CEIAG Policy

The logical failure of the 2017 CBI Education & Skills Survey

Like any membership lobbying organisation, the CBI support their members to make them look as good as possible and promote the greater value of and worth of business to society. They have their work cut out, surveys show that the general public is distrustful with less than half believing British businesses act ethically, so their annual survey of business leaders (The CBI/Pearson Education & Skills Survey) is a chance to shift the focus elsewhere.

The 2017 iteration is drawn from an online questionnaire completed by 344 employers. (It is worth comparing at the outset this methodology against other recent employer surveys such as the recent DfE Employer perspective survey (which I blogged on here) which was drawn from telephone interviews with over 18,000 establishments across the labour market including non-profit organisations but more on that later).

The scale of employer engagement in education is an important topic with the Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC) tasked with expanding this work to improve CEIAG provision and so prove the research evidence of the benefits to be gained for students. Future qualification and pathway policy is also heavily geared towards gaining employer buy in and engagement. This means that establishing a base point of employer engagement is vital in judging progress and knowing where to target resources. The CEC has already made progress in this area with their Cold Spots research. Using a range of data points and sources, this shows that outcomes for young people (much like HE progression and academic achievement rates) varies greatly across the different regions of the UK.

coldspots1

One of the data points used to model the amount of employer engagement is the UKCES Employer Perspectives Survey 2014. This is the preceding biannual release of the DfE Employer Perspective Survey mentioned above before the closure of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills in March 2017 which the DfE then took over.

That the CEC is using this data on employer engagement and not information published by the CBI is the first hint that the two sources on employer engagement tell very different tales.

The CBI survey offers useful views on the value business leaders places on their required skills from school leavers

cbi2

plus their satisfaction on school leaver skill levels

cbi1

and a plea for more young people to be speakers of foreign languages (page 34). The Employer Perspectives survey meanwhile does not break down employer satisfaction with school leavers into skill areas but by age of recruits (fig 3.7) so comparisons are difficult but, at all ages, it found employers were more satisfied than dissatisfied with the skill levels of their young recruits.

The survey begins to raise eyebrows though with the claims of employer engagement with education including the number of firms that offer work experience. Let’s remind ourselves what the 2017 Employer Perspectives Survey reported,

  • That 65% of employers thought that relevant work experience is a critical or significant factor when taking on a recruit but only 38% of employers had offered a work experience opportunity in the past 12 months
  • There is a huge variation between the sectors that offer work experience (fig 3.9)
  • Only 10% of employers offered work inspiration activities to students

This differs drastically to the findings of the CBI Survey that 81% of employers had some links with education

cbi3

and that these links were “extensive in all parts of the UK.” Not only is this claim widely divergent with the finding from a methodologically more detailed and comprehensive survey, it also undermines the very basis on which the CEC has prioritised its work across the country. Regarding employer links with education, the CBI says there are no cold spots.

The differences continue in the value of work experience with only 23% of businesses reporting that relevant work experience is an “important” factor when recruiting a young person (fig 2.1 pictured above) which is well below the 65% of employers reporting similar in the Employer Perspectives Survey. There is also a lack of consistency of expectations in the CBI results with employers also stating that 54% were not satisfied with school leavers relevant work experience (fig 2.3 pictured above). Why would employers be unsatisfied with something they’ve also deemed not important to recruitment?

The data on the types of provision employers offer through their links with schools is couched in a presentational sleight of hand as the percentages are offered as percentages of those business who have education links, not a percentage of the total businesses. Thus

cbi4

So the CBI is not claiming that 81% of employers provide careers advice talks but that 81% of the 81% with links to education provide careers advice talks. Because we have the total numbers of employers the CBI received responses from (344) we can work this back – 81% of 344 = 279, 81% of 279 = 225, 225 divided by 344 = the CBI is actually reporting that 65% of employers offer careers advice talks. The Employer Perspectives Survey concluded that just 10% of employers offer careers inspirations activities including careers talks.

The differences between the two surveys continue when discussing work experience. The CBI concludes (using the same method above) that around 63% of employers offer work experience placements. The Employer Perspectives Survey reported 38% of employers offered placements and that differences between industries can be stark.

skills report4

The CBI survey also includes business views on both the work of the CEC and the current state of CEIAG provision. They find that the CEC still has plenty of scope to increase their connections with business as only 7% of respondents were engaged with the Company.

cbi5

That 79% businesses were unaware of the work of the CEC is not surprising when you also consider that only 28% of employers are aware of the new GCSE grading system.

cbi6

The CBI though are wholly positive about the need and remit of the CEC

The CBI fully supports their work which has a focus on practical, enabling solutions.

and

Underpinned by sufficient resources, the CEC should play a major role in England in
supporting schools and businesses to develop productive relationships to the benefit of young people.

but the views of the businesses surveyed are extremely negative about the quality of CEIAG provision

cbi7

84% of businesses reporting that Careers advice is not good enough is an overwhelming verdict but also similar percentage to the four previous survey results show in 3.16. The CBI goes strong on its verdict on current Careers provision

These are seriously troubling results. They highlight the urgent need for radical improvement.

