What did parents think of work experience?

Read the report from SPTC's survey on work experience which was sent to our members earlier this year.

Report on Work Experience Consultation

Process

In January 2005 we sent the attached consultation to all our member schools. Although work experience is done in secondary schools, and so the survey was of more relevance to them, we decided to send it to primary schools as well to raise awareness of the issue with prospective secondary parents. We asked members to discuss work experience either within the PTA committee or more widely. As usual, it was encouraging that some schools did send the consultation out to all parents although overall the number who responded was not large. However, several people supplemented their response with comments and it is clear from these that the survey stimulated some very thoughtful discussion.

Response

We asked respondents to give us the actual numbers of those voting in the survey. Unfortunately, some schools returned their forms with just “unanimous” or a tick. We counted “unanimous” as 10 votes, but ticks on their own were counted as 1 vote. Using these conventions, we heard back from 428 individuals in 45 schools (23 primaries; 20 secondaries; 1 primary/secondary and 1 not identified) across 21 local authorities.

Respondents were asked to vote for one of three options, and everyone did this – there was no evidence of double voting.

Option 1 - for the status quo, attracted 43.2% of the votes overall but 63.5% of the secondary votes.
Option 2 - called for change, but did not specify any alternative system. This attracted 9.6% of votes overall and 10.5% of secondary votes. Option 3 - proposed an alternative system for organising work experience that was more flexible and proposed a series of “taster weeks” throughout the year. This was the most popular option overall attracting 47.2% of the votes, but only 26% of secondary votes.

Comments

As always, the comments put some flesh on the numbers. It was clear from a number of respondents that the survey prompted them to find out about work experience for the first time. A number of primary schools commented about talking to parents and/or teachers who already had children in secondary schools who had done work experience. The parents in one secondary school took the opportunity to discuss the school’s policy with the staff for the first time, and discovered that not all S4 pupils went out on a week’s work experience “due to lack of meaningful placements and increased health and safety restrictions”. There were some youngsters who left that particularl school having had no work experience and often parents had to organise it for themselves. Quite clearly, personal experience was very important in determining what PTAs decided. So whilst one secondary school wrote that the “current system is a waste of time for most pupils” another reported that “the current system…..works well here”. A number of secondary schools said that it would be difficult to plan if youngsters went out of school throughout the year in ones and twos, rather than as at present in two or three clearly defined weeks. This practical consideration was the main reason why primary and secondary schools had such different views on the options. Primary parents looked at work experience from the outside and were attracted to the “idea” of a scheme that would provide their youngsters with opportunities to explore different careers. The secondary schools were often strongly influenced by teachers who pointed out the practical difficulties of more flexible scheme. Rural schools also doubted whether, if work experience moved to a system of taster weeks, anyone would provide such weeks in their more remote areas.

However, one piece of interesting feedback came from a GP in a rural area. She reported that “most pupils wishing to make a career in medicine seek an attachment at the local GP surgery on an informal basis”. She said that “making this a more formal opportunity would make this attachment easier to plan and accommodate”.

Similarly, one school that supported the current system had itself developed a variation on the current system; many sixth year pupils organised placements for themselves as pre-university professional taster sessions.

From one authority, we heard that the whole process was organised – and organised well - by the authority; the burden on guidance staff was reduced to helping pupils fill in forms.

One of our suggestions was that jobs not currently part of the work experience programme could be included in a different model and we highlighted the shortage of long-distance lorry drivers. However, there was no support – even hostility – to this suggestion so I’m afraid the road haulage industry has still to work hard to make itself seem attractive to parents and teachers.

Conclusion

This survey had two purposes. The first was to find out what parents think and the second was to get people talking about work experience. It is clear that whilst work experience is not naturally a “hot” topic, once people start to discuss it, interesting ideas emerge. We are encouraged that so many people did respond and particularly grateful to those schools that sent the survey out more widely. The survey showed that there is a level of dissatisfaction with the present system of work experience; that the quality of the experience varies not only across the country but from school to school and that people have different views about what it is meant to deliver. However, there is also an understanding that any scheme has to result in minimal disruption and the present system scores well on this point. There is scope for improvement, but what that improvement should be is, as always, less clear.

April 2005