Author: fecareersiag

The CEC Implementation & Careers Hub Plans

When it finally came, the Careers Strategy placed a lot of emphasis on the work of the Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC) so far and even increased the scope of the organisations work in the future. Alongside the actual implementation responsibilities of schools, practitioners and other stakeholders, the CEC was tasked with a broader range of targets and policies beyond increasing employer engagement which had been it’s main remit up until now. These extra strands of provision for the CEC to coordinate show that the organisation is consolidating it’s position as the Government’s core organising force across careers policy for young people in England.

The Strategy set out that through to 2020 the CEC would oversee

  • schools and Colleges wider Careers provision across all of the Gatsby benchmarks
  • a £5m investment fund for careers provision for disadvantaged pupils
  • the collaborative discussion to define the Careers Leader role
  • the £4m funding pot for the training programme for around 500 Careers Leaders
  • to initiate and support 20 Careers Hubs across the country with another £5m pot of funding
  • Triple their “Cornerstone” employer contacts to 150
  • link every school and college with an Enterprise Adviser and boost the number of employer encounters to at least one a year from years 7 to 13

This will be a significant expansion both in responsibilities and the staffing needed to meet them for the CEC.

Soon (March 9th 2018) after the publication of the Strategy, the CEC responded with a (draft) Implementation Plan that set out how they would achieve and measure achievement of those policy actions. The draft plan states that

  • the £5m investment fund will be split with £2.5m directed towards increasing employer encounters and the other £2.5m invested into funding and testing personal guidance models
  • the £4m Careers Leader training funds will be open to schools who are members of the new Career Hubs but also not in Career Hubs

and also asked for submissions of feedback. The final version was released 9th April 2018 with a few cosmetic changes and some additional photographs but only the following substantive alterations to the text

Final version:

  • Acknowledges that Careers Hubs should not replicate local networks “Where other local structures are already established, we will look to engage these networks to avoid duplication and coordinate effort”
  • Allocates around £1000 central Hub fund per school for activities
  • Includes the need to collaborate with experts in STEM & SEND when learning from pilots
  • Includes the need to encompass existing quality measures in outcome research such as the Matrix Standard and Careers Quality Awards
  • promises the inclusion of the CDI Framework of Learning Outcomes when looking at an individuals outcomes when measuring impact

So whatever submissions were made only asked for or gained small-scale changes. We do know that Careers England submitted a response which I felt was measured in its welcoming tone for much of the plan but also asked the most pertinent question regarding whether the funding available is sufficient to meet the high aspirations of the Plan.

Careers Hubs

Alongside the Final Plan were published the details on the Career Hubs policy including the prospectus for interested collaborative groups to apply. A Careers Hub is essentially the CEC version of a middle tier now represented by Regional School Commissioners in the world of academy management. In 2014 the DfE realised that it could not possibly performance manage the huge number of academies in the English system from a central organisation so inserted a layer of middle tier accountability and guidance into a system not well designed to accommodate it. It seems that the CEC has learnt from this and, after first running the North East LEP pilot scheme, are building a structure to encourage growth in quality and accountability first rather than merely hoping sporadic support would see a coherent system flourish.

The plans for Hubs are ambitious. They require groups of schools (20-40) to collaborative together and with other local stakeholders to build each schools provision across the Gatsby benchmarks.

careershub1

They are ambitious as they require buy in from lots of stakeholders and providers who will be tempted by the organisational and (slight) funding support on offer but may also be tentative in their support as Hubs have the potential to overlap or replace local partnership and structures already in place. (Much like the Careers Leader role, the balance between adhering to centrally dictated structures and not trampling on locally founded solutions is not something found without willingness to change from practitioners) Meanwhile, organisers in locales without strong current networking structures or those providing services in deprived areas (outside of defined Opportunity Areas who have a separate process) will, I hope, be champing at the bit to put forward a proposal for a Careers Hub.

