College lecturers blame poor advice and guidance for student drop out

"Student Services Guidance people keep sending us the wrong students, students who don`t really understand what the course is all about and students who are not particularly up to it; no wonder we get so many dropping out. It was different in the past when we could recruit our own students."

Statements like this from college lecturers were not uncommon in my experience in further education firstly as a teacher, and then as a manager of College Student Services. Of course, the criticism wasn`t always one-way. Student Services advisers would sometimes point out to teaching staff that they had a responsibility to make their courses more student-centred, and more likely to engage and retain students. A common riposte was: "When are teaching staff going to understand that the students we have are the students we have, and we have to adapt to them and not vice versa."

So does the quality of pre-course guidance really make a difference in terms of retention and drop out?

How important is high quality information, advice and guidance, delivered by professionals, to student retention and achievement? What is the impact of such IAG in terms of individual student success?

It is true that some recent research has highlighted the importance of application processes and procedures, including pre-course guidance, in the effective recruitment and retention of post-16 learners. Martinez and Munday (1998) reported: "Students on the wrong courses are more likely to drop out, and appropriate selection to courses by central admissions or specialist staff is of crucial importance to retention".

Another study by The Responsive College Unit (1998) sought to differentiate withdrawn from completing students. This study found that withdrawn students, unlike completing students, were dissatisfied with a number of aspects of their college experience, including the suitability of their programme of study. In the reports` conclusions it was noted that: “It was also significant that thorough pre-course guidance and a good course induction had clear impacts on later retention."

But what about the quality of the teaching? Doesn`t that make a big difference to student drop-out?

The Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) has supported a number of strategies employed by colleges to raise retention and achievement at levels 1 and 2 as part of the DfES-funded Raising Quality and Achievement (RQA) programme. Many of the more successful strategies emphasised the importance of the role of the teacher in being enthusiastic about their subject, in motivating students and giving them self-esteem and in involving parents/guardians.

So both the quality of pre-course guidance and of teaching and learning have some impact on student retention and drop-out, but what other factors are there?

The Responsive College Unit study (1998), already referred to above, found that students who dropped out of their courses are more likely to be:

• On lower level courses
• Older than their 16-18 year old fellow students
• Previously unemployed
• Unwilling to take part in college activities
• Late in coming to a decision about enrolling at college

As well as commenting upon the importance of pre-course guidance, the report`s conclusions also noted that: "One of the clearest findings is that, even at the very start of courses, many students can predict their own non-completion. Even more important is the suggestion that college staff can also detect at risk students and that this detection can come from exploring students` attitudes as well as their circumstances."

There are many other factors involved in student retention including the financial and home to college transport circumstances of students. A report from the Centre for Guidance Studies, commissioned by Connexions Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin (2002), has highlighted most of the numerous factors involved and has summarised in further detail much of the recent research in this area.

What can be done to stop students dropping-out, and where`s the role of guidance in all of this?

Despite all of the studies that have tried to identify the reasons why students drop out, and despite numerous government and college-led initiatives to improve the situation, improvements in retention rates have been very modest over the last few years. LSC data show that many colleges still report full-time student retention rates of less than 80%.

Not surprisingly, the studies referred to have addressed the various measures that colleges and others could do to improve retention. Understandably, these studies do not concern themselves with what the individual student can do to ensure his or her own completion and success. Yet the Responsive College Unit study (1998), acknowledges that", ...even at the very start of courses, many students can predict their own non-completion", and that "... college staff can also detect at risk students and that this detection can come from exploring students` attitudes as well as their circumstances."

Could it be that more attention needs to be focussed upon the student’s responsibility for ensuring his or her own completion and success?

Could it be that some 16-18 year olds are just not suited to full-time post-16 education and that it is the responsibility of guidance workers to be more challenging in pointing out the likelihood of drop-out when this is clearly indicated?

Just like the high numbers of 16-18 year olds in the "not in employment, education and training" (NEET) group that are stubbornly hard to reduce, could it be that there is a significant minority of post-16 students who are resistant to any measures to retain them? Could it even be that there is minority of 16-18 year olds who simply lack the motivation and self-discipline to sustain any medium to long-term commitment, whether this be education, training or employment?

Where`s this going to next?

My intention has been to open up a debate on the relationship between guidance and retention by raising some controversial issues in a fairly direct way. I have also tried to give some access to the relevant, underlying research reports and data.

Where it goes to next will depend on whether anyone wishes to respond and, if so, in what direction.

Geoff Gration, Associate Researcher
Centre for Guidance Studies

Associated bibliography and references

Martinez and Munday 1998

Martinez P., Munday F. (1998). Voices: Student Persistence and Drop Out in Further Education. Further Education Development Agency Study of student retention and drop out based on research involving 9000 points of view from students, teachers and managers.

National Retention Survey Report

Responsive College Unit (1998) National retention survey report. RCU Publications, Preston

In this survey 6495 students from 26 colleges completed questionnaires in September 1997 and 5730 were tracked through to the end of January 1998. Of the students tracked, 12% had left their courses before the end of January 1998. The main outcome of the survey was to identify those characteristics that distinguished non-completers from completers.

Raising Quality and Acheivement (RQA) Program

The RQA programme helps colleges improve quality standards and students' achievements.

Bysshe and Hughes 2002

Bysshe S, Hughes D. (2002) Retention, Achievement and Progression in Level Two Provision – Key Messages from Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin. Centre for Guidance Studies, University of Derby.

The LSC

The LSC has a section of its website dedicated to benchmarking data to enable colleges to make comparisons and set targets as a part of quality improvement strategies.