Introduction

Recently, in my role as governor of a secondary school, I was asked to sit on a panel with teachers to interview the students who had applied to continue studying in the sixth form. As a member of the panel, I asked each student what they would like to be doing in five years’ time. One girl said that she wanted to become a palaeontologist; a boy said that he wanted to become a professional darts player. Others said that they wanted to become a journalist, a lawyer, a car mechanic, a physical education (PE) teacher and a professional footballer. I wondered if all of these opportunities were open to them and what subjects it was best for them to study in the 16–18 phase of education in order for them to be able to achieve their goals. Would the girl who wanted to become a palaeontologist be disadvantaged because she cannot currently study physics at A level in this particular school? What about the student who wants to become a PE teacher? Would he be in a good position to gain a place at university on an appropriate course if he studies a vocational (BTEC) national diploma in sport or would it be better for him to study an A level PE course? I also wondered whether the subjects that they had studied already in the pre-16 phase of education would put them in a good position to realise their aspirations. For example, would the young person who wants to become a doctor be disadvantaged by her 16+ examination results, as it is very competitive to gain a place at medical school? Some of these young people had chosen to study vocational subjects as part of their pre-16 courses and I was aware of Alison Wolf 's claim that students are studying vocationally related qualifications:

All of the students that I talked to had ideas about what they wanted to become and I get angry when people say that young people such as these, from working-class backgrounds, are not aspirational.