The fist hurdle to overcome for any Enterprise Co-ordinator or Council Skills Development Manager will be a challenging one though. The initial expression of interest deadline is 24th April 2018 and the Excel Eligibility checker reply document asks the respondent questions which refer to the commitment and capacity of all involved schools. An Organiser diligently completing this form could be sending and chasing replies from up to 40 schools within 11 working days and some will also have to contend with the fact that their schools will still be on Easter break until the 16th, leaving only 7 working days to collate responses. The truth will be that many of the initial interest submissions will be sent without consultation from all potential participants as Organisers will hope to consult and gain buy in from schools in the period until the 24th May 2018 deadline for the whole application form to be submitted. The FAQ (Appendix F) explains that Hub bids will be able to swap around up to 10% of named schools before the scheme starts so this allows some flex for Organisers unable to secure buy in from schools.

Employer Encounters Fund

The £2.5m fund for Employer Encounters will accessible to “some” schools in Careers Hubs through “virtual wallets” obtained through a separate bidding process for Hubs.  These encounters will be available to purchase from providers approved by the CEC. Local providers of employer engagement will be keenly awaiting the May publication of the CEC approved provider list.

Hub Leads

Each of the 20 Hubs will be supported by the CEC to recruit a Hub Lead on a salary of £40,000-£50,000 plus expenses. This adds a significant new role into the careers landscape and one that will have plenty of current Enterprise Co-ordinators scouring  the job description (Appendix C) and thinking that they already perform many of the duties listed.

Conclusion

The Hub proposals look very enticing and those involved with the policy over the next few academic years should be excited at the promises of support on offer from the CEC. The prospectus includes many references to those schools outside of Hubs who will still be able to access funding for Careers Leader training funds and other CEC services but not the Employer Encounters funding. As only “some” schools in Hubs will be allocated this, there is certainly the potential for schools to be in different speed lanes for the support with their Careers provision over the next few years. A school that is part of a Hub and meeting their commitments in the Hub Memorandum of Understanding while also receiving financial support for Careers Leader training, Employer Encounter funding and the other guidance and support from the CEC and their Enterprise Co-ordinators would be in a very different position to a school without those advantages. If this offer is open in your area, take it up, and if your Council Lead or Enterprise Co-ordinator hasn’t submitted a bid, be asking them why not. There might well be good reasons for not wanting to be involved (a belief in established local networks for example), but for cash and resource starved CEIAG practitioners wanting to offer quality provision in their school, being part of a Careers Hub trial certainly looks like a rocket boost to being to achieve that.

 

Advertisements

Finding a solution to the Careers Leader conundrum

Headteachers face a daily barrage of decisions and choices be they to do with staff, curriculum, funding, parents, the community, the list goes on and, at some point over the next few months, the Department for Education expects that one of these decisions will be to nominate a “Careers Leader” for their school. This requirement, with the demand for schools to publish their programme of careers events, was included in both the updated 2018 Statutory Careers Guidance for schools and the wider looking Careers Strategy.

The careers strategy sets out that every school needs a Careers Leader who
has the energy and commitment, and backing from their senior leadership team, to
deliver the careers programme across all eight Gatsby Benchmarks. Every school
will be asked to name this Careers Leader. This requirement will be introduced in
September 2018, by when more information and support will be made available

Since the removal of Connexions funding and the requirement on schools to offer CEIAG back in 2012, schools have responded with a multitude of staffing structures. My experience of CEIAG teams of staff responsible for careers include:

  • A Senior Leader
  • A teacher leading on Careers as a teaching & learning responsibility alongside classroom teaching
  • A non teaching, pastoral member of staff co-ordinating careers provision
  • A contracted guidance practitioner brought in by the school
  • A practitioner from a contracted outside agency who combines guidance and co-ordinator roles
  • A consultant type role from the Multi Academy Trust head office
  • A member of admin staff who is tasked to support the careers team
  • A member of another pastoral team (mentors, house leaders etc) who has some of their timetable dedicated to careers support

or any mixture of the above. The combinations of CEIAG teams vary widely and even when job titles match, the actual duties of those professionals from school to school can differ enormously.

