Month: January 2019

The 2017 student destinations of the original Gatsby pilot group

With the recent release by the DfE of the 2016/17 Destinations Data, I thought it would be a useful exercise to look at the Data of those institutions that were involved in the original Gatsby Benchmarks pilot to see how that improvement in CEIAG provision is effecting student outcomes.

All of the 2017 Destination Data used for this post is sourced from the DfE KS5 & KS4 tables (revised editions) here. Any 2015 Destination Data is sourced from the DfE KS5 & KS4 tables for that cohort which can be found here.

In the original North East pilot which started in September 2015, 16 providers (including 3 Further Education providers) used the Gatsby Benchmarks to assess and plan their own provision. With the support of a LEP appointed area lead and £9,000 central funding for each institution they made significant progress to improving their CEIAG offer against the Benchmarks.

In 2015, 50% of the schools and colleges in the pilot achieved no benchmarks, but after two years of hard work over 85% now reach between six and eight benchmarks.

I’ve taken the Destinations Data for those institutions from the DfE tables above and put them in their own Excel table (with the national regional North East figures) which you can download here > gatsby providers destinations

You can also compare that Data against the trends in nationwide Destinations Data in table 1 in the accompanying report to the 2017 release.

national destinations data

Destinations Data

Each year Destinations Data is a snapshot of a cohort of leavers so it is always wise to a) not draw too definitive a set of conclusions and b) place in context of region and historical Destinations Data if possible. In my table above I have also included the regional figures from 2015 and 2017.

There will also be your own personal approach to using Destination Data as a tool. I think that (with the above caveats) it is useful for judging the impact of CEIAG work. If a school is enabling leavers to progress into sustained destinations that cover the variety of routes and perhaps even buck regional or national trends, then I am much more convinced by the efficacy of a school or college’s CEIAG provision.

So we can see that for 2017 KS4 leavers, the Gatsby schools were under-performing for overall sustained destinations against both 2017 regional and national averages. In fact, the achieved average of the schools of 89% in a positive sustained destination has been left behind nationally since the 2012/13 leavers cohort (table 1). The percentage of KS4 leavers (5.8%) securing an Apprenticeship is a touch above the national average but only in line with the regional average and below the 2015 regional average of 8%. Perhaps the affects of the Apprenticeship Levy and the lag that has incurred on young people securing apprenticeships is shown here. Elsewhere the destination not sustained average of 9.5% is higher than both the regional and nation averages (excluding alternate provision providers) and the 2015 regional figure. The percentage of learners moving onto Further Education or Sixth Form providers is varied and can depend heavily on locally available institutions and their offer that students can travel to so not much value can be drawn from those data points.

At KS5 the three institutions involved offer a more mixed story. (It is worth noting at the outset the clear size differences between the institutions involved, Bishop Auckland College had only 60 KS5 leavers in the data while Sunderland College included 1,082) A percentage of 79% for the Gatsby group transitioning into any positive sustained destination is below both regional and national averages while 9% of learners moving into apprenticeships is above both regional and national comparison rates. The greatest distinction can be found in the Destination not sustained results as an average of 16% of students not achieving a sustained destination is well above regional and national averages.

Conclusions

With the roll-out of both the Gatsby Benchmarks as part of the Careers Strategy and DfE school and College guidance and the Hub structure across much of the country I would expect that most officials within the DfE would be wanting to see the growth shoots of a more sustained and significant impact on positive student destinations in the original pilot area. These may yet come as the 2017 Destinations Data is only looking at the second cohort of school leavers to exit KS4 or KS5 since the start of the pilot area’s Gatsby journey. But the desire for improvement in CEIAG provision must come with goals. Benchmarks are either a method of standarising provision types that has impact on outcomes or they’re not. All CEIAG practitioners (and, I would guess) researchers are aware of the difficult nature of capturing the value of CEIAG work, so much happens in a young person’s life that can have an impact on the journey they take, but if we all do really believe that CEIAG can have a positive impact on those young people; that comes with the responsibility of accepting some metrics will be valued by policy makers. Currently, one of those metrics isn’t moving.

Advertisements

Our Further Education Careers Programme statement (v2)

With the move to a new College, one of my first jobs has been to update our public facing Careers pages on the College website. According to the DfE FE Careers Guidance this should include a Careers Programme Statement that I have previously blogged about here.

This is content that doesn’t sit naturally alongside main purpose of a Further Education website as so much of this public facing tool is solely dedicated to marketing the College. Usually written and designed by a dedicated marketing team, the website is an important part of the recruitment drive that all FE Colleges must consistently undertake to prosper.

