

59 Every Child Matters: Change for Children is a new approach to the well-being of children and young people from birth to age 19. The Government's aim is for every child, whatever their background or their circumstances, to have the support they need to: be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution, achieve economic well-being. (http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/aims/ Last accessed November 12th 2006).

109


end up being educated in a class in which all pupils have SEN which rather defeats the aims of inclusive education, see Appendix 14 - section on Chaucer Community School. Whilst within the focus groups there was a lot of discussion about dyslexia and how difficult it was to get oneself or one’s child assessed, see Section 6.3.6, within the Ofsted reports there was no reference to pupils with dyslexia, instead the main SEN focus was on education provision for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties, see Appendix 14. 7.5.6 Careers Education and Development In terms of careers education, all five schools were described as having good provision for work-related learning although Firth Park Community Arts College was described as somewhat limited in terms of careers advice, see Appendix 14. Both teaching staff and parents referred to the work of Aimhigher who were praised for the career’s support and guidance which they provided in schools and through their liaisons with other agencies such as universities. However, parents noted that at times they needed information that they could not ask for at parents evening because they did not want to ask in front of their children and that the information that came through the post or was available on the web did not always adequately address the issues which they were interested in. Aimhigher is working with secondary schools within Sheffield Brightside to raise the aspirations of young people and their families, see Sections 3.3.11 & 3.4.4. For example, in 2005-06 a number of Aimhigher activities aimed at Y9 and Y10 pupils as well as Y7 pupils identified as widening participation/gifted and talented were carried out in secondary schools across Sheffield Brightside. Whilst the widening participation/gifted and talented initiative is valued by parents of the identified pupils, it is also seen as marginalising and excluding pupils who did not reach the necessary criterion or who were not attending the school at the time of selection, see Section 6.3.4. 7.5.7 Adult Learners and Community Education Whilst there is evidence of adults from Sheffield Brightside entering higher education as mature learners, see Section 6.2.2, initiatives aimed at encouraging adult participation in learning at the lower end of the education spectrum (basic skills) have been reported as meeting with limited success. For example, Southey Green was cited as having the lowest number of adult enrolments (19+) on LSC core funded adult learning provision, see Section 3.2. Anecdotal evidence, however, from tutors in the community involved in the delivery of core skills for employability, as opposed to educational development, suggests that progress is being made but that it is very slow as there is first a need to develop trust and confidence before residents will enrol on the basic skills courses. One of the big challenges for community groups who are involved in the delivery of basic skills training is that they are often dependent upon short-term funding which often includes restrictions which means that they do not have access to the groups of people whom they feel would benefit most from their services. The issue was also raised that there may be too many projects all trying to target the

110


same group of people, for example, ICT skill training, and that there is a need for a more co-ordinated approach to community education, see Section 6.3.3. Evidence suggests that although adults have few formal qualifications they have a desire to enter and progress their employment opportunities, see Sections 3.3, 5.4 & 6.3.6. The development of the sub-regional economy needs a higher proportion of the local work force to develop the high level skills and learning, see Section 3.1. Adults in areas such as Sheffield Brightside represent an untapped resource. Access is the traditional route for those with few formal qualifications to engage with higher education. These programmes have been available at level 2 and 3, but funding for these programmes has been eroded resulting in fewer places being available and these being focused increasingly on the 19 to 24 age group at the expense of more mature learners, given that the 25s and over will have to pay their own fees. This approach will be a huge disincentive on the 25s and over from low income backgrounds to progress to higher education, see Section 6.3.3. A system of means testing would seem a more appropriate way of facilitating progression of mature students from low income backgrounds. The more adults engaged in education and learning, the greater the chance of young people progressing. Since 2003, the Government’s introduction of the Every Child Matters agenda has brought about a large number of changes in the way in which Local Councils provide for the care and wellbeing of the children who in live in the local area. This has included Sure Start programmes, Children Centres and the Extended School initiative, see Sections 3.2 & 3.3.12. Whilst the main focus is to improve the lives of children, an additional benefit is that those members of the community who are involved with the care of children, either as parents or in a more professional role, are exposed to education as it is through educating parents and carers that the lives of children can be improved. There are currently three Sure Start programmes operating in Sheffield Brightside which provide support for families of pre-school children, Sheffield Council is implementing Government plans to create Children’s Centres, four of which will be in Sheffield Brightside, and all of the schools in Sheffield Brightside have extended school status. 7.6 Attitudes, Perceptions and Experiences of Influences on Progression 7.6.1 Role Models In the focus groups and interviews the need for good role models in terms of parents, older siblings and cousins who have progressed to Higher Education was emphasised with some of the participants citing their own personal experience. However, the fact that very few people in Sheffield Brightside have progressed to Higher Education and stayed within the community would suggest that there are very few “good” role models available. The fact that many of the questionnaire respondents indicated that they would be staying in the area after graduation, see Table 6.2.19, is a positive finding in that these respondents may become role models for other people within the community who may then progress to Higher Education. Aimhigher is also trying to address the need for community role models via their Graduation Project, see Section 3.4.3. Whilst the project has been reported as being popular with staff it has met with limited success amongst the pupils at which it is aimed which is probably due to the fact that the pupils do not personally know who the graduates are.

