Leadership Through Sport & Business champions diversity, equality and social mobility.
Our ethnic diversity levels are high, with all cohorts having a majority of non-white participants.
2012 69% non white
2013 53% non white
2014 89% non white
2015 61% non white
We seek to have 50% female cohorts, but have only achieved about a third across all Intakes since 2012. Our aim is recruit 50% female candidates in 2016.
View details of the LTSB Women in Finance Event on Monday 9th May 2016.
We have recently contracted with Rare Recruitment to use the Rare Contextual Recruitment Process for our 2016 Intake, which provides us with independent social mobility indicators, reliable school performance information so that we can better judge our students' capability and potential.
We carried out our own survey for our 2015 Intake:
Of the 9 participants who live in the least deprived 30%, we are aware of three with significant other disadvantaging factors. With one exception, no one who lives in the least deprived areas (30% or less) has been eligible for FSM, claimed benefits or been arrested.
Our two grammar students are:
The survey asked participants to report subjective disadvantages – the ways they feel their opportunities have been limited – as well as objective disadvantages and socio-economic indicators. (For ease here, considered together as ‘objective disadvantages’.)
The average number of subjective disadvantages selected is 3.5, and 2.2 objective disadvantages. This gives an average of 6 total disadvantages per participant. 16 participants selected 9 or above disadvantages, and there is a very strong correlation between this sub-set and receipt of Free School Meals (81%).
The two most popular responses support LTSB’s position that mainstream education in many cases does not provide the support or normalise ambitions commensurate with the ability of their young people. Often focused on getting the maximum number over the minimum threshold, or increasing numbers of young people applying to university rather than considering the best options for individual students, schools too frequently leave young people ill-prepared for the working world.
These statements are broadly objective, i.e., they are either true or not. They include some of factors that can contribute to disadvantage, but others are just socio-economic indicators.
Over a third of respondents have been eligible for Free School Meals, and the majority (58%) of those who feel unwelcome in the business world were in receipt of FSM / benefits or had been arrested.
Non-responders come from the full range of IMD: most deprived 10% (BJCH) through to least deprived 10% (LOMT, CHMJ). A possible explanation of the 16% non-response has been revealed in conversations with apprentices. They are unwilling to label as ‘disadvantageous’ the circumstances of their upbringing. While this is admirable, and often connected to the idea that they were raised to not see anything as a limitation, it does present a difficulty to charities attempting to faithfully represent the circumstances of their service users.