15. Growing identities

It has been a privilege to follow the participants in the Competent Learners study to this point, where they stand on the edge of adulthood, almost all still living with their families, and most still having much of their week-day life shaped by school classes and interactions. Many were still content to be at school; and the longitudinal nature of this study shows us that a substantial part of presence, engagement, and performance in the senior secondary school stems from the learning identities that have coalesced over previous experiences, interactions, and achievements. It was easier to see school positively if one could associate it with previous gains and recognition, and if the work of school was of a piece with the kinds of ways one spent time at home, the kinds of conversations one had had with family and then friends. These learning identities were not fixed entities. Current learning environments were also important.

Not every young person who was able to be absorbed in their learning, in gaining new knowledge, skills, and understanding, or who saw learning as something that came with change and effort within rather than (simply) external recognition, did well at school. Openness to learning is not the same thing necessarily as openness to school, or the way in which learning opportunities are framed in our secondary schools. Our findings make sense of the entrepreneurs who do not cut a memorable path at school, and who were not concerned to score highly on assessments. They also make sense of the few among those who had already left school who had been “pulled” away to a clearer and more congenial learning path.

Yet while we can all think of those who seem to have developed positive learning and problem solving identities that are not framed by their school performance, there are more young people whose lack of school engagement and learning gain seems to preclude these identities. If we take a broad look at the young people in this study, around 70 percent showed good levels of participation in and engagement with school or learning outside school. But around 30 percent had attendance levels that were not sufficient to sustain good levels of engagement, or performance, or they had already left school and were anxious to establish themselves as adults.

Just over half the students’ parents thought they remained enthusiastic about school; 75 percent thought their children enthusiastic when they were 12. Now, with the end of secondary school in sight, around a fifth of the remaining students were not convinced that they should or could remain at school until the end of Year 13.

Student perspectives of their current school learning environments give us some insight into why many do not show enthusiasm. It should be noted that though their levels of restlessness have risen since their first years at secondary school, other aspects of their engagement with school and feeling affirmed (recognised, treated fairly) did not change markedly between the lower and secondary schools. Tackling NCEA qualification assessments has not caused greater anxiety or disaffection—or improved motivation levels.

What we learn from the students’ views is first, that most students experience a range of different learning opportunities. Thus within the same school, in the same subject clusters, some classes are highly enjoyed—and teachers of these classes report greater attention, self-management, and thinking among the students who said they enjoyed these classes—and some are not. Second, the classes that are more enjoyed show teachers making more of an effort to connect with students, and show them the connections between “school subjects” and the world beyond; these classes also encourage confident learning because they offer clarity, support, and patience while taking the students into new realms. There is more of a focus on learning, and less on behaviour management. Teacher perspectives also indicate that classes students enjoy provide somewhat more opportunities for students to develop the thinking and self-management aspects of the key competencies—the habits and frames of mind that will allow them to keep learning after they leave the structures of school. The analysis of competency development in this study has shown the importance of both what we have called “attitudinal” and the cognitive competencies for school performance, and age-16 engagement levels, and thus supports the now explicit inclusion of the key competencies in the curriculum we will offer our children and young people.

Both teacher and student perspectives also show that these opportunities to develop the thinking and self-management aspects of the key competencies are still relatively constrained. Teachers will need support in order to integrate these more into subject-framed classes. While mathematics and science classes were more likely to be among the least enjoyed classes, there was no particular pattern to the subjects that were taught in the most enjoyed classes, suggesting that engaging learning opportunities are not subject-specific.

We do find however that there are some subject-specific differences when it comes to what NCEA standards are offered—what further pathways are possible—and what success students enjoy in relation to this new approach. We do not see overt streaming any longer, but the vocational/academic subject divide still remains, and with it lower levels of school engagement and feeling affirmed at school for those in the nonacademic clusters, underneath a seemingly much wider choice of subjects. Student choice is still constrained by views of how well students will do, based on their previous school performance (attitude to work as well as marks on school assessments). While most students and their parents think of their subject choice in terms of either inherent interest or its role in leading onto something desirable, close to 30 percent of students, and more of those who had left, wished they had had better advice on the subjects they took, and 20 percent were not satisfied with their subject mix.

The NCEA has certainly expanded the opportunities for gaining recognition for learning. It is also more complex in some ways. The fact that so many students were gaining credits at two of its levels in any one year, and the fact that some students, mostly in “vocational” course clusters, were gaining Level 2 credits while they had yet to complete the 80 Level 1 credits needed to gain their Level 1 NCEA qualification raises questions about how teachers are deciding which standards to offer in their courses, and how useful these mixes are for different students as they look at their options for pathways from school. That is something we aim to investigate in the next phase of the study, when we will return to the young people as they turn 20.