This all adds up to a muddled picture offered by the CBI.

They and the employers they surveyed are claiming that 81% of business have links with schools across the country, 65% offer careers advice talks and 63% offer work experience placements. This equates to a large-scale engagement with education yet, it is these same employers from whom 79% had not heard of the work of the CEC. It is from these same employers that less than a third were aware of the introduction of whole new GCSEs and grading systems. The same employers who are engaged with education to offer huge amounts of careers provision but 84% of them also reported unsatisfaction with the Careers advice offered. The solution offered by the CBI to change these views? More engagement with education through the CEC.

Establishing hard quantitative data on employer engagement is not easy as previous studies have shown. Using only limited survey data though can mean results with the failures of logic shown above. The CBI cannot continue to claim that the majority of employers are playing their part in provision only to then be overwhelmingly critical of the scale, quality and outcomes of that provision.

The outcome measures of the CEC

Now two years since it gained a Chief Executive and began to hire its network of staff, the Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC) released its 2nd Annual Round-up earlier this month. The report updates on the Company’s progress in expanding its networks of employer engagement and building it’s research base.

As with previous communications, the Round-up is a polished document full of the praises and progress the Company has made since it’s inception. I’ve posted previously on the difficulty on pinning the Company down on the exact numbers of Enterprise Advisers they have hired but this document does update an exact number.

cec2

While, on the previous page, the less precise term is used for the number of schools enrolled in the scheme.

cec1

If “more than” 1700 schools are signed up to the scheme does that mean that some schools are waiting for Enterprise Advisers to be matched with?

With the most recent DfE release showing that there are 3401 Secondary Schools and the AoC Key Facts showing 359 Further Education Colleges in England that means around 45% have now been paired with an Enterprise Adviser.

The Round Up continues to outline the progress and plans across four areas:

  1. Building local networks (Enterprise Advisers)
  2. Finding out what works (research)
  3. Backing proven ideas (investment funds)
  4. Providing online CEIAG resources (the Compass rating tool and the forthcoming Enterprise Passport)

Which are all full of detail on the admirable ambitions of the CEC. Much providence is given to the underlying research backing for this type of work provided by the studies from the Education & Employers Taskforce and the Gatsby Standards.

cec3

This reliance on the evidence base is to be welcomed and the Taskforce is clear that quantity of engagements is vital to improved outcomes for young people.

  • Quantity matters: greater volume of school-mediated employer engagement is associated with better economic outcomes, demonstrating relationships between the number of school-mediated teenage engagements with employers recalled by young adults and significantly reduced incidence of being NEET.

What isn’t mentioned in the Round Up though is any judgement on the quality of those interactions which their networks have enabled. The Taskforce is also clear that this is a factor in the value of the outcomes achieved by young people

  • Quality matters: more highly regarded employer engagement is associated with better economic outcomes. Analysis presented here shows a consistent relationship between higher regard for school-mediated provision and adult economic outcomes.  It suggests that the instincts of young adults were right: that the schools had prepared them better than comparator peers. Wage premiums in excess of 20% are found linked to higher volumes of employer engagement activities described, in general terms, as having been helpful.

More provision matters but more provision students remember as being helpful really matters. Which shows that, as any practitioner who has run an event with a before & after student view questionnaire will know, evaluation of provision is a vital step in ongoing quality control. While this is something individual providers and organisations will (should) be doing to monitor their own impacts, it is not mentioned that the CEC is collating or monitoring this feedback.

This lack of information on the quality of provision is a hint at the lack of wider absence from the Round-up of outcomes for students, whether gleaned from qualitative or quantitative data.

