Briefing No. 3 - Future Plans and Aspirations

Context

The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented disruption in young people’s lives – including school closures (necessitating a move to home-based learning) and exam cancellations. The learning loss associated with these lockdown experiences (see the COSMO briefings on Lockdown Learning¹ and Education Recovery and Catch Up)², together with challenges faced in young people’s personal lives, had scope to have major impacts on their plans and aspirations – be this applying for university, pursuing a vocational qualification or thinking about their future career path. 

During school closures in England, pupils were less likely to access and receive information, advice and guidance about post-18 education options from career advisers and they were more likely to rely on friends and family for information.³ Reduced career guidance provided to pupils as a result of school closures meant that pupils were less certain about their future plans and their knowledge of higher education, and apprenticeship and labour market opportunities.⁴ Evidence from Wales shows that uncertainty of how grades would be awarded – as well as being unable to attend university open days – meant that many pupils believed they lacked the necessary knowledge to decide upon their future pathways and were fearful of making the wrong decision.⁵ Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds were especially less likely to access high quality information, guidance and advice on post-18 education options during school closures – partly due to the digital divide. Teachers subsequently reported that they were less equipped to make decisions about their future.⁶

Compared with before the pandemic, pupils were less positive and less certain about their future and higher education pathways. They were also concerned about the number of places available on apprenticeships and at higher education institutions, as well their ability to succeed.⁷ A fifth (19%) of university applicants in 2020 had changed their mind about attending university in the autumn or had yet to decide, and applicants from working class backgrounds were more likely to have changed their minds.⁸

Aspirations were also affected – some pupils changed their career plans, as they believed that their future career prospects were negatively affected by the pandemic.⁹ According to one survey conducted by the Welsh Government, over half (57%) of young people had concerns about their future employment options as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁰

Access to information, advice and guidance

The vast majority of young people reported that, going into the pandemic, they had already begun making plans for the future. Almost nine in ten (89%) had made education plans, while a slightly smaller proportion (85%) had made initial career plans. 

Access to careers information, advice and guidance (IAG) can be an important element of forming and refining these plans. For some young people, formal support (through school) plays a key role, while others may be able to lean more on informal sources of support (such as family and friends). Access to high quality IAG at school is especially important for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds – where young people “are less likely to have access to support from family and friends, or to have networks which provide an insight into a wide range of career options”.¹¹ As such, pandemic disruption to school-based IAG has the potential to particularly affect those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Levels of IAG provision have previously been found to vary by disadvantage – a finding which is also the case for COSMO’s cohort.¹² In state comprehensive schools, those at schools with the highest proportion of free school meals (FSM) eligible students were the least likely to have participated in school/college-based IAG.¹³ Around two-thirds (67%) of students studying in schools in the top quintile group of % FSM eligible intake received such support, compared to slightly over seven in ten (72%) of those who attended schools with the lowest levels of FSM intake (see Figure 1). Similarly, those who attended independent schools were significantly more likely to have accessed formal IAG activities: 86% of this group accessed at least one type of IAG activity while at school, compared to just under seven in ten (69%) across state comprehensive schools as a whole.

The ethnic backgrounds of young people in the COSMO cohort were also associated with whether or not they had been able to access IAG activities organised by their school. Those who identified as White or ‘other’ were typically less likely to have received such support (71% and 67%) respectively, whereas almost four in five (78%) of those who identify as Black said they received help (see Figure 2).¹⁴

Participation in IAG organised by schools and colleges during the pandemic may have been affected by the extent to which students met the criteria to attend school during lockdown periods. Students who received face-to-face learning during either lockdown 1 or lockdown 3 were indeed more likely to have participated in at least one form of IAG activity. Just under three quarters (73%) of those who attended school during one of the lockdowns were able to participate in formal IAG activities, while the level was slightly lower (71%) among those who attended at some point during both lockdowns. This compares to just over two-thirds (68%) of those who did not meet the criteria to attend school or college in either lockdown (see Figure 3). 

Differences in university aspirations by gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status

Young people’s stated likelihood of applying for university varies substantially by gender, school type and school deprivation. More broadly, these patterns are consistent with HE enrolment rates which have been observed in official statistics previously.¹⁵

Girls were more likely to report that they planned to apply for university (78%), compared to 63% of boys. Differences by school type were particularly marked: 98% of young people who were privately educated and 92% of those who attended state grammar schools reported that they were likely to apply for university. In contrast, this figure for pupils who attended state comprehensive schools was 68%. All of these rates are considerably higher than participation rates in recent years, suggesting that there is a substantial group who will change their mind about making an application, or be unsuccessful in gaining a higher education place.

