Month: March 2016

More Careers inquiry fandango

Recent weeks have seen not one but two sessions on CEIAG held by the joint Education & Business sub-committee. In fact, due to Ministerial illness, a third is soon to come. What a time to be alive.

The first session, with witnesses from the CDI, Careers England, AELP and the West Midlands LEP, was not broadcast as it was held away from the Westminster estate so only a written record has been published while the second session, with witnesses from the Careers Enterprise Company, the National Careers Service and Ofsted, is online for your viewing pleasure.

Across these two sessions there’s a couple of things which peaked my interest.

  1. The CDI are treading very carefully around the funding issue

Suggesting that HE Widening Participation funds be funneled off to help fund careers support might be an idea with merit and fit as a solution to the dropout data but asking funding to be directed from another strand of the social mobility levers isn’t without downsides. Careers work with young people is something that a Government should see as a stand alone good and fund as such. In the current climate, asking Government for cash is a sure fire way to be swiftly shown the meeting room exit door which makes persuasion harder but it shouldn’t be dodged because of this.

The confusion over strategic funding ideals and what this funding gets spent on (see point 5) is also exacerbated by the strong call from all witnesses for Careers Quality Marks to be an integral part of any recommendations put forward by the Committee. This would come with a significant cost for schools currently under huge financial pressure (plus the forthcoming evidence toolkit will surely weaken the argument for quality awards even further, but that’s another blog). The issue of funding needs a joined up message from the CDI and not left to other unions.

2. The National Careers Service offer for young people isn’t being held to account 

Around the 16.30pm mark Joe Billington, the Director of the National Careers Service, is asked how many young people have used the phone service but the conversation is diverted and the answer never comes. The most recent data shows that just 4% of the 25,000 telephone users of the service were 19 or under (page 19). That isn’t enough.

3. Generally, the MPs didn’t seem very well briefed

Around the 16.38pm mark, a number of the MP’s seem shocked to learn that a wealth of data on skills mismatches and employer views on the employability of young people was already readily available even before the Careers Enterprise Company used it to form their “cold spots” map. Both the UKCES Employer Perspectives survey and the annual Employer Skills survey have this information in droves. That these MPs, on this specific sub-committee, looking at this specific issue, were not aware of this is baffling. Amanda Milling MP then goes onto ask about the interaction between business and schools, it’s true that a lot has been published on this subject but, at the very least, could she not be aware of the work from the department she is meant to be scrutinising?

4. Relying on Ofsted to be the all knowing overseer of careers work in schools is a busted flush

They don’t have the time, the capacity nor the inspection framework to do it. It isn’t happening on the scale it needs to now and, with the ongoing move to a school lead system and a new Chief Inspector to be appointed, won’t in the future.

5. This is a lot of strategic stuff without asking, “Day to day, who’s talking to young people?”

For all of this talk about “umbrella” organisations, Quality Marks and websites not a lot of time or attention seems to be focused on who is actually going to enabling this provision for and with young people. To their credit, the CDI are clear in their expectation of suitable CPD and qualification status for professionals and the work of the Careers Enterprise company will help provision levels. Helping schools focus on, fund and find time for careers work to happen seems to be the roll your sleeves up work though nobody wants to roll their sleeves up for.

Side note – If I was a tinfoil hat wearing type I would also note that, last year, the revamped careers duty for schools was released on the 25th March and the Guidance the year before that on April 14. Postponing the Ministerial witness session to beyond those dates this year could allow them to appear in front of the Committee with a new document to offer.

 

Advertisements

When a report about a report might be a good thing

If there’s one thing the world of school CEIAG doesn’t need, it’s another report into the failures of school CEIAG. So when “Year 11 student’s views of Career Education and Work Experience” from Kings College London turned up in the week, I was a little nonplussed. Though, on further examination and when follow up news later came, it seemed to me that this report might warrant greater attention.

Firstly, this is no small scale survey with little in the way of statistical controls and a PR axe to grind that sometimes grab the headlines. These are the findings of the Aspires 2 longitudinal 5 year study which includes results culled from views of over 13,000 Year 11s. Subsequently, there are lots of interesting nuggets in the document on young people’s views and experiences of CEIAG

kings college report 1

but it’s the findings on the discrepancy in careers support for those students from disadvantaged backgrounds compared to the average that might have the greatest impact.

Social Class: Students from less advantaged social backgrounds (with lower levels of cultural capital) Findings receive significantly less careers education and report being less satisfied – students from the most advantaged backgrounds are significantly more likely to receive careers education. For instance, a student with very high cultural capital is 1.49 times more like to receive careers education compared to a student with very low cultural capital.

(Btw – All careers practitioners should take a look at the conclusions of the report even if just to recentre and remind ourselves to ensure that students from across the background spectrum should be included in our work.)

Ultimately though, the findings wouldn’t shock too many of us careers folk working with young people. When you close a large scale State intervention (Connexions) and leave the market to plan the unfunded provision left it turns out that it’s the easier wins that get won. Huh, who knew.

The follow up to this report came swiftly with the news that the Education Endowment Foundation will look into, “the current state of careers education and identify the most effective ways to provide this service.” The work will be carried out by Dr Deidre Hughes and Dr Anthony Mann of the Education & Employers Taskforce. Now, usually at this point my “policy wonk” patience limit would have been reached as, rather than actually enact some change, all we had was news of another report. Yet, it’s the possibilities of this forthcoming work which hold some hope.

Government departments, just like schools, in tight financial times, want to know what works and what bang for your buck you’re going to get from each intervention. CEIAG work has a growing evidence base to show worth across it’s different forms be that employer engagement or career guidance but what this work actually looks like in schools is less clear. Frameworks try to define this and guidance can include best practice case studies but this still can leave school leaders unclear about what this work looks like in their institutions. Compare those to publications such as the EEF’s Teaching & Learning  toolkit which clearly sets out costs, evidence strength and impact to learners for each type of provision. School leaders welcome this sort of clarity, “More than half of secondary school leaders now say they use the Toolkit.” Imagine a similar tool for CEIAG interventions showing just how much worth a careers fair vs an employer visit vs a mentoring scheme vs face to face guidance vs an enterprise day has. Maybe it would make schools focus on what really works in CEIAG. Perhaps it would force practitioners, including myself, to reflect on our own practice and alter our own programmes to focus on interventions with the most impact not just to do what we’ve always done because “it fits.” It could even help position careers work to be seen by schools leaders not as an add on, but as an intervention they can deploy to help disadvantaged learners just like any other they currently do. Presented and communicated well to school leaders, this forthcoming report could be a real positive for careers work in schools.

 

 

The Employer Engagement Cycle

the-employer-engagement-cycle

This blog from the Education and Employers taskforce is worth linking to and reading in it’s entirety for a reminder of why employer engagement matters.

When you’re struggling to plan in employer engagement provision in school, perhaps because the employers are hard to reach or Senior Leaders are being protective over missed learning time or it seems there’s just too much else on the school calendar, it’s always worth remembering why such provision matters. The evidence is clear, everyone involved in employer engagement (student, education & businesses) report positive outcomes and the actual quantitative data for students shows the impact in their destinations and earnings potential.

The research joins a growing body of literature that demands policy makers and practitioners think afresh of employer engagement initiatives, how they relate to a young person’s wider life and what truly drives the significant benefits many appear to experience.