In the announcement of its formation, the DfE said that the new Company would fulfill a number of remits including

  • provide feedback to government on how well young people are being prepared for work

This was expanded on by the then Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, who at an Education Select Committee appearance on the 9th September 2015, said the Company would be judged by “asking young people at the end of this academic and going forward, where they aware of all the options, when did they receive advice, who came into their school to tell them about all the options” and by asking employers “are young people more work ready, more aware of the options that are out there” and listening to employer feedback. In an answer to Ian Mearns MP, she then said that “more emphasis on destination data, tracking where pupils go” would be a key indicator. When asked if she would return to the Committee with evidence of progress from the CEC Morgan promised to return within the Parliament. Of course since September 2015 a lot of water has passed under the political bridge including Cabinet reshuffles, Brexit and a fluffed General Election. With, at the time of writing, a new Education Select Committee chair and membership waiting to be elected, one of the items in a hugely packed education sphere competing for attention from the Committee should be to ask for this promise to be followed up by Morgan’s successor.

There have also been questions in the House to the DfE Ministerial team about the progress of the CEC in meeting its remit. Firstly on 25th January 2016, Sam Gyimah fielded questions with the claim of “significant progress” as evidenced by the hiring of enterprise advisers, the launch of a fund and the forthcoming (then and still now) enterprise passport. There was also the promise of a Careers Strategy in the (for what it’s worth, ahem, still waiting) Spring to further assist schools in their work with the CEC. Again none of this includes monitoring or evaluating the outcomes of any of this work.

On 7th March 2016, Gyimah again took questions on the CEC and again claimed “excellent progress in opening up schools to the world of work.” As well as taking a swipe at Careers Advice, Gyimah promoted the CEC Mentoring scheme and that “every school will have an “Enterprise Adviser.” The session passed with no information on measuring outcomes for students.

The CEC has also appeared in front of MPs during a session of the Sub-Committee on Education Skills and the Economy on the 26th March 2016. With Sam Gyimah unable to attend because of illness, Claudia Harris (alongside Ofsted and the National Careers Service) took questions from a bunch of fairly unprepared MPs who had not heard of the CEC’s work on cold spots or on Government’s own research on employer engagement. The MP’s mainly focused on the “umbrella” work of the CEC to raise engagement provision in areas where this was not happening, on understanding the structural layout of the CEC and the National Careers Service and testing the potential overlaps between the two. Harris was asked about the quality assessment of the work of Enterprise Advisers and promised that schools and colleges will be surveyed on their views of the work of their Advisers. The most important question on the outcomes for students comes at 16.52 in the link above. Harris says the CEC will be measuring 3 outcomes:

  1. Penetration – the numbers of pupils and schools involved
  2. Satisfaction – asking schools if this provision is helping
  3. Impact – working from a baseline in every school, the CEC will monitor how provision has increased

Then Catherine McKinnell MP asks a vital follow-up question “Is there not a risk that there will be a focus on quantity rather than quality,” to which Harris offers

  1. A literature review conducted by the CEC looking at the effectiveness of mentoring as an employer engagement activity so directing funding what works
  2. A series of “deep dive” focus groups where representatives from the CEC will speak to students on their views of engagement provision they have attended and what help it offered them

The absence of two of the outcomes mentioned by Morgan in her session is noticeable. The omission of feedback from employers and student destination statistics is perhaps wise as these are outcome measures not wholly in the control of the CEC and those with conflicting data points with no clear definition from Government on what would be measured. Would a reduction in the of 16-19 NEETS be a plus mark for the CEC or a rise in employer satisfaction of school leaver skills be evidence of the impact of provision? And from which survey source would this be, those conducted by Government or those conducted by business? Or would the only satisfactory judgement be made by the sort of longitudinal research conducted by the Education & Employers Taskforce? This lack of clarity of definable targets continued in a further Committee session (27th April 2016) with the witnesses Nick Boles MP and Sam Gyimah MP where the conversation on quality monitoring of the CEC is sidetracked onto the Dfe Statutory Guidance.

Having to scour Select Committee archives for definitions of the student focused outcome measures of the CEC is indicative of the lack of clarity from the DfE around this issue. If we take Morgan’s comments (as the initalising Secretary of State) as gospel then achieving the tasks set of assuaging the concerns of business and reshaping destination statstics will be no mean feat for the CEC to achieve. Only today the CBI released it’s 2017 Annual Skills Survey. The results include businesses views on the workplace skills of school leavers

cbi1

with much to be improved upon and contained the fact that only 21% of businesses “are currently aware” of the activities of the CEC. The fear must be that this is a taskmaster who will never be satisfied.

The ultimate quality of the enabling and linking work the CEC delivers will be decided by those volunteers, staff and practitioners on the ground organising and running the face to face provision with young people. Through its short operating period so far, the CEC has focused on the growth of its structure and operations as evidence of its progress. Soon this attention should change though onto the impact of provision and student outcomes to evaluate that public investment committed to the Company.