Oversight and tracking of these changes in the careers workforce since 2011 can be found throughout the work of David Andrews. Whether when replying to Parliament or publishing papers considering the future journey of Careers policy (from back in 2013),

While there is evidence that some schools have responded to the new policy by establishing innovative provision that represents an improvement on what was available in the recent past, the overall situation in schools is a deterioration in
the level of careers guidance. Schools are adopting a range of models for
securing access to careers guidance for their pupils.

through his country-wide travels, consultancy and courses he has been consistently abreast of the changes in how careers provision has been delivered for young people. It is from these varied starting points that schools will now attempt to incorporate the Careers Leader job title into their structure.

The 2018 Careers guidance also promised that a job role outline would be published by the DfE to help schools define the role by September 2018. Even before that both the Careers Enterprise Company (CEC) and the CDI have released guidance material and proposed job outlines. The CEC see the roles in schools falling into line with the table below:

careers leaders1

but I think they would be wrong to assume that a “Co-ordinator” type role will disappear. Some schools will name a current non teaching Careers Co-ordinator as their Careers Leader and even change their job title but many though will name a member of SLT as their Careers Leader which still then leaves plenty of Careers work for a Co-ordinator to do as shown by the suggested job description from the CDI.

I put out a poll on Twitter and most of the replies either nominated a non teaching CEIAG lead or a Teacher as their Careers Lead.

Both of these solutions would fit the CDI vision of a Careers Leader being a professional role but those who replied “teacher” will also find themselves in a position where the nominated Careers Leader isn’t actually the member of staff carrying out most of the duties of a Careers Leader. A classroom teacher simply couldn’t fit the work in. As the CDI say though,

It matters less whether the tasks are undertaken by one member of staff or several, or whether the post is filled by a member of the teaching or non-teaching staff, and more that all the tasks are clearly assigned and that the personnel allocated the role(s) are enabled and supported to fulfil their responsibilities effectively

so getting hung up about job titles and responsibilities won’t add much value to CEIAG careers provision in schools. Schools will allocate responsibilities how they see fitting within their budget, pastoral and current staffing structures. Especially at a time when budgets are extremely tight for schools and only going to get worse.

The complete failure to allocate funding that matches the ambition of the Careers Strategy is not suddenly going to disappear just because everyone agrees on a job title and job description. This is not fertile ground on which to sow requests for schools to restructure staffing or find wages for new roles. At the time of writing (March 2018) a quick scan of the careers posts advertised reflect this as such. In the adverts for a 3 day a week non teaching post and a teaching post below, the pay is low for the dedicated role and the teacher would be fitting the duties in alongside leading a department and a teaching timetable.

The Careers Strategy did also come with the promise of funding for training for 500 Careers Leaders which the CEC then set out how this funding would be accessed in their Implementation Plan response.

careers leaders2

Any standardization of CEIAG job roles across schools seems a little way off just yet so I’m not convinced that, between now and September that schools will suddenly all start to coalesce around the same staffing structure for CEIAG. Without funding for capacity, schools will make do and mend with who they have. I would also be wary that the schools that first take up this job title will be those with some form of CEIAG team already in place so I would go further than the CEC plan for Careers Leader training above and bar any school that currently holds a Careers Quality Mark from applying. That would better ensure that the funds were going to schools most resistant or unable to enact quality careers provision until now.