111


7.6.2 Family, Peer and Community The importance of family, extended family and friends has been shown throughout this report as being important to people living in Sheffield Brightside. In relation to education, achievement and progression parents are very much seen as influencers, both positive and negative. In a 2002 research report commission by LSC South Yorkshire, see Section 3.4.5, conflict between raising aspirations and loyalty towards family, peer group and community; negative pressures from peer groups and parents/families, and a perceived low family/parental involvement in creating and/or supporting children through their higher education progression, were identified as barriers to participation in HE. Whilst it was not possible to determine from the report if these findings were typical of the attitudes and experiences of young people living in the Sheffield Brightside constituency, the fact that the majority of the respondents to the questionnaire survey cited parents, siblings, friends and spouses as key influences when making their decision to progress to higher education, suggests that the support or lack of support of these key individuals may determine whether or not a student progresses. The lack of parental support by some parents was also cited by Ofsted as a reason for the high absentee rates identified in secondary schools in Sheffield Brightside, see Appendix 14. Parents in the focus groups, who tended to be parents who were involved in their children's education, blamed lack of parenting skills or the lack of parental investment by other parents as a reason for the low attainment rates of the local schools, see Section 6.3.1. There was a perception that other schools did better than their local schools, because the parents of the pupils spent more time with their children and supervised them more. Whilst parents were critical of other parents, there was also recognition that for many parents in Sheffield Brightside 'life wasn't easy' and that this might be a contributing factor to their poor parenting skills. One of the findings which came out very strongly from the focus groups was that parents were in favour of their children pursuing academic courses if they resulted in a "useful" qualification, in other words if there was a qualification which provided direct entry to a well-paid job, see Section 6.3.2. Courses such as media studies were considered by them to be expensive luxuries and very much a waste of time as the time spent on the course could have been used more productively by the young person going into the workplace and getting work based experience. Although there was some evidence of families moving into and out of the area on quite a rapid basis, see Appendix 14, there was also evidence of extended families that had lived in the area for a number of generations. For young people who belong to the latter type of family, the local community may be the only “world” which the young person knows and therefore the “world” outside the local community may be perceived as threatening and frightening because it is the unknown. The idea that parents in Sheffield Brightside were overly protective of their children was brought up by a number of the professionals, see Section 6.3.8, and was seen as one of the barriers to progression. Whilst the fact that Longley Park Sixth Form is within the constituency may address the problem in the short term, there is still the fact that moving into Higher Education would require the young person to go outside of the local area.

