On Qualifications 

Part 1 (published 27 June 2023, by Darren Flynn)

In this FLJ blog post, I want to talk about using qualifications as criteria on person specifications. I’m not tackling here the thorny and perennial issue of specific LIS or HE-level qualifications (our already manifesto sets out our position and rationale re. LIS and UG/PG quals.) but rather the use of qualifications at Levels 1-3 on the England, Wales and Northern Ireland’s National Qualifications Framework. If the precise meaning of these isn’t immediately apparent, that is part of the issue. 

In lay terms, this refers to criteria that require an applicant to hold a minimum qualification level gained at secondary school, sixth form or further education level such as GCSEs, AS/A-Levels, BTECs, T-Levels and NVQs. In practice, qualifications while equivalent are typically divided into academic (GCSEs, AS/A-levels) that are now assessed through examinations, and vocational (T-Level, BTEC Certificate/Diploma/Extended Diploma, NVQ) which are assessed by coursework or portfolio.

These qualifications refer only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland uses a different framework.

The sample

In the course of reviewing recruitment documents for FLJ, I collect hundreds of person specifications for library jobs at all levels. This provides a large dataset that can be analysed to get an insight into common trends and criteria used to shortlist applicants. I wanted to explore what library recruiters required in qualifications from Levels 1-3. To do this I collected a total of 127 person specifications for UK library roles at a range of grades and sectors between March and September 2022. These  were reviewed to identify those that included at least one criteria that was a qualification at Levels 1-3. This created a sample of 50 person specifications. This Padlet shows the sample, wording of the criteria, job title and essential/desirable status of the criterion with recruiters’ institutions removed. Using this data set, I coded each entry based on its content to produce an analysis of what levels and types of qualifications were specified. Below are the results in visual form with the raw data beneath.

Code / Criteria / Count (%)

1. Requires qual at Levels 1-2: 29 (58%)

2. Requires qual at Levels 1-2 with a specific pass grade: 20 (40%)

3. Requires qual at Level 3: 21 (42%)

4. Specific mention of GCSE quals: 33 (66%)

5. Specific mention of A-Level quals: 18 (36%)

6. Mention of any vocational qual: 8 (16%)

7. Mentions equivalence (unspecified): 35 (70%)

8. Only academic quals specifically mentioned: 37 (74%)

9. Only vocational quals specifically mentioned: 1 (2%)

10. Unspecified ‘good’ level of education (or similar): 3 (6%)

Key findings

• Most ads included a criterion for a Level 1-2 qualification (58%).  In all except one of these, GCSEs were specified as the required Level 1-2 qualification (rather than any other type of Level 1-2 qualification).  

• Of those the majority also mentioned a specific grade requirement at that qualification level (e.g. “5 x GCSE at grade A*-C”). In all cases where a grade requirement was mentioned at Levels 1-2 these referred to GCSE grades.

• All but one of those mentioning a grade requirements at GCSE used the now-defunct A*-U grading system. Only one example used the current 1-9 grading system. 

• Qualifications at Levels 2-3 appeared in similar proportions (however some specifications mentioned both as required or Level 2 as essential and Level 3 as desirable)

• Of the ads that included one or more named qualifications, all but one mentioned academic qualifications (GCSE and/or A-Level).

• By contrast only 16% of the sample made mention of a named vocational qualification (BTEC, NVQ etc.)

• 74% of criteria mentioned only academic qualifications. Only one ad mentioned only vocational qualifications.

• 35 ads (70%) of the sample allowed an equivalent [to the named academic qualification]. Of these 7 mentioned a named vocational qualification. The remaining 28’s “equivalent” either unspecified alternative qualifications or work experience.

• All qualification requirements referred to the England, Wales and Northern Ireland framework with no reference to the Scottish framework. However the sample contained no Scottish job adverts.

What does this tell us?

·       Person specifications have not kept pace with the range of qualifications available and in most cases default to traditional academic qualifications. While most recruiters permitted some sort of equivalence, the ‘standard’ candidate was expected to hold traditional academic qualification (GCSEs and/or A-Levels).

·       Person specifications have not kept pace with current grading systems, with most job ads specifying grading systems that are no longer in use (e.g. A*-C at GCSE).

·       There is a bias in library recruitment towards seeking candidates with academic (rather than vocational) qualifications. Where equivalence was allowed, a candidate had to demonstrate they met the standard of an academically qualified candidate. A holder of academic qualifications was never required to show equivalence to someone vocationally qualified.

·       Arguably there is a preconceived idea of a library worker as someone whose educational background is purely academic qualifications. This is evidenced by the default inclusion of academic only qualifications (e.g. A-Levels), the exclusion of named vocational qualifications and the lumping together of any knowledge or skills not demonstrated by an academic qualification as “equivalent”. 