What the CEC and CDI (and the forthcoming DfE) Careers Leader job descriptions do offer though is a uniformity of duty and purpose. If nothing else, they allow Leaders lucky enough to be in post to use those job descriptions to find the elbow room to be able to carry out good CEIAG work in schools.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The EDu Taskforce apprenticeship report didn’t have recommendations for employers so I added some

After writing this blog for all these years, a few returning themes certainly start to emerge. A regular concern I have posted about is the erroneous view (in my opinion) that the low percentages of young people gaining apprenticeships is not down to an awareness issue but due to more complex mix of lack of vacancies & demand outstripping supply, the negative perception of the quality of apprenticeships, employers hiring practices and views favouring older applicants and lack of efficacy in their applications due to their poor networks, work experience and failure to explain their transferable skills. Addressing these issues would take significant investment in student support mechanisms (eg staff) and a culture change in employment hiring so the far easier soundbite for policy makers has always been to bemoan the awareness of apprenticeships in young people.

The position that I disagree with has gained substantive backing with the release of new report from the Education & Employers Taskforce.

This is a piece of work from the researchers who’s previous findings have, I think it’s fair to say, had a substantial impact on the CEIAG policy direction in recent years.

The report uses the following statistic:

Recent government figures have shown that despite the overall number of apprenticeships increasing, the number of under 19s starts have stagnated at around 20%

as a launchpad for examining the methods and practices of schools from which a higher proportion of students do progress into apprenticeships. The Taskforce, quite sensibly, want to amplify those practices and see how expandable they are for all schools. Some of the useful lessons to be learnt are that

In seeking to address the negative attitudes and assumptions young people hold about apprenticeships, the literature suggests that increasing the level of authentic exposure of young people to the apprenticeship route could be helpful.

which is a branch of the previous findings of the Taskforce that employer encounters are beneficial to employment outcomes of learners.

Useful tips to consider when designing school CEIAG provision include altering CV writing sessions by using application form writing frames instead as

Only five of the employers surveyed mentioned using CVs at any point when hiring apprentices, with thirteen instead making reference to an online assessment or
application form which contained a number of write in questions. In our sample of schools, however, CV workshops were still highlighted by the majority of respondents as a method for preparing young people for job applications.

but also more generic recommendations such as promoting higher and degree apprenticeships more, promoting with students at a younger age and raising the profile of apprenticeships with parents. These are all aims which any school Careers professional would agree with and strive for. The survey findings acknowledge the transformative effect good careers work that utilises employers can have

Schools remain, based on the responses given by young people (see figure 1), a key source of information for future possibilities as much as employers. In particular, for those young people who do not have access to personal connection, schools may be major players in raising awareness and broadening aspirations

The report also looks at the desire of young people to want to pursue an apprenticeship

edu apprenticeships1

which, on the face of things, suggests that apprenticeships do not entice enough young people to even attempt to apply for them. What is missing though from this response is the contextual data that show that many more young people apply for apprenticeship vacancies than there are vacancies to begin with

so, even with that low-interest base, the current labour market intelligence shows any young person that securing an apprenticeship is much more difficult than gaining a place at a Sixth Form or FE College. This is acknowledged elsewhere in the report

Demand for apprenticeships from young people far outstrips supply. According to data from the National Apprenticeship Service and the governments FE data library, more than 1.6 million online applicants competed for 211,380 vacancies posted online in 2016

Which makes it odd then that, the report does not mirror the recommendations for schools and include recommendations for employers. So here are the ones which I think they should’ve included to achieve more young people transferring into an apprenticeship before 19.

1. Advertise more apprenticeship vacancies

Because of the above

2. Pay them more

Using current apprentices as role models is a wise method of provision. The Young Apprentice Ambassador Network should be in the toolbox of every school Careers Leader. But if you really want the value of good word of mouth to cascade down from those current apprentices, listen to their own feedback and increase the wages offered.

edu apprenticeships2

3. Make your hiring process more accessible

Careers Leaders understand that it’s their job to increase the employability of young people and that includes making them able to decode and navigate the application process but please, meet us halfway. Many apprenticeship application processes at larger companies are unnecessarily complex from the initial web search (no, vacancies in Doha are not of interest) to the language used. This was highlighted in a recent article by Paul Johnson, Director of the IFS

This could also include having downloadable pdf’s of your application form on your school leaver or apprenticeship website so that practitioners could print these off and use them in a group session.