 

Employer Perspectives Survey 2016

Preparing young people for the world of work is a task that cannot be attempted without the world of work on board. By offering advice and guidance or by actually getting their hands dirty and offering provision for schools and young people to engage with, employers have a vital role to play. Which is why large-scale surveys on employer engagement with young people, their views on the skills capabilities of young people as potential employees and their participation in (supposedly) youth employment routes such as apprenticeships can offer valuable insights.

I’ve posted before to show that surveys of this kind can throw up a wide range of results and that the strategic goals of the organisation behind the survey should always be born in mind. Plenty of previous surveys with smaller survey cohorts have been critical of the level of skills held by school leavers entering the workplace while the survey that, traditionally, has shown results much more positive regarding skills levels has been the UKCES biennial Employer Perspectives survey. After the closure of UKCES, the responsibility of running this survey has transferred to the DfE with support from BEiS and DwP and the 2016 results were published this week. As ever, it’s fascinating in its picture of the UK skills map and how CEIAG is working within that. It’s also worth noting that the scale of the survey is impressive with over 18,000 employers across the UK interviewed.

Firstly, employers are still mainly pleased with the prepardness of young people for work but that, percentage rates have fallen slightly since 2014 but these figures are still much higher than the usual doom and gloom of other reports. It is also the case that, in the eyes of employers, older education leavers are still more preparded for the challenges of the workplace.

skills report7

It is in other sections of the report that there are some startling headline figures (page 13):

ddautctwaaautox

The gap between employers expectation for young people to have work experience on their CV and those actually offering work experience placements is still huge. It’s also clear that the parts of the labour market most closely working with young people are those offering the most placements. As anybody who has run a work experience scheme in a school knows, placements are schools are easy to come by and colleagues will do their utmost to help while placements in more sort after industries are gold dust.

skills report4

For all of their initiatives such as Open Doors, the amount of placements offered by the Construction industry is woefully short of what is needed.

This picture of weak engagement is also apparent in the number of employers involved in work inspiration activities other than placements with, again, Construction a particularly poor performing area.

skills report5

It’s clear that getting involved with such provision is proving more difficult for smaller firms and reasons why employers do not offer placements was collected

skills report6

Being aware of these and the more positive reasons for offering placements (doing our bit, Corporate Social Responsibility policy, a recruitment strategy – page 70) and tailoring your approaches to employers when requesting placements should be a strategy for all schools and colleges.

Overall these figures are in stark contrast to the far more positive picture of employer engagement painted by employer bodies such as the CBI. Their assertion that “over 80% of employers work with schools”  is, frankly, risible in comparison and shows the task ahead of the Careers & Enterprise company when scaling up their engagement initiatives.

Elsewhere in the Survey findings are other nuggets of interest. At the time of writing, Apprenticeship policy in the UK is in a state of flux as the official position is still to create 3 million apprenticeships over the course of the parliament but the ongoing changes to Levy and Standards policy are causing fluctuations in the numbers of vacancies being advertised.

ddaww8vwsamf6es

The (slow) rise in the number of employers taking on apprentices is encouraging but this growth needs to accelerate if this route is to become a realistic competitor to Higher Education for young people. The future plans of employers (page 155), if enacted, would correlate to a rise of 21% of employers offering apprenticeships within the next 12 months but the Conclusions section states (from page 159) that a much greater engagement from employers with apprenticeships is needed to meet current targets.

Allied to this point is the data regarding the recruitment methods used by firms when hiring young people. The results are clear on the importance and of social capital and networks and the advantages gained by young people entering the job market with these benefits. Alongside more formal methods of applying for work, contacts can still be key and this evidence fits with published research in this area.

dda0eysxoaamlnw

It shows that, despite the scale of the task ahead of them, the work of the CEC is vital and needed. In Conclusion the Survey states (page 160)

Developing forms of work experience and work inspiration that genuinely respond to employers’ needs to develop and access experienced new recruits continues to offer potential as a step in improving individuals’ entry to the labour market

and it is the solution to this issue that the CEC must find.

Your #GE2017 CEIAG manifesto roundup

imagevaulthandler-aspx

One year after the European referendum and two years after the last General Election you would’ve thought that the British public had earned a summer off from electioneering and yet here we are. The build up to #GE2017 is well underway.

At the time of writing the three main parties have all now released their manifestos so here’s quick summary of what they include in regard to CEIAG. I will update with any inclusions of CEIAG in the manifestos of other parties as and when I see them.

Conservatives

You can find the whole manifesto here, a Schools Week summary of the school policies here and an FE Week summary of the skills and technical education policies here.

