Author: fecareersiag

Primary CEIAG and the preparation for choice

At the beginning of March Damian Hinds reannounced £2m of funding for the CEC to research and invest in CEIAG in Primary schools. This sparked a comment piece by the Headteacher blogger Michael Tidd which argued against this initiative. It’s worth saying that Tidd’s concerns seem to fall into two categories: 1) resources are tight and the funding for this initiative is small so any impact will be slight and 2) Careers Education is not a priority at this stage of education. Leaving aside the zero sum game view on resourcing (just because Primary CEIAG receives some funds, it doesn’t automatically follow that other areas shouldn’t or can’t receive funds), it’s his view on CEIAG that this post will concentrate on.

Tidd asks,

what are we hoping that 10-year-olds will take from these new lessons? I think many primary children have no idea what they want to do when they grow up – and I think that’s okay. Primary education shouldn’t be about preparation for the world of work.

And then goes onto reason that

The world of careers is enormous, and there should be no hurry to make any decisions. It’s bad enough that we force young people to deliberately narrow their curriculum at 14; I certainly don’t want children to be ruling anything in or out any sooner

I understand that any media articles have tight word counts so complexity and subtlety can be lost but I’ll take Tidd at his word and offer the following in rebuttal. The first point is the fact that Primary schools report that they are already offering CEIAG provision to pupils

primary ceiag

through a range of activities. So this funding is not for squeezing new things into crammed timetables but for improving the efficacy of provision that is already happening.

Second, is the need to tackle this conceptual view of Primary (or any) CEIAG as only a mechanism of immediate choice as this is a damaging and false starting point of the aims and outcomes of good CEIAG provision. That isn’t to say that some CEIAG provision does enable and facilitate choices but that other provision lays the groundwork for this. This has long been advocated by the Education & Employers Taskforce charity who established their Inspiring the Future offshoot, Primary Futures to achieve just this

Here the framing of the provision is not choice limiting or insistent on choices being made but as provision as a method for expanding and broadening horizons. The CEC publication, “What works: Careers related learning in primary schools” draws together much of the nascent research in this field to evidence why this is the correct approach.

The evidence suggests that career related learning in primary schools has the potential to help broaden children’s horizons and aspirations, especially (though not exclusively) those most disadvantaged.

Some of the challenges that all CEIAG provision aims to overcome is laid out

Robust longitudinal studies have shown that having narrow occupational expectations and aspirations can, and do, go on to influence the academic effort children exert in certain lessons, the subjects they choose to study, and the jobs they end up pursuing.Research has also shown that the jobs children aspire to may be ones that their parents do, their parents’ friends do or that they see on the TV and/or social media.

The passages (page 2) which describe how young children base their career knowledge and aspirations on their close circle of influencers (social capital), conceive their view on their place and opportunities in society (cultural capital) and establish their belief in their ability to determine their own outcomes against other factors (identity capital) lucidly offer the rationale for careers provision at Primary school age. The argument that Primary CEIAG is not beneficial because young minds would subsequently preclude routes falls away as the very rationale for informed Primary CEIAG provision is for young minds to expand routes and options.

How these aims can be achieved is explained in detail in a recent LKMCO/Founders4Schools report “More than a job’s worth: Making careers education age-appropriate.” In its sections covering the rationale and design of CEIAG provision at secondary and Post-16 level, the report retreads much ground already covered through the CEC’s What Works series and the original Gatsby report. Where the report adds value to the ever-increasing library of CEIAG publications though is the clear direction for practitioners as to what sorts of provision could be offered to children of different ages.

lmkco report1

The inclusion of the 2-4 Pre-school age group caused enough of a stir to get media coverage which also tended towards Tidd’s take on the concepts being discussed.

Finally, it’s worth saying that I agree with concern around the narrowing of options (read; curriculum) at 14 as the benefits of continuing with more a broader curriculum for longer is well evidenced. Where I would disagree with Tidd is that I would propose that the methods and age appropriate delivery of CEIAG provision the LKMCO publication outlines might actually prove to have benefits for students once they reach the later stages of secondary schooling. At these Moments of Choice (to use the CEC terminology), when students currently struggle through a complex choice system without the skills and knowledge to navigate that choice architecture, the pay off from the horizon broadening and stereotype challenging Primary CEIAG work he disparages could be evident.