4. Stop bemoaning the influence of parents

The report includes references to literature, surveys and feedback

Many parents of our generation were brought up during the old YTS days and perceptions have stuck for example parents calling it slave labour. Parents also question the loss of child benefit and many will prevent their children from doing an apprenticeship based on this factor. I recently had a conversation with a parent of a 17-year-old at our 6th form who is stopping her son because of this

that highlights parents as negative influencers on young people thinking about apprenticeships. But excludes data that suggests that attitudes are changing such as the recent Varkey Foundation global survey of parents

 

5. Be honest about your skill requirements & consider new hires instead

Many apprenticeships are not new jobs but training schemes for current employees. As the 2015 Ofsted report “Developing skills for future prosperity” noted

Nationally, considerably more 16- to 18-year-olds apply for apprenticeships
than those aged 25 and over, but far fewer become apprentices. Approximately 40% of the 19,000 learners on apprenticeships at the providers visited were aged 25 and over, whereas only 29% were aged 16 to 18. Most of these older apprentices were already employed in jobs that were converted to apprenticeships.

The Taskforce report also fails to acknowledge this, so the starting point assumption that all apprenticeships were open to school leavers to apply to is a false premise.

The Ofsted report also includes typical employer viewpoints such as

the employers interviewed frequently said that they were reluctant to take a young apprentice straight from school. Two factors dominated their rationale for this.

  • They believed too many 16-year-old school leavers lacked personal
    presentation and communication skills, or gave the impression at interview
    that they were immature and unreliable.
  • They recognised that employing an apprentice required a significant
    investment in time to train them in the generic employability skills and did
    not feel they could afford this.

which shows the hurdles that young applicants have to overcome.

This report and the accompanying sector news coverage paint a simplified view of the issues around young people and apprenticeship uptake which contends that, if only awareness was higher; then more young people would secure apprenticeships. The concern for me is that this view will find only too welcoming a home in the minds of policy makers looking for easy blames and quick fixes. As ever, the actual solution of not just improving awareness but also the employability, cultural capital, application and recruitment efficacy of young people and changing the hiring culture and stereotypical views of employers, is a challenge that would require a much more herculean level of investment, time and effort.

 

The impact of the Your Life STEM campaign

An unexpected arrival in my postbox recently was the Your Life Campaign Impact report

IMG_20180315_092733540

as the 3 year campaign drew to a close in December 2017.

Back in 2014 I blogged that the launch seemed more hype than substance but, as is the case with a number of nationwide careers promotional campaigns, actual provision for young people can be spread thinly across the country and take a number of years to build up a head of steam.

Now though, while the social media accounts are still (at the time of writing) up and the Future Finder STEM job matching site rebranded across to The Female Lead campaign (also run by the ex Your Life Chair Edwina Dunn (actual name Edwina Humby) the YouTube account has been closed, the website 404s and no further activities or events will run under the Your Life banner.

Launched by Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary back in the simpler time of 2014 under the coalition government, the campaign was tasked with the remit of helping to

open young people’s eyes to what studying STEM subjects could mean for their future.

but more specifically to

raise the status of STEM subjects, and increase the number of students studying maths and physics at A level by 50% within 3 years.

