Sixth-form colleges largely offer A Level qualifications and they emerged as an option for local authorities as part of the 10/65 circular. The 10/65 circular (DES, 1965) encouraged schools to become comprehensive schools as the Labour government sought to replace the socially divisive tripartite system (in reality a bi-partite system as so few technical schools existed). The 11+ exam had resulted in a disproportionate number of middle-class children attending a grammar school because they had passed the exam and a disproportionate number of young people from less privileged backgrounds being ‘relegated’ to a secondary modern school. The option to take exam qualifications and ‘stay on’ to study A Level was significantly more likely at a Grammar School. However, a small number of Secondary Modern pupils started to demonstrate that they too could pass exam qualifications given the opportunity challenging the socially divisive system (Williams & Rosen, 2017).

Not all areas of England followed the recommendation of the 10/65 circular with Grammar Schools remaining in some parts of the country. This meant that these selective schools effectively also had selective sixth-forms. For those parts of the country which chose to follow the 10/65 circular, one suggested option was for schools to offer t11–18 provision with the inclusion of a school sixth-form. Another option was to offer provision for young people aged 16–19 years at another institution that they could transfer to upon leaving schooling. These were typically described as ‘sixth-form colleges’. The sixth-form colleges were encouraged to carry on the Grammar School culture and were modelled upon these principles: high achievement, pastoral care and preparation for higher education (Shorter, 1994). Further education colleges had traditionally offered vocational programmes for 16–19 year olds, but they expanded into offering A Level provision also. Lumby (2003) notes that further education colleges predominately have students who are destined to be employed upon completion of their course, whereas the major pathway for students from sixth-form colleges is university. Therefore, the fragmented nature of post-secondary educational institutions is likely to offer varying levels of preparedness for young people embarking on higher education.

This study aimed to contribute to the body of knowledge on the structural disadvantages experienced by working-class university students (e.g. Bathmaker et al., 2016), through a focus on the participants’ journeys into higher education. The study was based on a life history approach (Perks & Thomson, 2016). The original study had a particular focus on the experiences of working-class women, but compared and contrasted these experiences with middle-class women and working-class men, with this paper analysing interview data related to the sub-research question:

Of the larger qualitative, exploratory study (Shields, 2021) of 20 participants, this paper specifically considers the experiences of twelve students who started university before the age of 21, and who had undertaken A Level study (omitting other types of Level 3 qualification). The predominant focus on experiences of women in the primary study means that the data analysed largely represents the experiences of young women (eleven of the twelve participants). Participants were recruited through voluntary, purposive sampling (Denscombe, 2017) self-identifying as ‘female’ and/or ‘working-class’. The researcher sent out an initial email to Education BA undergraduates at their own institution. In addition, two ‘gatekeeper’ academics at two universities also sent out an initial email to their undergraduate students (Education Studies BA and Primary Teaching BA). Those interested in participating were invited to contact the principal researcher.

Individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews (Mann, 2016) were audio-recorded (lasting between 30 minutes and one hour). Later interviews were conducted online (via Zoom) due to the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews were conducted between the end of May and early July to ensure that students had completed their assignments for the academic year. This timing also had the advantage of enabling participants to reflect over a longer period of time about their experience of the transition to university. The semi-structured interview schedule contained ten questions which did not asked directly about ‘transition’ but focused on key points in the journey into higher education: prior experiences of education, why they had chosen to go to university, their experiences of university and their future plans. The interview schedule was underpinned by the theories of ‘internal conversation’ (Archer, 2003) and Bourdieu’s (1983) social, cultural and economic capital. Interview transcripts were sent to participants for ‘member-checking’ (Lincoln & Guba 1985).

The data from the A Level participants was analysed thematically (Gibbs, 2018). Two overarching themes emerged ‘smooth transition’ and ‘complicated transition’. The conceptualisation of a transition as ‘smooth’ has been used by a number of studies in higher education (e.g., Bayfield, 2023; Richardson et al., 2012) and this is applied inductively to capture a sense of seamlessness in moving from one educational context to another without any obstacles. This is in contrast to an understanding of transition, more typically conceptualised as an ‘uncertain series of changes and movements through time and space’ to become a university student (Hordósy, 2023: pp. 190–191).