112


7.6.3 Media From the focus group discussion it became apparent that there were two distinct strands to the media, one relating to commercial advertising, and the other relating to journalists reporting on student life. In regards to the former, Aimhigher’s use of the media to disseminate information about financial issues relating to higher education was seen as successful, see Section 6.3.7. However, it was suggested that for communities where it is often difficult to provide for the most basic needs, the way in which journalists constantly refer to student debt and especially the figures that they quote, could cause feelings of exclusion and a sense that it is not for 'the likes of us'. The media also fails to get across the message that grants and financial assistance are available to students who live in low-income families, and that when these students graduate they will not necessarily be burdened with debt. 7.6.4 Careers/Progression Advice The questionnaire findings show that respondents were more likely to indicate that they had been given good advice about progression to higher education when they were at college/sixth form compared to when they were at secondary school. This finding suggests, although further evidence would be needed to substantiate this suggestion, that progression advice given at secondary level may be focussed on progression to further education as opposed to higher education. However, it must also be noted that even the youngest respondents left secondary level education a minimum of three years ago and that in that time there has been changes in Aimhigher policy which are not reflected in the comments of the respondents, see Section 3.3.11. The fact that over 50 per cent of the mature respondents indicated that they had not been given good advice about progression whilst at college or sixth form is concerning, as is the fact that only 7 per cent of mature students and 20 per cent of young students cited a career advisor as being influential in their decision to progress. This finding suggests that more work needs to be done at further education level in encouraging and supporting students who have the potential to progress to higher education. The fact that parents, spouses, siblings and friends were shown to be the main influencers for both young and mature respondents when making their decision to go onto higher education suggests that knowledge about educational progression needs to be made available to a wider audience than just the student who is making the decision.

113


8. Conclusions To ensure, as far as possible, the robustness of the research findings a range of research methodologies were utilised. These included a review of local strategies and literature, quantitative analysis at ward and LSOA level of a range of data sets relating directly to Sheffield Brightside (with comparisons being drawn with Sheffield Hallam), a questionnaire survey of existing Sheffield Hallam University undergraduate students who had postal addresses in the Sheffield Brightside constituency, plus focus groups and interviews with professionals working in educational settings responsible for activity in the Sheffield Brightside area and people living and/or working in the area. Whilst it is recognised that representation from the latter groups was somewhat limited and therefore the findings from this section (6.3) cannot and must not be used in isolation, the inclusion of this section supports and extends many of the findings in the earlier sections. The report has confirmed the link between low progression to higher education rates and socio-economic context/deprivation. It has also identified the existence of considerable heterogeneity, when Sheffield Brightside and Sheffield Hallam are examined at low-level geographies60. This heterogeneity is not shown when using constituency or ward level statistics. Pockets of deprivation exist in 'affluent' areas and 'deprived' areas contain areas which are less deprived. By analogy, this would suggest that progression rates across an area such as Sheffield Brightside will not be homogeneous and the spectrum of participation could range from none to reasonable. This adds weight to the argument that it is not place but individual social circumstances which dictate one's potential to progress to higher education, i.e., if the right family and social environment is created around the young person then their potential can be released. The industrial decline in the 1980s and 1990s led to Sheffield experiencing enormous social and economic hardship. Whilst the impact was experienced across the whole of the city, areas such as Sheffield Brightside where the workforce had primarily been engaged in the steel industry experienced the greatest hardship. Although this report has focused primarily on the Sheffield Brightside constituency, with Sheffield Hallam constituency (with its high progression to higher education rates) being used as a comparator, it should be noted that the levels of progression experienced by young people in Sheffield Brightside is much more typical of Sheffield as a whole than those of Sheffield Hallam. Parents living in areas such as Sheffield Brightside who have high aspirations for their children will either attempt to move physically or, if a place can be obtained, will 'bus' their children to schools in the south-west of the city. It is perceived that pupils in these schools/6th forms perform better because they belong to cohorts of developed, motivated and supported young people. Therefore, the emphasis for areas such as Sheffield Brightside has to be on developing, motivating and supporting the children and their parents who stay in the area. Raising the level of skills and learning amongst a larger proportion of the population in Sheffield Brightside and similar areas of Sheffield is critical to the regeneration of the areas and the economic regeneration of the city and wider region. For these families the report findings suggest that the emphasis needs to be on "job readiness" rather than on academic achievement for its own sake. 60 Lower Super Output Areas