This work came under the wider banner of public policy of improving the public understanding of maths and science. This also added the following objectives:

  1. change the way young people think about maths and science by raising awareness of the exciting and wide-ranging careers that studying these subjects can lead to
  2. increase the opportunities for all people and particularly women to pursue a wide range of careers that need skills in science, technology, engineering and maths

The Impact Report details how the campaign approached achieving this by

  • working with ” a team of Emmy Award winning writers” to produce a series of Youtube videos (140 videos produced with 1.5 million views racked up)
  • Organising trips to for school students to STEM employers (I took a group to an Amazon depot under this banner a few years ago)
  • A competition called Formula 100 that “generated hundreds of entries”
  • Releasing the Tough Choices report
  • Designing the Future Finder app and website
  • Media coverage
  • The STEM school Finder website allowing the public to find schools offering STEM A Levels

To help them with some of these initiatives, Your Life engaged the data science company, Starcount, to “develop the right engagement triggers for different teenage audiences” which led their “content strategy” through avenues such as Youtube. It should be noted, that Edwina Dunn is CEO of Starcount, among other business ventures.

To fund this work the Your Life CIC filing at Companies House, details how the campaign received £1,012,090 through to 2016 in funding. The full accounts posted for the period up to February 2017 reported no more such income. All accounts report that the directors received no payment for their time but the 2017 return does detail that

yourlife1

which means that, across the 3 year period, Mrs Humby’s other businesses received £84,300 from the campaign funds.

The value gained from this investment of over one million pounds should be judged on the objectives set. The most clearly measurable is to see if there has been a substantive rise in the percentage of students taking Maths and Science at A Level. Figures the include this period from the Joint Council of Qualifications

a level entries

and Ofqual

yourlife2

show that the percentage of entries in these subjects has barely increased percentage wise. Even the base numbers, at a time of rising populations, don’t show much movement

In 2014 83,200 students took Maths A Level – in 2017 this had risen to 88,830

Biology 2014 – 58,090 and in 2017 fallen to 56,950

Chemistry 2014 – 49,130 and in 2017 – 48,760

Physics 2014 – 33,590 and in 2017 – 33,840

The Impact Report does everything it can to not mention this failure to, well, impact on these numbers preferring instead to focus on social media views. The report is mindful of the giant strides that still need to be taken

Your Life can only go so far. Despite our successes, shifting the dial significantly requires a structural solution

which does elicit some sympathy from me. In the cash starved world of CEIAG provision, a million pounds over three years is a huge amount of money but to achieve the change and impact Your Life was tasked with, it was nowhere near enough to even scratch the surface. Now succeeded by the very similar Year of Engineering, the Your Life campaign shows that Government intervention can be well meaning but is regularly given too tiny tools to tackle too large a job.

 

Bored students at Careers events (part 2)

Part one here: https://fecareersiag.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/a-picture-collection-bored-students-at-careers-events/

 

The girl on the left: “Ah, you’re taking a photo of me I see and I am so not impressed.”

 

“Miss, no WAY!” *hides under coat*

 

 

Chap on the right is thinking, “I’m never coming to this office again.”

 

 

 

Picture bottom left – “zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”

 

 

 

The boy at the front, turning back seems to be crying out with his eyes for the sweet, sweet release of gentle death (or just the end of period 2) to get him out of there.

 

The girl in the bottom right picture looking over her shoulder!

As previously, putting on Careers events is hard work and to be celebrated for the positive outcomes they achieve. There will always be the odd nonplussed teenager who’s momentary grimace will make it into any quick promo snap. Keep putting on those careers events because we know they work and tell the world about them so the outdated view of careers work in schools becomes exactly that, outdated.

The Cold Spots accountability hole

 

Following on from the previous post on this blog looking at how the non publication of apprenticeship vacancy, starts, registrations and applications data by age will mean an accountability hole when judging the progress of the Careers Strategy and schools guidance documents, this is a sequel post of sorts looking at another data accountability gap that will cause the Careers & Enterprise Company some problems.

The release of the Company’s Cold Spots research in 2015 drew together a number of data sources from other Government departments and quangos to map the weaker and stronger areas of employer engagement focused careers provision across England. This audit was useful as it allowed the Company to focus pilot schemes and target initial provision into the locations that needed it the most.