While the majority of the rest of the site is dedicated to informing but also enticing potential learners to use the College, the remit of the Careers Programme Statement has to be written, as dictated by the Guidance,

in a way that enables learners, parents, college staff and employers to access and understand it.

So it has slightly different audiences to reach but ultimately all with the same wider strategic goals of a modern FE College in mind. To inform your local community of the work the College does with its students and to invite collaboration and integration with that community including the local labour market.

I am seeing plenty of schools start to upload similar Statements on their websites but examples from FE Colleges are a little more sparse currently. If you know of any, please drop a link in the comments below.

 

How Ofsted is proposing to inspect CEIAG in Further Education from September 2019

ofsted-logo

This morning saw the release of the consultation for the new Ofsted inspection framework. The consultation runs until the 5th April so changes may be made but here is what Ofsted are proposing when inspecting CEIAG in Further Education settings from September 2019.

The Education Inspection Framework sets out that the 4 categories of judgement (Grade 1 – Outstanding, Grade 2 – Good, Grade 3 – Requires Improvement and Grade 4 – Inedequate) remain. For Further Education settings the 7 sub-sections of each inspection (quality of education, behaviour and attitudes, personal development, leadership and management, education programmes for young people, adult learning programmes, apprenticeships) will also receive a 1-4 grading.

In Further Education the Personal Development section will have the most relevance to CEIAG as within those the Inspectorate will be looking at

  • how the curriculum extends beyond the academic, technical or vocational and providers for learners’ broader development, enabling them to develop and discover their interests and talents
  • at each stage of education, how the provider prepares learners for future success in their next steps

The real detail though of what Inspectors will be looking for when they walk through the doors of a College can found in the Further Education and Skills Inspection Handbook. This sets out the type and frequency of inspection that a provider should expect dependent on their current grade. If the provider is expecting a Short Inspection (usually those with a current grade 2) then they should still expect their CEIAG provision to be inspected (para 128 and para 136) with the technical note explaining

Section 41 of the Technical and Further Education Act 2017 requires that Ofsted ‘comment[s]’ on careers guidance provided to students in further education colleges, sixth-form colleges and designated institutions. The Act defines students for this purpose as those aged 16 to 18 and those up to the age of 25 who have an education, health and care (EHC) plan. While the statutory duty applies only to the inspection of the above institutions, inspectors will inspect and comment in similar fashion on careers advice on short and full inspections of all further education and skills providers as appropriate. If there are no 16- to 19-year olds or those with EHC plans, the inspection may not cover careers guidance.

If a regular inspection occurs then the focus on CEIAG comes when inspectors consider the quality of the education programmes for young people (para 172) and the Personal Development of learners (para 216). Surprisingly, CEIAG is not mentioned in the “Outstanding” grade descriptor for Personal Development but is in the “Good” descriptor

The provider prepares learners for future success in education, employment or training by providing: unbiased information to all about potential next steps; high-quality, up-to-date and locally relevant careers guidance, and opportunities for encounters with the world of work

Progression and collaboration with partners to ensure learners move onto positive, suitable and sustained destinations also forms a part of the evaluation for Adult Learning Programmes and Apprenticeships sections.

It is disappointing to see that no research evidence on the value of CEIAG is included in the accompanying research overview document that sets out the evidence rationale for the new Inspection framework. Even just a link to or small mention of work already carried out by the CEC in this area would have been very welcome.

The media coverage of the new Framework has focussed on the increased time that Inspectors will spend in schools for “short” inspections and limited notice time schools and colleges will get before the Inspector arrives. I welcome the extended time for spent on short inspections as, practically, it means that Inspectors are much more likely to look at CEIAG provision but this is Ofsted preforming a balancing act with it’s decresing funding. It is good to see that CEIAG should still be included as part of short Further Education inspections and reported on as well as full but the real proof will be in the awareness and knowledge of HMI in the DfE Careers Guidance for FE and the Gatsby Benchmarks. Those Inspectors fully versed in these landscape moulding frameworks will be the most successful in appreciating and interrogating the evidence base they find themselves through learner and parental feedback and the evidence base offered to them by College Careers Leaders.

 

New Year, new role

With the start of a new year and a new term, I have moved to take-up a new role as Careers Leader at Milton Keynes College.

download

It’s new role in the College staffing structure as the team look to meet and surpass all of the Gatsby requirements for Further Education Colleges.

So, over the forthcoming months this blog will still continue (although perhaps a little more sporadically) with a Further Education and Secondary CEIAG focus.

I hope that 2019 will bring you the challenges and successes that you desire!