114


Despite the levels of deprivation experienced by people living in the areas, generally residents are positive about Sheffield Brightside. Sheffield City Council has recognised the issues, which exist in the area, and has made strategic decisions to focus significant amounts of resource at the whole area. The regeneration initiatives operating in the area are focused on increasing community cohesion and improving the physical environment and infrastructure. This regeneration will contribute to the alleviation of many of the factors that are having a negative impact on Sheffield Brightside and external perceptions of the area. However, although money is beginning to be spent on Sheffield Brightside's outward rejuvenation, educational attainment levels of both adults and children are still severely depressed. Historically, Sheffield Brightside residents were able to progress from compulsory level education straight into the work place where they would develop their vocational skills through apprenticeship training there has been only a limited history of progression into higher education. This means that very few of the long-term residents of Sheffield Brightside have experienced higher education. Nowadays, whilst between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of pupils from Sheffield Brightside secondary schools progress to further education establishments very few of Sheffield Brightside's young people progress onto higher education. One reason for this lack of progression may be related to the fact that a large proportion of Sheffield Brightside pupils fail to attain at level 2 at the end of compulsory education. Consequently, they are not in a position to progress to level 3 and subsequently to higher education at 18/19 as, at 16/17, they are only eligible to take level 2 equivalents. Adults in Sheffield Brightside consider that what are needed for a large proportion of their young people are funded paid apprenticeships, which allow for the development of practical rather than academic skills. However, to maintain parity of esteem it will be important that these apprenticeships are seen as a possible route into higher education, i.e., a progression from compulsory education through a range of vocational pathways which run in parallel to the more traditional academic route through to the achievement of higher level skills and learning. The report identifies numerous reasons for poor educational development. These include a lack of good educational role models in the community and the fact that many of the young people are affected by social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties themselves or are in a learning environment with other pupils who have these difficulties and who therefore disrupt their learning. Poor parenting, in that parents have not had good role models themselves to model their parenting skills upon, and/or that parents are experiencing adverse difficulties will also be contributory factors. There is also a lack of guidance on academic progression that is delivered in a way that is understandable to both the students and their family members. Whilst all of these factors can be seen as barriers to progression, they are not insurmountable barriers. Sure Start, Children Centres and the Extended Schools initiative, which are all aimed at supporting parents and their children, have been introduced into Sheffield Brightside. In addition there are people within the community who have been or who are Higher Education students, although their numbers are relatively low they may become educational role models within the community. The report has shown that Aimhigher appears to be working well in Sheffield Brightside and it is welcomed and valued by the young people who fall into the

115


identified61cohorts, their parents/guardians and teachers. However, in areas such as Sheffield Brightside initiatives such as Aimhigher can only have a limited impact because they are targeted at those with 'the potential to progress to higher education'. The focus of Aimhigher is aimed at too high a level for many young people in Sheffield Brightside. What is needed is a parallel focus on the progression of young people into further education - Aimfurther. An Aimfurther campaign would support young people progressing into FE, who have not achieved at level 2, to obtain a full level 2 and raise their aspiration to complete level 3 qualification(s). A larger proportion of young people with level 3 qualifications will lead to larger numbers being in a position to progress to HE. Parents, extended family members and friends have been shown to be major influencers when decisions about progressing to higher education are made. The report has also shown that the reverse may happen and that these same people may discourage young people from progressing if they believe that it would not be in the young person's interest to progress. These beliefs are often based on the prior experiences and knowledge of the individuals. Many adults in the Sheffield Brightside constituency have a very limited knowledge and experience of further and higher education and how these relate to the modern workplace. In areas of low educational achievement, attention needs to be given to the raising of aspirations of parents for their children (as well as the young people themselves) to develop and achieve higher level skills so that they can progress to good local jobs and/or further and higher education. Grandparents have been identified as important influencers, as the may be the only members of some families who have had positive experiences of employment. Consequently targeting information, about pathways into jobs in the local employment growth areas, at this group is seen as important. An acknowledgement of the low levels of literacy amongst 20 - 25 per cent of the population needs to be considered when providing information and or communicating in writing with people in these communities. Careful consideration needs to be given to using the internet or other IT enabled technologies to communicate with adults in areas such as Sheffield Brightside. The low IT skills base means that adults may not be capable of accessing information in this format and even if they can it is doubtful that the language used would be suitable for them to engage with. Similarly, the numeracy skills of a significant proportion are very low and their ability to deal with complex financial information will be at least a challenge. Although there are issues with funding and the availability of places for mature students wanting to progress to higher education via Access, there is a recognised route available. There seem to be a lack of explicit routes, which facilitate engagement with level 2 study and progression to work based/vocational learning and skills development for mature learners, i.e. Apprenticeships (or equivalent) and progression to work based Higher Education Certificates and beyond. The notion of the HE Certificate (HNC) as the first rung of HE study seems to have been lost from the current agenda even though for many potential learners (or their influencers) and employers this is (was) a familiar concept. This is especially pertinent as the certificate would seem to fulfil the criteria of 'participation' identified in the 50 per cent target. There is a greater focus on the Foundation Degree, which for many potential learners may be too high a level of commitment and/or they are not confident that they can attain at that level. This is applicable to both young and mature learners. 61 Widening Participation and Gifted & Talented