·       Holders of Scottish or overseas qualifications would have to demonstrate equivalence to the England, Wales and Northern Ireland qualifications framework.

Part 2 (published 4 July, by Darren Flynn)

This post form the second part of another post that looked at Level 1-3 qualifications required on a sample of library job adverts in the UK. In this post I’ll be taking a critical look at the implications of my findings and asking what the equity and diversity implications might be for the library sector.

The Findings

My conclusions from an analysis of qualification requirements for library job ads were that:

• Person specifications had failed to keep pace with either the range of qualifications now in use in the UK or the current grading frameworks.

• There appeared to a bias against vocational qualifications and in favour of academic qualifications when recruiting library jobs.

• ‘Equivalence’ [to academic qualifications] was commonly allowed, but this was rarely defined.

Why does this matter?

My findings, though limited, show there’s also a broad question about whether the qualifications stated as required by library recruiters are keeping pace with changes in the educational system. It’s estimated that 250,000 students completed a BTec National in 2019 while 245,000 sat A-Levels (BBC, 2021). Writing about qualifications and only specifying AS/A-Levels while ignoring that such a popular qualification as the BTec exists seems hopelessly out of touch. Robeiro and Vitello’s (2020 p.22) analysis of the National Pupil Database found that 48.7% of students studied only academic qualifications compared to 49.2% studying a mix of academic and vocational qualifications. So requiring or only mentioning academic qualifications is deliberately or unconsciously failing to reflect the diversity in educational qualifications being undertaken. In addition, the use of legacy grading schemes apparent in the sample suggests a lack of current awareness. We have to trust that a recruiting manager would know that a Grade 4 at GCSE represents the past ‘good’ mark of a C, a 9 is an A* etc. That the previous system had 9 possible grades (U-A*) and the current system has 10 (U-9) complicates this further.

Of the 30% of the sample that only allowed academic qualifications (with no possibility of showing equivalence) those applicants who through preference, skills or need opted to study for either vocational qualifications or a mix of academic and vocational qualifications face exclusion from the recruitment process.

Most recruiters in the sample did make allowances for qualification diversity by including “or equivalent” in addition to the academic qualification specified. Personally, I’m not entirely comfortable with  “or equivalent” as a blanket phrase, it seems like default thinking and reads as “this is my ideal, if you deviate from it you’ll have to prove to me you’re as good”. I think it’s telling that in only one person specification in the sample did a criterion specify only a vocational qualification “or equivalent” (Customer Services Assistant). This suggests to me a clear hierarchy of desired qualifications and I wonder if it would seem as natural in library recruitment if we reversed this and treated academic qualifications such as A-Levels as an ‘equivalent’. 

Perceptions aside, a recruiting manager must have a high degree of awareness of the National Qualifications Framework and what equivalence means in practice. Stating that “or equivalent” is acceptable seems on the face of it straightforward. In practice though, the recruiting manager must know, for example, what the qualification that was studied is, at what level and with what grade equivalence the individual was awarded.

Take for example an imaginary job where one of the person specification criteria reads “Three A-Levels or equivalent”. Imagine you have four different candidates with different sets of qualifications:

Candidate 1: A-Level English: C, A-Level Classics: C, A-Level History C

Candidate 2: T-Level in Digital Support Services: B, T-Level in Education & Childcare: B

Candidate 3: BTEC Level 3 Diploma in Business: P, BTEC Diploma: DD

Candidate 4: BTEC Level 3 National Award in Applied Science: B, A-Level Maths: B, Skillsfirst Level 3 Diploma in Computerised Accounting for Business, P

Which of these candidates meet the qualification criterion? One of these candidates (Candidate 1) has obviously met the criterion and the recruiting manager can move on to assess the remaining criteria. But what of the others? The recruiter must look at the combination of qualifications, their types, equivalence and grading to make that calculation. This is a complicated task and there is a reason why when doing university admissions, qualifications and grades are commonly converted into UCAS tariff points. On that basis Candidate 1 actually has the lowest overall qualification level of the four candidates. Based on a conversion of these qualification combinations, each candidate has:  

Candidate 1: 96 UCAS tariff points

Candidate 2: 108 UCAS tariff points

Candidate 3: 108 UCAS tariff points

Candidate 4: 112 UCAS tariff points 

[Source UCAS.com]. 

The risk is that, particularly in the context of a large stack of applications to shortlist, the manager goes with the simplest, default option of Candidate 1 and any or all of the other candidates do not get an opportunity to be shortlisted. These refer just to qualifications from England, Wales and Northern Ireland , throw in Scottish or international qualifications and things get even more complicated.