Advertisements

CEIAG in Post 16 providers – a survey

Over the years of writing this blog the annual omnibus survey from the DfE has always offered a useful insight into the reality of the scale of CEIAG provision across the country. Up until now I did not realise that they also undertake a Post 16 version of the survey, the most recent release of which includes plenty of interesting information about the scale and types of provision on offer by providers.

fe omnibus survey

The first point to make about the results is that respondents do appear to come from the wide variety of providers across the FE landscape (Table A1: 421 responses) but overall it’s heartening to see just how widespread the range of CEIAG work is across the Post 16 stage.

fe omnibus survey 1

The rise in employer encounters since 2017 was noted by the CEC looking for signs of impact of their work.

The figures that provide the most surprise to me though come from the split into type of provision by type of institution

fe omnibus survey 2

My assumption would be that FE Colleges would be offering more employer encounters for students than Sixth Forms attached to schools. Employer engagement is a central tenet of the mission of FE providers and the qualifications they offer. In my experience at least, the range and scale of employer engagement is much more frequent and in-depth then what you would expect in a school with a small sixth form but that seems to not to be the case here. The other interesting data point is the scale of difference between the students at different providers participating in University visits but this comes with a word of warning. There is some confusion across the document in the way this question is worded; fig 10.1 phrases it “All students considering university have had at least two visits to universities” while 10.2 uses “University applicants have had at least two visits to universities.” These differences appear subtle but for an FE College who will have a significant proportion of their student population studying qualifications at Level 2 and below, the wording of this question could elicit significantly different results from respondents.

Elsewhere in the survey, it is heartening to see CEIAG provisions taking center stage in respondents thinking when detailing their “activities to encourage students to have high aspirations or to help them achieve their potential.”

fe omnibus survey 3

Careers Teams in Sixth Forms, FE Colleges, UTCs & Studio Schools would be involved in the organisation or delivery of all of those types of provision in some way. Leaving aside the continual misappropriation of disadvantaged young people having “low aspirations,” when research shows that they have high aspirations but lack the tools and social and cultural capital to enact those aspirations (pdf), this data shows Post 16 Careers Leaders how to best frame their offer to explain value to Senior Leaders. The potential areas to offer provision in that would gain benefit can be found in the responses to the next question, “Barriers faced be post-16 institutions in raising aspiration within the student population.”

fe omnibus survey 4

Many of which are structural barriers (e.g. cost of continuing education, socio-economic) but also barriers which Careers Teams can help tackle with clear messaging. For example, with the use of Martin Lewis’ campaign materials to tackle some of the myths around Higher Education tuition fees to assuage student fears over the impact of these costs and offering to play a central role in parental engagement events and activities.

Wide scale tracking of CEIAG provision is valuable to note the impacts that policy or changes in accountability focus can ripple through the system. These annual surveys from the DfE are an important data point to achieve this. Another survey that may interest you or benefit from your involvement is the CEC survey of Careers Leaders in schools which will hopefully report interesting data on the workforce change that the Careers Strategy and DfE Careers Guidance for schools has influenced so get your response sent if this is applicable to you. A similar survey for FE Careers Leaders is planned for later this year.

 

The Destinations data still isn’t there for the Gatsby pilot

It has now been three and half academic years since the North East Gatsby pilot kicked off with the aim of implementing the Gatsby career benchmarks in a range of education providers. The Pilot was funded by the Foundation to the tune of £9,000 per school or college plus the central support offered by an appointed Pilot Lead.

Any impacts and lessons of the pilot should be key indicators for both the CEC and the DfE as they monitor the value of the Gatsby benchmarks in improving CEIAG provision. The fact that the Pilot is already being replicated (with lower funding levels) across the country as the CEC rolls out its Careers Hubs programme should only reinforce this need.

To learn these lessons, iCEGS have been commissioned to conduct an evaluation of the pilot which aims to

document a systematic attempt by education providers to implement all eight Benchmarks and establish what impacts might result from the implementation of the Benchmarks.

and, last month, an interim report was published giving an update on the findings of the evaluation.

The interim report finds that the schools and colleges involved in the Pilot self-reported that they did expand or improve their CEIAG provision according to the Benchmarks

icegs report1

This finding is not itself cross referenced against any external accountability of the schools or colleges CEIAG provision such as Ofsted reports. On a positive note though, the report does show that improvement (again, with the self-reported caveat) is possible across all types of education establishment. It seems that the clarification of CEIAG offered by the Benchmarks and the categorisation of the success criteria can be molded to work across the variety of providers in the English education system which is a major positive for policy makers looking for whole sector improvement strategies.