CEIAG does not get a specific mention in the policy. Plenty of the school, Apprenticeship, HE and FE policies will impact on the work of CEIAG practitioners (not least the UCAS style portal for technical education mooted in the tweet above) but nothing in regards to Careers Advice in schools or the continuing work of the Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC). Considering the organisation was set up under a Conservative Education Secretary, and that the party is by far the favourite to win a majority in the Election, this would raise concerns over the long-term future of the organisation beyond its current funding commitment.

The Labour Party

CEIAG gets two specific mentions in the Labour Party Manifesto.

Both are less than forthcoming about the details behind the promises. A campaign to spread the message about “creative” careers is very different to the STEM focused campaigns of the last few years. How this campaign and the wider improvement would be achieved, what structures, guidance or funding it would involve are all left to the imagination. Again no specific mention of employer engagement or the work of the CEC. You can find a summary of the wider schools policies here.

The Liberal Democrats

Along similar lines to the Labour commitments, the Lib Dem manifesto  offers one pledge to “improve” careers advice for young people and one with a more focused detail. The Lib Dems plump for STEM promotion while the links between employers and schools mention is an easy win as it only requires the work of the CEC to be continued for it to be achieved. Again, how this improvement will be achieved or what it would cost are not mentioned.

Manifestos are tricky documents that walk a fine line between detail on commitments and broader scene setting of the kind of country you wish voters to aspire to. It’s heartening that CEIAG is at least mentioned in the Labour and Lib Dem offerings while the omission from the Conservative document is a sign of the treatment of the sector in the most recent and Coalition parliaments. Will it also be a sign of the health of the sector under the forthcoming Goverment?

If you haven’t registered to vote, you can do so here: https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote until midnight on the 22nd May. Please do so, your voice counts.

UPDATE – May 25th

UKIP

Today The United Kingdom Independence Party have released their manifesto which contains, comparatively, quite a substantive section on CEIAG

Introducing “practical employability lessons into the careers’ syllabus” sounds good until you remember that there isn’t a “careers syllabus” so it would be tricky to add something to it. It’s nice to see the list of soft skills but not so nice to see the provincialism of the “local job market” focus. CEIAG should take into account local Labour Market Intelligence but it should also expand horizons beyond the well known. A quick Google to test the claim “Entrepreneurship education is becoming increasingly common in the USA” throws up research which does bear this out but it is not explained why the USA is used as the benchmark as their overall education performance is below average. Much there already happens either through local partnerships or more formalised networks such as the CEC, the mention of a “careers syllabus” could be taken as a formal promise to reinstate statutory Careers education yet the mechanisms for achieving this in a Academy driven system (with opt outs from an National Curriculum) are not included.

Dot Joiner

 

If we’re being honest, CEIAG conferences can be a real mixed bag. Some of the events that I have attended over the years have enthused and enlightened me and helped formulate the targets I then attempted to achieve over the subsequent period. Unfortunately, other events rely too heavily on unstructured “networking” time, outsource seminars to speakers without checking quality and run panels which are glorified puff spaces for participants to plug the work of their employer. The lack of funding available for CPD and the pressure to keep services running at practitioner’s home sites also means that the events colleagues do get out to attend need to be of a high quality.

With this in mind I attended the Careers & Enterprise Company 2nd Annual “Joining The Dots” Conference this month. Held in Sheffield at the English Institute for Sport, over 750 delegates attended for a day of speeches and breakout sessions while the Company then continued into Day 2 with meetings for their Headteacher advisory group and an awards ceremony.

Annual conferences such this do have a slightly different remit to the news sharing and highlighting of innovative practice that many CPD events do. Annual conferences are usually more to rally the troops and build a positive collective feeling around the work of the organisation. “Joining the Dots” definitely seemed to aim for the second of those remits with a morning session led by both the Chair, Christine Hodgson and the CEO, Claudia Harris updating the audience on the progress of the CEC in building its infrastructure of personnel and networks. Both speakers were disappointingly light though on the actual impact of these new structures the CEC is building but more on that later. Delegates were then treated to the personal story of British Olympian Beth Tweddle which, while interesting, to me felt out-of-place and stuck out as a grasp for celebrity endorsement. Plenty of other delegates seemed to enjoy it though. Tweddle is also a Patron of the STEM based Your Life campaign so does have links to this area.