116


9. Recommendations • Promoting Post Compulsory Progression Pathways Consideration needs to be given to the promotion of Apprenticeships/work based learning (WBL) and/or vocational/work related learning (WRL) progression opportunities for young people leaving compulsory education without achieving level 2. These routes would need to focus initially on raising the skills, knowledge, understanding and confidence of the young people at level 2 (intermediate) followed by progression to level 3 and beyond. The focus would ideally fit within the existing/developing lifelong learning network framework. The potential for achieving a higher education qualification should be an integral part of the progression routes, to ensure parity of esteem, whilst acknowledging that the pathways and the time taken would be different from a 'traditional' route. However, the primary focus of the progression routes would be the achievement a full level 2 qualification, and raised aspirations to progress and achieve at level 3, thereby increasing the proportions of young people with level 3 qualifications and the potential to progress to the acquisition of high level skills. • Aimfurther (to Aimhigher) Consideration should be given to the development/re-branding of aspects of the Aimhigher initiative, which focus on raising the aspirations, attainment and progression of young people from compulsory education into further education and then beyond. Such an initiative would promote the acquisition of high level skills and learning to improve employability and link them to the employment opportunities locally and regionally, and the ambitions of the long term Regional Economic Strategy. • Provision of Information for Influencers Consideration should be given to expanding activity that influences and informs parents, guardians and key adults about the need for young people to develop high level skills. This information needs to integrate the potential progression pathways and link to the employment opportunities in the local region. Careful consideration needs to be given to the most appropriate methods to engage with and inform these groups. In particular, thought needs to be given to the suitability of language used, the means by which the messages are delivered and where the best place to deliver them is.

117


• Progression Routes for Mature Learners Consideration needs to be given to ensuring the promotion and funding of skills development and learning for the adult population living in low participation areas. This could include the promotion and provision of information about existing local progression to HE routes (e.g. Access) and the potential development of adult focused routes to enable the of develop skills and learning at level 2 through to level 3 and beyond in vocational / work based contexts. This is important to not only ensure the greater employability of the adult population but also because adults (parents/guardians/family members) who learn can influence, empathise and support young people in their learning, • Community Engagement As part of their wider community engagement strategies, universities need to consider how they can facilitate a coherent and sustainable presence in low participation neighbourhoods and the ways in which they can make significant and measurable contributions to the social and economic transformation of these areas. This presence could use the developing community resources, e.g. community centres and extended schools. As part of their strategies, universities should promote and raise the profile of the elements of their offer that are in tune with the priorities of young people and parents in these communities e.g. highlight the work based, work related nature of programmes and the employability of their diplomats and graduates.

118

young participation in higher education in the parliamentary

Documents