There are also differences within state comprehensive schools. The proportion of young people who are likely to apply for university is highest in schools with the lowest rates of FSM eligibility (i.e., those with the least disadvantaged intakes). Four out of five (81%) of students in these schools were planning to pursue HE, while for young people attending schools with higher rates of FSM eligibility, this figure is around two-thirds. 

Pupils with at least one parent or guardian educated to degree level were more likely to expect to follow that parent’s path than those for whom neither parent has a degree. Over four in five (83%) young people with a degree-educated parent reported that they were either “very” or “fairly” likely to apply for university, compared to 62% of those whose parents are non-degree holders. A similar socio-economic gradient is also found by parental occupation status, with those whose parents are in routine/manual work, or who are long-term unemployed, less likely to apply than those whose parents have higher managerial/professional occupations.

We also find a substantial difference by ethnicity, with White students reporting considerably lower university aspirations than those from other ethnic groups. This finding is consistent with what has been found in previous research.^{16 17}

Differences in confidence of getting into university 

Where young people thought it was likely that they would apply to university, a follow up question asked how likely they thought it was that they would get in.

Of those who plan to apply to university, the vast majority (92%) expect to successful get a place. Figure 7 demonstrates that, among those planning to apply, there is not much gender difference in confidence about getting into university. Young people’s confidence in getting a place at university is, however, stratified by school type. Those attending an independent or grammar school are substantially more likely to think they will get into university than those who attended a state comprehensive school. Meanwhile, within the state comprehensive sector, those at a school which was in the lowest FSM-eligible pupil quintile group had the highest confidence about getting into university. 

Compared to the differences in university aspiration by ethnicity, the ethnicity gaps in young people’s confidence about getting into university are much smaller (albeit against a lower baseline level). This suggests that confidence about university entry is not in itself a factor that compounds ethnic inequalities.

Access to formal IAG at school is also found to have a bearing on decision making around university applications. One such knock-on is whether young people have an idea of the course or subject that they would like to study at university (if they plan to apply) – with those who had not participated in any IAG activities being significantly more likely to say that they had either “little” or “no” idea (24%) compared to those who took part in at least one formal activity (15%). Those who did not participate in any school-based IAG activities were also less likely to have “some” idea of the course/subject they would like to study at university (46% compared to 52%).

Differences in vocational qualification status and plans 

While there is a small gender difference in pupils’ vocational qualification statuses and plans – boys were more likely to be currently doing a vocational qualification or planning to do so than girls – there are more substantial disparities by school type and FSM quintile groups. Plans to undertake vocational training broadly follow a pattern opposite to that of intentions to apply to university. 

Pupils at independent and state grammar schools were less likely to report that either they were currently doing a vocational qualification or that they planned to undertake one in future, than those attending state comprehensive schools. For those at state comprehensive schools, there is a clear FSM% gradient in vocational statuses and plans. Young people at schools with a higher percentage of FSM-eligible pupils were consistently more likely to be currently doing a vocational qualification or having plans to do so. 

Pupils with degree-educated parents were the least likely to either currently be doing a vocational qualification or to be planning to do so in the future. For example, only 36% of those with at least one graduate parent were currently doing a vocational qualification or planning plan to do so in future. This figure for pupils with non-graduate parents is 56%. A similar pattern is also found concerning parental occupational status. 

Focussing on those attending state comprehensive schools, young people’s plans with respect to vocational qualifications feeds through to their expectations of what they will be doing in two years’ time (see Figure 12). Those who said that they do not anticipate taking a vocational qualification were significantly more likely (66%) to expect that they would still be studying full-time in two years’ time compared to those who were either currently taking a vocational qualification (37%) or planned to take one in future (47%). Those opting for a vocational pathway were far more likely to plan to undertake an apprenticeship or training compared to those with no such plans. Over a quarter (26%) currently taking a vocational qualification planned this route, while just over one in five (21%) planning a future vocational qualification said the same.

Changes to future plans and aspirations due to the pandemic

The pandemic introduced uncertainty to many aspects of life – financial, health and otherwise. While other background factors may have also contributed to changes in young people’s future plans, the COSMO data allows us to understand some of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on future plans for the first time.