18342071_672157656309116_137952982667626493_n

MC’d by Oli Barrett the session then moved quickly onto a Q&A with Claudia Harris and Carl Harris (Association of School & College Leavers) and Josh Hardie (CBI). The discussion moved through the broad themes around the interaction between employers and education with positive and conciliatory noises from both participants. It was noticeable though that, in one answer, Josh Hardie said that, “over 80% of businesses work with schools” which was not challenged by the other participants. This is a statistic from the CBI’s own annual Education & Skills Survey which is not consistent with findings from other research in this area as it claims a much higher rate of business involvement with education than others. The CEC has also looked at this in its “Cold Spots” report and if the organisation truly wishes to position itself on a standing of evidence based work, then it needs to balance out misinformation when it encounters it.

Then it was time for a lunch break. During this period delegates could browse a good range of exhibitors with products and services to offer in the CEIAG field.

18342213_672156566309225_2115968329868292931_n

The afternoon moved into two breakout sessions with a range of titles that looked at CEIAG Mentoring, offering provision for SEND pupils and updates on the forthcoming Enterprise Passport. I opted for “Effective Employer Engagement in Further Education” and found the panel full of useful advice regarding the role of Enterprise Advisers and FE. Approaching employer engagement is different in a FE College compared to a secondary school and the ways other Colleges had used Advisers as conduits to wider networks was thought-provoking.

My second session was back in the main hall for the “Building Capacity for Careers Leadership is Schools” which, while interesting, I later regretted not attending “Virtual Employer Encounters” as, the more I thought about this, the more concerned I became. On the face of things, it would seem like an easy win for the CEC, using the information from their Cold Spots report, to then offer the technology links for employers to offer virtual provision for young people in those regions. This type of provision though has its failings and it would also struggle to meet the Company’s own conclusions in its “Moments of Choice” report about the need for personalization for young people.

The day then finished with Lord Young offering an update on the plans for a national Enterprise Passport for young people to be able to evidence their achievements, skills and experiences outside of their usual qualification certificates.

Overall, I felt that the event was very ‘input’ orientated with a lack of substantive consideration for the outcomes the CEC is trying to achieve. Celebrating the employment of Enterprise Co-ordinators, the growth of the Enterprise Adviser network and the funding of localised CEIAG projects is worthwhile but these are structures, not the results. At it’s launch the outcomes of the CEC were to be judged as part of the wider performance management of the Post 19 education and skills sector.  But this was under the 2010-2015 Coalition Government and much water has passed under the political bridge since then. Judgement on the impact of the CEC should be made against control groups or counterfactual analysis. Be it an improvement in employers satisfaction with the employability skills of young people (although the uncertainty over who will carry the skills survey once the duty of the now defunct UKCES won’t help that), lowering the number of NEET young people in the CEC’s designated “cold spot” areas or tracking the destination data of leavers from schools who meet the Gatsby benchmarks (via the Compass benchmarking tool) or who have been involved in the Mentoring scheme, the CEC has to show impact of its spending of public money. With this being it’s 2nd Annual conference, I was hoping for more detail of this area but, perhaps, the Company are mindful of the election and the impact this will have on the long-delayed Careers Strategy which may define these criteria.

(Photos from the CEC facebook page)

IMG_20170510_120547362

According the CEC’s literature, young people have now so conclusively lost the demographic battle, after the General Election they will all be put into a rocket and blasted off into space

 

Your Baker Clause school CEIAG policy guide

Exams are looming and the summer break is peaking over the horizon so nobody working in schools needs anything extra to do but I’m going to make a suggestion of something that CEIAG leads should consider getting sorted if not before the end of term, then very quickly in the new academic year. That job is writing, consulting with Senior Leadership on and then publishing on the school website the school policy on other educational and vocational providers speaking and presenting to your cohort of students.

The Technical and Further Education Bill received Royal Assent and became law on 27th April 2017. The core purposes of the Bill are to lay out the regulation and authority of the new Institute for Apprenticeships and create a new insolvency process for Further Education Colleges that navigate themselves into tricky financial waters. It is though one of the Amendments to the Bill, requested by Lord Baker (joint founder of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust which facilitates the opening of new UTCs) that requires attention from CEIAG practitioners in schools.

(CEIAG colleagues in FE Colleges will be more concerned by another Amendment which now requires that Ofsted specifically comment on Careers guidance when publishing their reports on FE providers. I don’t know why this required statute and could not be achieved through Ofsted’s own guidance to inspectors similar the requirement to comment on Careers provision in secondary schools).