The Company has recently released a short, 2017 update to that original Cold Spots report that, according to those external data sources, shows a “warming” in career outcomes for young people across England.

coldspots1

This map shows that only one Local Enterprise Partnership area (Thames Valley Berkshire) has regressed and was now returning a higher number of cold spot indicators than in 2015. As the report itself says though, “it is too early to make claims about causality” and this is included for good reason. The original 2015 Cold Spots were based on 9 external data sources

Deprivation indicator:
– % Pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals (FSM)1
2013/14
Employer engagement indicators i.e., “cold spots”
– % Employer establishments who had anyone in on work experience2 in the
last 12 months
– % Employer establishments who offered any work inspiration3 in the last
12 months
Outcome indicators:
– % Pupils attaining 5A*-C GCSE results in England 2013 – 14
– % A-levels entered that are STEM4 2013 – 14
– % STEM4 A-levels that are entered by girls 2013 – 145
– % In sustained apprenticeship destinations post key stage 4 (KS4) 2012/13
– % 16-17 year olds NEET (not in education, employment and training), as
reported by LA in June 2015
– % Employers answering: 16 year old school leavers are “poorly” or “very
poorly prepared” for work
– % Employers answering: 17-18 year olds recruited to first time job from
school are “poorly” or “very poorly prepared” for work

The 2016 update continued to use these sources but now the 2017 update finds itself in a quandary as two of those sources (the two employer returns from the UKCES employer survey data looking at satisfaction of school leaver skills & the offers of work experience and work inspiration activities from businesses) are no longer reporting in the same manner. This is due to the closure of UKCES. The responsibility to continue the survey moved to the DfE but the data gathered will be from a smaller sample size (around 18,000 telephone interviews in the 2016 edition vs over 91,000 telephone and face to face interviews in the UKCES editions) leaving the CEC with a dilemma. They need to both show progress on the continuing funded work both in cold spot areas (opportunity areas in Government speak) across the country but also to show the distance traveled from the starting point since the CEC’s inception this data has to be somewhat comparable year on year.

This leaves the CEC relying on GCSE results data and student destination data which are useful outputs to monitor but are one-sided in focusing on the supply side of students entering the workplace. The views of the demand side from employers would not now be comparable across past years.

Thus the recent publication ends with a consultative call for suggestions on which data points to use to achieve this. The CEC should be wary about using data supplied by employer bodies such as the CBI as, historically, this has been much more scathing on the work readiness of school leavers entering the labour market and much more positive about the contribution of business offering experiences to young people. The UKCES returns told a story of employers being much more satisfied with the employability skills of young people and of a significantly smaller amount of engagement provision with education. So the first stipulation for any new data sources the CEC use, would be that they should be from impartial sources. On the flip side to this coin, data supplied by LEPs should also be considered with an arched eyebrow for they will be keen to champion the success of Government funding in their own patch.

It’s also worth pointing out that the improving “warming” outcomes are in direct opposition to survey results from young people who report a lower number of employer engagements last academic year.

Does asking young people what they actually experienced meet the criteria the CEC is looking for?

Another factor for the CEC to consider is that trends in some of these data points are very much at the whim of changeable Government policy. Putting aside the example of UKCES closing it’s doors, using the number of KS4 leavers in sustained Apprenticeship destinations is commendable but since 2015 the Apprenticeship Levy has reshaped that sector, initially caused a drop in overall numbers of starts and begun to grow the provision that is left towards higher and degree apprenticeships and away from the Level 2 Apprenticeships open to 16-year-old GCSE leavers. The Higher Education Funding review could yet again change levels of tuition fees and so impact the desired destinations of young people. Perhaps the case is being made for the CEC to allocate some of its funding to tender for its own data collections and not be reliant on other arms of the State but, at a scale similar to UKCES level data collection, this would need significant investment.