Qualitative data analysis can be queried for ‘subjectivity’ (Braun & Clarke, 2021). I addressed this concern through asking another researcher with a social science background, but independent of this research study to also ‘audit’ the transcripts (see Shields, 2021). In addition to this, I shared the initial data analysis with participants via email to ensure that it was an accurate reflection of their experiences and their meaning-making. The study received ethical approval from the researcher’s institution via a two-stage process. The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences gave ethical approval on 18^th December 2018. The School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences confirmed and agreed ethical approval on the 29^th January 2019. Pseudonyms are used to preserve the anonymity of participants.

The social class divide in the type of post-secondary education institution participants studied their A Levels was distinctive. Participants were defined as ‘middle-class’ or ‘working-class’ for the purposes of the study. Students’ definitions of their own social-class background were correlated with the demographic information that they shared about levels of parental education and also parental occupation (mapped onto the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) system) (ONS, 2021). In addition, it was noted if participants were one of the first members of their family to attend higher education. Of the six middle-class participants – three attended a sixth-form attached to the selective state school that they had attended (two of the participants were at a Grammar School sixth-form and one participant was at a state Girls school sixth-form). Two middle-class participants attended a sixth-form college. One middle-class participant attended a newly formed sixth-form using the teachers from her school. The six middle-class participants experienced a smooth transition into higher education (although two middle-class participants changed degree course at the same institution). Table 2 below provides an overview of the research participants.

Of the six working-class participants – four attended a further education college (Lucy, Florence, Lily, Jo). None of the middle-class students attended a further education college. Two working-class participants attended a small school sixth-form. The six working-class participants were all the first person in their family to attend university. Five out of six working-class participants had challenges in being offered a place at university, for example going through Clearing or course cancellation. The one working-class participant with a smooth transition to university had benefitted from individualised guidance and support from one of her sixth-form teachers.

The three middle-class students (Nicola, Chloe, Hattie) who attended a selective sixth-form went to their first choice institution and did not change their degree programmes. All three participants reported a culture of expectation of university entry at their sixth-forms and provided examples of active sixth-form strategies to ensure successful acceptance at university. Three characteristics in particular appeared to facilitate a smooth transition into higher education for these participants: university ‘cultural capital’, ‘directed subject choice combinations’ and ‘directed university applications’.

The advantages that middle-class students had in terms of ‘hot knowledge’ (Ball & Vincent, 1998) at both the selective sixth-forms and sixth-form colleges may have mitigated for any incidences when the advice provided was less helpful with all six middle-class participants referring to some form of ‘insider’ information.

This informal information or ‘hot knowledge’ came from families’ which had prior experiences of higher education. For students with access to this ‘hot knowledge’, they were less critical of the ‘cold’ formal knowledge provided by post-secondary institutions as they did not need to rely on this information when applying to university. Smith (2011) discusses the benefit of ‘hot knowledge’ for students from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds in terms of higher education aspirations. The advantages of having this ‘hot knowledge’ to draw upon becomes significant when the more complex and difficult journeys into higher education of the working-class participants are analysed.

One working-class student benefitted from a personalised approach to gaining a place at a suitable university. Beth came from a very small sixth-form and it appeared that teachers at that school on an individual level were keen to support their students in successfully accessing higher education. There were examples of teachers operating with an ‘ethical’ teacher habitus. ‘Teacher habitus’ refers to teachers’ dispositions in relation to their prior experiences, as well as their moral and political beliefs. Teacher habitus will influence how they engage with students (Oliver & Kettley, 2010). An ‘ethical’ teacher habitus can be likened to the ideas of Noddings on an ‘ethics of care’, suggesting ‘teachers who act in what they suppose to be the best interests of their students…may be said to care’ (2016: 231). Burgess (2021: 370) ‘points to the transformative potential of teachers for any group of HE applicants marginalised by policy discourses and formal school practices.’

For sixth-form students from less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds, a teacher choosing to play this role, is noteworthy in providing information about university to a group of students with less familial expertise of higher education. The significance of teachers with an ‘ethical habitus’ is stated by (Oliver & Kettley, 2010: 750):

This small-scale study indicates that within the sample of twelve working-class students they were more likely to study in a post-secondary educational setting, where there are fewer transition safeguards and/or buffers to facilitate a smooth entry into higher education. Therefore, teachers adopting an ethical teacher habitus play a substantial role in offering meaningful and tailored guidance for a successful and positive transition into higher education.