Of those who had made education plans, almost two-thirds (64%) reported that their educational plans had changed (at least to some extent) because of the pandemic. Those who had made career plans were only slightly less likely to have been affected: three in five (60%) had changed their career plans as a result.

But not all groups were affected by the pandemic to the same extent. As Figure 13 indicates, just under two-thirds (63%) of those identifying as female had changed their career plans, compared to 56% of males. The pandemic also had a greater effect on the career plans of those attending state comprehensive schools than on those attending either grammar or independent schools. Just under half (49%) of independent school students reported that they had changed their career plans, compared to three in five (60%) of those attending state comprehensive schools.

Similar associations were observed when looking at the bearing of the pandemic on education plans. Females were, again, more likely (67%) to report having changed their plans than their male counterparts (61%). Similarly, while just over half (52%) of independent school students said that the pandemic had led to them changing their education plans, around two-thirds (65%) attending state comprehensive schools said the same.

Differences in the impact of the pandemic on career plans were also linked to parental occupational status. As Figure 14 shows, young people from better-off families (higher managerial/professional) were the least likely to have changed their career plans (53%). Meanwhile, those from the least well-off occupational backgrounds (routine/manual and those who have never worked) were the most likely to have changed their plans as a result of COVID-19 – with three in five (60%) having done so.

Specific experiences of the pandemic – health and otherwise – also had a significant bearing on future plans. Many young people and their families were affected by the pandemic, be it through ill health, or its economic impacts. Those who thought they had not had COVID-19 tended to be less likely to have changed their career plans. Just over two in five (44%) in this group had not changed their plans at all (see Figure 15). This compares to 40% of those who had either tested positive or thought they did have COVID-19, but who had not suffered any long-lasting health impacts. Those who described themselves as having suffered from ‘long COVID’ – that is, those who experienced continued symptoms for more than four weeks after first contracting COVID-19 – were the most likely to have had their career plans affected. Three in ten (30%) of this group had not had to change their plans at all, while slightly less than two in five (37%) said that they had changed their plans either completely or to some extent. This compares to just over a quarter (28%) of those who had not had COVID-19 and three in ten (30%) of those who had the illness, albeit with no long-lasting effects.

Experiences of the pandemic were also affected by the measures that individuals and families had to take during periods of lockdown. Almost 59,000 children and young people (aged up to 17) were identified on the Shielded Patient List (SPL) in the pandemic’s early stages.¹⁸ Pre-existing medical conditions among this group meant that they were at the highest risk of severe illness if they contracted COVID-19. They were therefore advised to take additional measures to minimise contact with those from outside their households. Those who were advised to shield were significantly more likely to change their education and/or career plans.¹⁹ Over three quarters (76%) of those asked to shield changed their education plans, compared to three in five (62%) of those who did not have to take additional measures. The difference between the two groups with respect to career plans was similar – seven in ten (71%) of those at high risk changed their plans, compared to just under three in five (58%) not shielding (see Figure 16).

Whether or not young people had negative personal experiences during the pandemic was also associated with whether their plans changed. As part of the COSMO survey, young people were asked which of a list of major life events they had encountered during this time. Those who had not experienced specific financial and health impacts (see Figure 17) were the least likely to have changed their education plans – with 55% of this group having done so. Those whose family had experienced economic hardship were more likely to have changed their plans. In instances where at least one parent had lost either their job or business during the pandemic, seven in ten (69%) had changed their plans. Where families faced difficulties paying for food, or had to use a food bank, four in five (77%) had changed their pre-pandemic education plans to some extent.

Conclusions and policy implications 

• Evidence from the first wave of the COSMO study suggests that, across the board, the pandemic has had major implications for young people’s future plans. Other than those attending independent schools, the majority of young people said they had changed their career plans as a result of the pandemic – with similarly large-scale changes in education plans. That the pandemic has had implications for the future plans of so many young people makes supporting them to make informed choices about their education and careers all the more important. Future waves of COSMO will look to further develop our understanding of these changes in plans by looking at outcomes for the cohort, and will inform policy responses that help to mitigate the long-term impacts of the pandemic on aspirations.

• Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and those attending state comprehensive schools (particularly those with more disadvantaged intakes) were among the most likely to have their plans affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. They were also less likely to have access to career information, advice and guidance (IAG) during the pandemic. Provision of IAG in schools remains important, as it helps to inform young people’s future plans – be this considering future career options, selecting a pathway towards vocational qualification, or choosing a university course. Enhanced provision of IAG and mentoring services in schools (particularly in those with high rates of FSM eligibility) is an important plank of the policy response to the pandemic and should be considered a key element of education catch-up.