Away from the main Bill the Baker Clause can be seen here at paragraph 2. It requires that schools

  1. must ensure that there is an opportunity for a range of education and training providers to access registered pupils during the relevant phase (ages 13-18) of their education for the purpose of informing them about approved technical education qualifications and apprenticeships
  2. must prepare a policy statement setting out the circumstances in which education and training providers will be given access to registered pupils for the purpose of informing them about approved technical education qualifications or apprenticeships
  3. must ensure the policy statement includes procedural requirements in relation to requests for access, grounds for granting and refusing requests for access and details of premises or facilities provided to those granted access
  4. must revise the policy “from time to time”
  5. must publish the policy statement

And it this job that needs completing as soon as possible.

All good CEIAG schemes in schools will include plenty of input from vocational and apprenticeship providers and, ever since starting this blog, I have been wary of the Vocational training sectors rote complaint that “students don’t know we exist” as an over simplification of the complicated reasons young people follow routes with clearer directions of travel and fail to secure apprenticeships, despite registering and applying for them in huge numbers (compared to vacancies), yet a cliché is a cliche for a reason. Everyone working in Careers in schools has heard eyebrow raising tales of Sixth Form managers escorting FE College visitors out of the school reception, prospectuses going missing, Apprenticeship providers being put in a classroom to talk to only a “select” group of students and so on. As Lord Baker himself has noted, the introduction of providers such as UTC’s who admit students at 14 into a system unused to this competition for funded students complicated local issues so providing a clearer set of guidelines while still allowing local flexibility would seem a solution looking from the top down. The downside is that it can result in unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.

Tackling the issue from the ground up, practitioners and colleagues will already know that solving these issues best comes through the relationships built from local collaboration and transparency, strong local progression networks and the buy in to a shared vision for positive student outcomes in a regional area.

Where this isn’t the case though, some Vocational and Apprenticeship providers (and Vocational professional bodies will be doing their utmost to inform their members) will be approaching schools in the new academic year expecting a policy document to be in place. Yet any school leaders will also be wary that these requests come at unsuitable times for learning or assessment preparation, they might clash with a multitude of other events such as school photos, leavers assemblies, trips, other booked visitors and so on. This provision needs to part of a planned scheme of CEIAG work for year groups and cohorts so having a clear policy published early will help deal with multiples of requests and also deal with any members of school staff still sticking to outdated ways of working when responding to other local providers who enrol at 14 or 16.

Whether as a separate document or part of your main CEIAG policy I would suggest something along these lines:

As part of X school’s commitment to informing our pupils of the full range of learning and training routes on offer to them, X school is happy to consider requests from training providers, Vocational education and apprenticeship providers to speak to students and will also approach these partners ourselves when planning organising key Careers events throughout the school year.

In the first instance, providers wishing to speak with students should consult our calendar of Careers events published on the school website as we would welcome their input at our main Careers events throughout the school year:

Key Stage 3 Futures drop down day – Autumn term

Key Stage 3 Options Evening – March

Key Stage 4 Careers Fair – October

Life Beyond the Sixth Form – May

These events provide ample opportunities to speak to students and parents both individually and in groups to offer information on vocational, technical and apprenticeship routes. These are usually held in the school hall and timings, facilities and parking and registration details are emailed to exhibitors in good time before the event. Enquires about these events can made to school X’s CEIAG lead at the email address below.

We also have a number of whole year group assembly slots which offer providers a short opportunity to quickly spread the word about their offer. These are 20 minutes slots to a whole year group of around 200 students in our main assembly hall which has a whiteboard projector and speakers for sound. These are usually on offer through the early part of the Autumn and Spring terms as, at other times, our halls are used for exams and so assemblies do not take place. If you are a provider and would like to enquire on the availability of assembly slots please email our CEIAG lead on the details below to request a CEIAG visitor booking form and complete the assembly request section.

If a provider is unable to attend these events or feels that their presentation needs require different circumstances or that they are hosting an event they wish to promote, in the first instance they should contact CEIAG lead at X school ????? via email ?????@xschool.co.uk and complete a CEIAG visitor booking form.

The CEIAG visitor booking form asks for the role of the training, vocational or apprenticeship provider you represent, the aim of the presentation, if the request is for an assembly slot, the number of students the presentation or session is designed for, the length of the talk or presentation, the target year group for the session or presentation, what display or other facilities the session would require, how many provider staff (and names of staff) that will be visiting and what support from school staff you would require on the day. If the email is notification of an event at an off site venue, please include timings of the day, a list of other invited schools and providers, any accessible funding streams for transport costs and a visit risk assessment of the venue.