While any risk of inequity in the recruitment process is to be avoided, there is additional context that makes this even more problematic. Research on university-entry qualifications shows that vocational qualifications are disproportionately taken by students from working class backgrounds and minority ethnic backgrounds (Social Market Foundation, 2018) and disabled students or those with special educational needs (Gov.uk, 2022). Research from Robeiro and Vitello (2020 p.8-9) found that students from higher deprivation areas were more likely to take vocational qualifications than those from less-deprived areas at Key Stage 5. Similarly students who received free school meals were more likely to study on a mixed academic/vocational, mostly vocational or vocational only route. Males were also more likely than females to take vocational qualifications as were students who attended a further education college compared to independent schools or a sixth-form college. Non-Chinese Black and Asian students were more likely than white students to study a mostly-vocational set of qualifications at Key Stage 5 (p.45). BTec holders are also more likely to have gained the qualification at an older age and taken a less-linear route through education (London Economics, 2013). Finally we must disavow the assumption that young people have an absolute choice in what subject and what type of qualification they can study; a favoured subject (e.g. IT or Business) may only be available as a vocational qualification while other institutions may only offer academic qualifications and be able to offer a broad range of subjects. Jin et al. (2010) found clear correlations between type of school, size of school, proportion of free school meal students and the range of qualifications offered at Level 2 (p.52), finding that just 36.7% of schools and colleges offered only academic qualifications (p.64). 

We might therefore expect a typical academic-only student (a student holding only A-levels) to be white, female, non-free school meal who studied at a sixth-form college and from a less deprived background. My anecdotal experience (and CILIP’s workforce mapping) suggests people from this background are well-represented in the sector, but that we're missing out on perspectives from more diverse social and educational backgrounds.   

Thus any criterion that may hamper the chances of vocationally qualified applicants from being shortlisted risks disproportionately harming these groups. Our recruitment practices thus run the risk of social engineering a workforce that is not representative of the communities in which we are based. In the case of university libraries (who form the majority of this sample), we face the irony of a student being allowed to study at the university based on their qualifications, but unable to apply for a job in the library on the basis of those same qualifications. A workforce possessing more diversity of educational experience would better reflect the range of learners we support and might offer additional insight into their needs.

We might also want to question whether these types of qualification are truly accurate measures of an individual’s ability to perform the role. The content of qualifications obviously differs widely between subjects (English, ICT, Geography etc.) Methods of assessment will also differ between subjects and between qualification type (coursework, exams, portfolios etc.) It will also change over time as topics move in and out of the curriculum. This makes a comparison between candidates inherently problematic, but we should also ask whether the skills evidenced through, for example, a GCSE Maths certificate are actually needed. Working numeracy is obviously needed in a broad range of library roles, but if the individual didn’t get a Grade 3 Maths GCSE because they could never grasp algebra or trigonometry sufficiently at age 16 could they not do the job? How many of us working in libraries now are confident that we could pass a modern GCSE?

So what do we do?

It’s easy to point out flaws, problems and inequities in library recruitment (though it should be harder) but there are things we can do to make it fairer. You might argue that simply reducing or removing criteria from a person specification means you’ll be overwhelmed with additional applications to sift through. That is a legitimate fear and time spent shortlisting applications is onerous, although I’d need to see evidence that this would substantially increase the number of applications first. We do have to set entry requirements but these should be both proportionate to the needs of the role and socially equitable. Adding a criteria simply to limit the number of applications is unfair and represents gate-keeping; criteria should outline the needs of the job not act as an entry bar.

If we’re going to use qualifications as criteria, we should at least make these up-to-date and if we’re genuine about parity between academic and vocational qualifications, our criteria should reflect this. We also need a high level of confidence those shortlisting applications understand what equivalency means for different types of qualifications and what grades actually mean. 

Alternatively, we could replace simple “you need xyz qualifications” with broader statements about the level of literacy, numeracy, reasoning skills required. Going further we might look at the precise needs of the role and use authentic assessment to shortlist our candidates. Assessment tasks which use real-world tasks the applicant would be expected to perform can be used as part of the application process: answering example enquiries, interpreting usage data, calculating shelving needs etc. We can look at past job history to see where this aligns with role requirements (no qualifications but have done stock control in a warehouse, yes you probably could work in a library). Finally we could look beyond our traditional recruitment practices. Too often we use the same tactics (advertise on jobs.ac.uk) and get the same results (loads of applicants from within the HE sector but fewer from the local community). Avoiding the usual job advertisers but using recruitment fairs, working with local charities, working with schools and colleges or taking on apprentices could attract candidates that aren’t checking jobs.ac.uk and CILIP on a weekly basis and prevents them being crowded out when they do apply.