• Much good work has been done in recent years around Widening Participation (WP), which aims to broaden access to university among groups that have historically had lower rates of admission. During the pandemic, access gaps actually widened, despite an increase in overall HE progression rates.²⁰ Gaps in access are likely to remain for the COSMO cohort – with those from disadvantaged backgrounds being both less likely to plan on applying for university, and having less confidence that they will successfully get a place if they do apply. In light of this – as well as this group also being more likely to have changed their education plans – WP provision should be redoubled, with evidence-based support targeted at young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

• Conversely, young people who attend either independent or selective state schools are significantly less likely than their state comprehensive peers to either currently be taking (or plan to be taking in future) a vocational qualification. Similarly, young people who go to schools with lower rates of eligibility for free school meals (i.e. those who are, generally, more advantaged) were less likely to be planning to take a vocational pathway. Any gaps in information and expertise around these options should be addressed to highlight this as a potentially valuable pathway into future careers.

• Some COVID-19 pandemic experiences, including having had ‘long COVID’, suffering from ill-health, being asked to shield, and experiencing economic hardship during the pandemic were found to have had influenced young people’s future plans. Future briefing papers will further explore both the financial and health impacts of the pandemic, again using data from Wave 1 of the COSMO study.

Sample and methods 

The data for this briefing note come from Wave 1 of the COVID Social Mobility & Opportunities (COSMO) study. COSMO is based on a probability sample drawn from the Department for Education’s National Pupil Database (plus additional recruitment from pupils at private schools), with clustering within schools (for practicality reasons) and over-sampling of certain groups using stratification.   

Our analysis in this briefing is primarily based on descriptive statistics reporting averages, distributions and differences between groups. Analyses use weights to take into account the over-sampling inherent in the study design, as well as initial non-response by young people and, where relevant, their parents. Differences are only highlighted where these are found to be statistically significant at the p<0.05 level. Any statistical inference testing reported and/or used in such decisions accounts for the clustering and stratification in the study design.  

While our full sample of young people has N=12,828 the parents of participants were not as likely to respond, reducing analyses involving parents to at most N=9,330. As noted above, young person and parental non-response have been modelled separately, with different weights to ensure (insofar as is possible) representativeness of our analysis sample to the intended population. Item-level non-response also results in some further variation to the analysis sample, which is minimised within analyses to ensure consistency. Analyses of some groups, for example those who attended special schools or who identify as non-binary/in another way, have not been able to be reported due to small sample sizes.

Aspects of the analysis use administrative data from the Department for Education (DfE)’s National Pupil Database (NPD), where consent was gained for this linkage (73% of young people), with additional weighting carried out to ensure (insofar as is possible) representativeness of analysis using linked administrative data. This work was produced using statistical data from the DfE processed in the Office for National Statistics’ (ONS) Secure Research Service (SRS). The use of the DfE statistical data in this work does not imply the endorsement of the DfE or ONS in relation to the interpretation or analysis of the statistical data. This work uses research datasets, which may not exactly reproduce National Statistics aggregates.

Citing this briefing 

Yarde, J., Shao, X., Anders, J., Cullinane, C., De Gennaro, A., Early, E., Holt-White, E., & Montacute, R. (2022). Wave 1 Initial Findings - Future plans and aspirations. COVID Social Mobility & Opportunities (COSMO) study Briefing No. 3. London: UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities & Sutton Trust. Available at: https://cosmostudy.uk/publications/future-plans-and-aspirations

About the COVID Social Mobility & Opportunities (COSMO) study 

The COVID Social Mobility & Opportunities (COSMO) study is a new national cohort study generating high-quality evidence about how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected socio-economic inequalities in life chances, both in terms of short- and long-term effects on education, wellbeing, and career outcomes. A representative sample of young people in England who were in Year 11 in the 2020/2021 academic year were invited to take part in the survey, with the aim of following them as they progress through the final stages of education and into the labour market. A sample of more than 13,000 cohort members was recruited in Wave 1.  

This work was supported by UK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council as part of their COVID-19 response fund [grant number ES/W001756/1]. COSMO is a collaboration between the UCL Centre for Education Policy & Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO), the Sutton Trust, and the UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS). Our principal fieldwork partner is Kantar Public.

Researchers can access data from Wave 1 of the study through the UK Data Service.²¹