All requests should be emailed at least 6 weeks (a school half term) in advance an expected date for the planned session. All requests will be given due consideration be X school’s CEIAG lead and Senior Leadership link and requests will be refused if:

  • they impinge on students preparation for public or internal exams
  • they clash with other school events such as visits, other speakers, well-being days, school photographs, sports days, public or internal exams, parents communication events etc
  • the school is unable to provide staff to support the presentation or talk due to previous commitments
  • rooming for the talk or event is unable to be found due to timetabling clashes

Responses to requests will come from the school CEIAG lead. For requests that are approved, School X will provide clear instructions before the event on visitor parking, visitor registration, a contact member of staff and their contact details, the teaching room or school hall to be used at the session and the presentation facilities this space offers.

As part of School X’s wider CEIAG policy, the range of Careers provision for students is reported every academic year to the school governing body and Headteacher.

If you have questions regarding this or School X’s wider CEIAG policy document please do not hesitate to contact our CEIAG lead at ?????@xschool.co.uk

That may seem an overly officious document which would probably elicit a weary sigh from a colleague at a vocational provider wishing to visit schools but that includes all of the information the new Clause requires from schools. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts, comments and suggestions in the comments below.

For both schools and Vocational training providers, navigating these policies may provide clarity on how to gain access to each school in their area but it may also be a spur to improve on the local relationships and networks mentioned above that are he real solution to this issue.

The nudge, nudge future of CEIAG

One of the most substantial and thought-provoking pieces of work on Careers published in the last year was the Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC) commissioned report “Moments of Choice” which I looked at here.

The report was written by the Behavioural Insights Team and it gave the CEC plenty of conclusions on which to plan their own future work

We will highlight key messages, alerting schools and colleges to the types of conversations that young people should be having and when they should be having them; the types of information they should consider in those conversations; the mistakes that young people typically make and, perhaps most importantly of all, the things that they do not need to worry about.

on how young people wanted to consume Careers IAG

moments of choice1

and how the CEC would go about trying to achieve that

moments of choice2

In the past weeks two projects have come to light which show the way that this future Careers IAG apparatus might work in practice.

First was another Insights Team piece of research which used a three year randomised controlled trial to find that sending letters of encouragement to high achieving young people in Year 12, “penned” by students from similar backgrounds, increased the number of applications and acceptances to Russell Group universities. This kind of cost-effective intervention (printing and posting some mail merge letters are a lot cheaper than Careers Advisers) can be highly targeted using not only GCSE attainment data but also parental income data now available.

This type of intervention is small-scale when compared to Careers choice help for all young people outlined by the CEC above but we can see how such interventions could be scalable yet still retain an element of personalisation to the message so desired by the young people themselves as well as using technology to more be responsive to users needs.

An example of how this type of personalised messaging system could be used to aid Careers decisions can found in another Behaviour Insights Team project called Promptable.

Aimed at FE students, Promptable uses text messages to text students and nominated “Study Supporters” weekly with reminders and prompt discussions about revision and tutor feedback in the build up to exams. The Team found that students who took part in the Promptable trials boosted their College attendance and exam performance.

Imagine a similar system designed for secondary school age young people and nominated “Supporters” discussing Careers choices at appropriate landmarks. Schools or Colleges ask students to sign up to the site, the school has uploaded their own timeline for PHSE or Careers lessons, for Key Stage 4 choices, for specific visits, talks or careers fairs, for Key Stage 5 choices, for Higher Education plans, links to CEIAG online resources etc etc and then the site sends prompting texts to students and “Supporters” to discuss these milestones or enable Supporters to remind students to attend events. As with Promptable, you could even have the student complete a short questionnaire on sign up outlining areas of interest which they can tailor by sending code texts back (“to out of messages about events please text EVENTS STOP back to this number”) which would also notify the Supporter so a discussion could be had (“actually I think it would be good if you did go to that Apprenticeship Information Evening”).

This kind of interaction fulfills all of the requirements of an easily accessible, horizon broadening intervention method that also encourages personalised face to face discussions. CEIAG event notification and student tracking systems are already on the market through products such as Grofar but this system has the added impetus (or nudge) method of the Supporter, known to the student and offering  chance for discussion. Some in the CEIAG community would ask where in this system does the CEIAG professional fit in? As the local architect of the educational establishment’s profile on the main website, the organiser of the provision, the record keeper of attendance and the option of face to face guidance as another method of provision to be offered to the student body but most of all, as the face of encouraging student sign up to the system would be my proposal.

Large scale systems face a balance between creating systems that work for the majority yet be flexible enough to impact the individual. The communication method of results of systems like Promptable and the targeted use of household data to tailor messages to young people such as the “Encouraging people into University” report could show the way on how this is feasible in CEIAG.