It is the task of the CEC, to make a quantifiable impact on an area of public policy with multiple inputs and multiple outputs and, with their expanded remit in the Careers Strategy, the number of inputs will only grow. Getting the data points right to measure that impact is proving tricky.

The apprenticeship accountability hole in the Careers Strategy

Now that the Careers Strategy and both the subsequent Statutory Guidance for Schools and the Guidance for Colleges and Sixth Forms has been published, thoughts turn to not just implementation of the ambitions contained in all 3 documents but how the progress of the sector (and Government) will be measured against them.

A cornerstone of both the Careers Strategy and the Statutory Guidance for Schools is the need to improve the awareness of and the aspiration to apply for apprenticeship routes in young people.

The Careers Strategy decrees that the new Baker Clause law will ensure that young people are, ” are clear about the opportunities offered by technical, employment-focused education” (para 32). It highlights the work and the resources offered by the Apprenticeship Ambassador Network as a way of promoting the route. STEM apprenticeships should be promoted (para 44), the £4m funded training for 500 of the newly defined Career Leader posts in schools will include information about apprenticeships and the revamped National Careers Service website will include apprenticeship information as well as allowing young people to apply for vacancies through the site.

Meanwhile, the Statutory Guidance for Schools again is clear on the requirement to include information on apprenticeships in careers provision and promotes organisations such as Amazing Apprenticeships and the ASK Apprenticeship scheme as well as the steps needed for a school to be compliant with the Baker Clause (paras 61-69).

This is all to be welcomed by Careers practitioners in schools looking for more power to their elbow to help them prepare an impartial careers programme. What is missing though from both documents and, it seems, wider Department For Education thinking is how this provision will be evaluated. The Statutory Guidance document includes reference to how Ofsted will evaluate the outcomes of this work

Destination Measures

A successful careers guidance programme will also be reflected in higher numbers of pupils progressing to positive destinations such as apprenticeships, technical routes, sixth form colleges, further education colleges, universities or employment. Destination measures provide clear and comparable information on the success of schools in helping all of their pupils take qualifications that offer them the best opportunity to continue in education or training.

in their Section 5 inspections. If the entire evaluation of this theme of the Careers Strategy and Guidance is just these (sometimes very infrequent) inspections of schools below Outstanding grade) looking at destinations of KS4 & KS5 leavers, then a lot of schools will be harshly judged for their work.

We know that employers favour hiring older employees for their apprenticeships as Ofsted laid out in their 2015 report “Apprenticeships: developing skills for future prosperity (para 26).

While still early after the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy, it should also be noted that the number of Level 2 apprenticeships accessible for school leavers is falling while the growth is in the higher Degree Level apprenticeships, many of which are not new positions but current employees taking new training.

This further narrowing in the number of opportunities for young people to actually progress into means that using only destination measures to monitor the success of careers provision is a metric weighed heavily against schools.

A much fairer way would be to measure both the aspiration of young people to progress into an apprenticeship route and then the number of applications made. At institutional level, collecting this data would be the responsibility of the Careers Leader but at regional and national level, the Government should surely be collating this.

The intentions of young people are regularly assessed by the DfE in their Omnibus Survey series of surveys, the most recent of which shows that apprenticeships still have a journey to make to become a first choice for significant numbers of students

That being said, as Ofsted noted above, young people have always been the largest cohort of registrations and applications on the Find An Apprenticeship portal as the spreadsheets here show. As you can see from the number of registrations by age and number of applications by age spreadsheets, interest from those 19 and under has always outstripped the supply of vacancies.

The problem is that the DfE has now stopped publishing these figures. This will be a substantive hole in the accountability data for the success of the Careers Strategy and the Statutory Guidance for schools.

Judging the progress and impact of the Careers Strategy and Statutory Guidance for schools is a wide reaching task but one that will only possible in any meaningful, quantifiable way, if data such as the number of applications for apprenticeships made young people of school leaver age is collected and published. The DfE should rethink their decision to stop publishing these stats.