We did not find that students chose courses on the basis of the kind of NCEA credits they offered, the number on offer, or the chance for reassessment; nor did differences in these separate out most enjoyed from least enjoyed classes. Parents’ views did not indicate that student levels of intrinsic motivation toward their work were negatively affected. Thus some of the new aspects of senior school qualifications that some have suspected of diverting students into easy (nonchallenging) options do not seem to be seen by students in this way. Parents’ views of NCEA seemed to reflect their sense of how their own child was faring: NCEA acted as a lightening rod to voice various concerns. It is certainly true that teachers of classes that students found their most enjoyed were more likely to say that students had taken up opportunities for reassessment, and if so, had succeeded on their second attempt; but this applied to a small number of students, and is consistent with these teachers’ reports of students having stronger approaches to their NCEA work.

There were quite marked changes in some aspects of the young people’s behaviour. These were mainly around trying out adult possibilities. A third had had sex over the past year—and half had fallen in love over that time too. Most drank alcohol sometimes or more often and around half had done something they regretted while drunk. They were more aware of not having enough money for the activities that now appealed. In their friendships, they were more likely to share activities that did require some money, including parties, shopping, and going out to entertainment. But the overall range of their values remained much the same, as did the quality of their relationships with their family and friends.

In fact we saw much more consistency between age 14 and age 16, than we saw between age 12 and age 14. Early adolescence appears to be a key period for consolidating learning identities, and laying down paths and values in out-of-school activities and relationships that support these. On the negative side, high scores for risky behaviour and having friends with such behaviour as well were much more likely at 16 if the same patterns were there at 14; the same was true for having “standing out” values at the expense of values that found purpose in good relationships with others, and meaningful work.

Most of the young people remained close to their families. Such closeness does not always mean that they share everything about their lives. Parents were also treating the 16-year-olds as close to adulthood: keeping an eye on them, concerned from time to time if their child was having difficulty, but not seeking to control them. There were fewer parental rules or expectations than there had been at age 14, but almost all parents had some expectations. The things parents shared with their children were more around adult ways of coming together: talking and eating, with fewer joint activities. Friends had become more important to the study participants when they were 14, and the role of friendship in their lives has continued to enlarge. Parents are still more likely to be the people a student would talk to most about school, but friends are key sources of support, respect, and trust. Friends are even more important to those who have left school.

One of the key findings of this report, as in earlier reports from the Competent Learners study, is that though we can trace some different paths through time, through how children and then young people spend their time, the habits and competencies they develop through that use of time, we do not see entirely predictable trajectories or entirely separate groups of young people. We can discern some of the signs of disengagement and turning to behaviours and relationships that are unlikely to provide positive meaning for the future. If asked to provide some quick indicators that things are going well, we would point to the enjoyment of reading (and not just the fact of reading), to having some interests that provide goals and challenge, take place within relationships, have a dimension of communication or use of symbols, and can also provide experiences of achievement. Conversely, two very quick indicators that things may not go well in future are being too dependent on television or computer games as a way to spend time, or becoming involved in bullying.

What our analyses cannot provide are recipes, with precise amounts guaranteed to produce a satisfactory result. The contexts in which children and young people act and experience also have a bearing. Thus—to take a simple example—sports provide a context for the development of competencies and relationships; they are the extracurricular activity most likely to be offered by schools, with opportunities for young people to also gain important experience by taking responsibility and stepping up to leadership. But the opportunities for consolidation of a positive learning identity can differ. Picture the sports-player who comes home and talks with his or her family about both the game and other things, who celebrates with friends but without getting drunk and in that state taking risks that would not seem so manageable or attractive when sober, and who finds enjoyed learning opportunities in school classes. Then picture his or her team mate who has nothing but the game and the celebration, and whose classes do not ask him or her to be fully involved in learning.

The fact that learning identities have consolidated by the senior secondary school but still contain fluidity, and openness to experience, gives continued optimism. It also means we need to look at the whole of a young person’s life, and what gives them meaning. Only then will we see the particular possibilities, as well as potential risks. We need to see a wider (or deeper) picture to gauge whether we are providing learning opportunities that will support and extend confident and open learning identities; and open out those learning identities that have turned to resistance or the seeming safety of repetition. For there are still too many young people who have either left school at 16, or who may be at school, but not engaged in it, and who are thus moving into adulthood with far less of the understanding, skills, and habits that they need for real participation and contribution in an increasingly complex world.