The report also finds that students across the providers responded with “significantly higher career readiness scores” which is an important variable to measure but, of the potential impacts, not the one that would hold the most sway with policy makers I would imagine. For this to be the case, further work would need to be done here to show a link with higher career readiness scores to actual employment and earning outcomes for young people much like the, now very well-known, employer engagement research from the Education & Employers taskforce.

The report also notes that, during the Pilot evaluation period, the schools involved reported an increase in the number of A-C GCSE grades but that it is not possible to draw any conclusions from this as there is no historical data to judge trends and no causation ties to be found to the Gatsby pilot. The success rates of FE College learners is not mentioned nor is any impact on attendance statistics of pupils in the area.

The interim report then praises the role of the Pilot area facilitator in

Creating a community of shared knowledge, networks and practice

which is clearly a benefit that a supported Pilot scheme could enact but one that would cause many professionals working in Local Authority skills development to wonder how that is different from their work which, in my experience at least, usually includes a termly forum where school and college leaders or careers leaders can meet.

Lessons

Perhaps the part of the report most useful for other Hub Leads and Careers Leaders is the Emergent Challenges section (page 14). The fact that FE Colleges will struggle with Benchmark 8 (Personal Guidance) won’t be news to any practitioner grappling with the requirements to offer this highly individual service within current funding envelopes but the issue of tracking provision against the Benchmarks is one which I think the CEC do need to be on top of. Their Tracker tool has the basis to offer much support in this area but the wide range of approaches in how providers input activities will soon cause reporting problems for them. I’ve seen examples of a school inputting every Careers lunchtime drop in session they run, meaning huge numbers of repetitive provisions being added which boost the total number of activities in a Benchmark.

Destinations

This then leaves the elephant in the room. The destinations data of the actual students participating in all of this provision is not mentioned in this interim report but this is due to the timescales involved and it will be referenced in the final report. Many of the pupils attending those providers during the pilot time will not have left those providers yet and, for those that have, only one years worth of data (2017) has been published by the DfE. I blogged about that 2017 data here and the lack of (positive) impact perceivable in those positive destination indicators so it will be interesting to see what the final report concludes with a researcher’s eye looking at a more complete data picture.

Conclusion

At the moment the Pilot evidence shows that providers are reporting that their provision has grown and their institutional behaviours changed because of the Gatbsy Benchmarks and that pupils are more confident about their career readiness. These are small rewards for the sheer scale of system change that has occurred with the formation of the CEC and its subsequent policies (including Hubs, Careers Leaders and employer encounters). The evidence for actual outcomes for students is still lacking. What this is proving though to policy makers is that system change in education is possible (without much funding) if the provision aims are formalised and grouped into ‘benchmark’ style targets. It seems that schools and colleges, despite their protestations to the contrary, do like to be measured on some of the things they do.

 

2019 NICEC Conference programme

Coming over the horizon is the 2019 NICEC Conference “Changing Boundaries; career identity and self” in April which is sure to be a CPD highlight of the year. You can read the summary of the event, click on the link to book your place and see the keynote speakers and workshop programmes below.

NICEC, the National Institute for Careers Education and Counselling) invites you to its conference ‘Changing Boundaries; career identify and self: An international conference on research, practice and policy in career development’  which is to be held in Manchester on 16th-17th April 2019.

 

The attached programme reveals keynote speakers from the Australia (Mary McMahon), Denmark (Rie Thomsen) and the USA (John Amaechi and Michael Arthur) and a wide range of sessions from contributors from all over Europe. We will explore themes such as, career identity, innovation in practice, social justice, career research, and include presentations from Tristram Hooley, Jenny Bimrose, Peter Plant, Wendy Hirsh, Stephen McNair, Fiona Christie, Mark Yates, Rosie Alexander…. and many others you may have yet to meet.

 

Further details and booking information can be found at  https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/changing-boundaries-career-identity-and-self-an-international-conference-on-research-practice-and-tickets-48343197806   For any queries, do please contact info@nicec.org

 

Please do feel free to pass on this email to your colleagues or Career Leaders in training; we very much welcome their participation.

Looking forward to welcoming you to Manchester

 

 

Please do take a look and see if you are able to join us for a couple of thought-provoking days.

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.

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.