CEIAG Policy

A recognisable CBI song

An annual stop on the CEIAG/Skills report Wurlitzer ride is the CBI & Pearson Education & Skills survey which this year served up some rehashing of past hits but also some valuable suggestions for sector improvement.

Now that the Gatsby Benchmarks are in place and that schools are, on the face of things, showing progress towards achieving them, the CBI must find a balancing act between spurring on the education sector to achieve policy outcomes for it’s members while also acknowledging that the employer engagement it has long called for is now being reported from respondents from the world of education. Previously, the CBI’s position of decrying schools for not involving employers while simultaneously praising businesses for working with lots of schools was a standpoint that fell apart the moment anyone considered the logic of such a claim.

This agreement on the wider direction of travel is missing more nuanced interrogation though. The current CBI survey does not include questions on the awareness of the CEC or it’s work among the business community

When, in 2017, the CBI did ask members  they found that

cbi skills2

Which is strange to not then follow up on.

Of course, much of the work of the CEC is to create the space for Schools and Colleges to achieve bottom up, system wide improvement in CEIAG but without the view from business on their efficacy and reach this leaves open questions on the value of the Cornerstone employers scheme or their wider employer engagement work.

The challenge now facing the CBI is to highlight other positive offers and promises from their business respondents but while doing so sidestep the problem of merely rehashing previous predictions. For example, the claim of future growth in apprenticeship recruitment in this year’s survey rings hollow following similar claims from previous years that did not then materialize. In 2016 the survey (with suitable pre-Levy caveats) was positive about future growth

Across all of our respondents this year, 71% are either already running an apprenticeship programme or are planning to expand one. In addition, 16% are planning to create a programme in the next three years. This means the number of businesses that do not have a programme or have no intention of getting involved, has fallen 6% from last year

while, even post Levy introduction, the positive picture was still present in 2017

Business is already heavily invested in apprenticeships and committed to doing more to meet business needs. Across our respondents this year, 83% are either already running an apprenticeship programme or are planning to expand one

and continued in 2018

cbi skills3

Yet, over this period, the actual number of starts declined

cbi skills4

Of course, the wider winds of policy change can blow and alter plans so the CBI would point out their member’s view on the hindering impact the Apprenticeship Levy has had on investment in apprenticeship training while other stakeholders take the view that public money comes with necessary regulatory checks or limits. Time will tell if the 2019 claim of

Six out of ten respondent firms (63%) say they plan to expand their apprenticeship training programmes in the future, with only 5% of firms having no plans to offer apprenticeships

come to fruition.

The voice of CBI should be heard though when judging the employability preparation work of education and they do put forward interesting suggestions. The recommendation to include creative subjects in the Ebacc would find much support among educators

cbi2019a

while the shared attributes would be an authoritative resource to help define the goalposts for student employability. They also task their own members with work to increase the opportunities for work experience

cbi2019bwhile the call to increase the number of Careers Hubs is an achievable ask and a bellwether for the direction of travel. Also welcome are the recommendations for employers to pay regard to the careers advice needs of their own employees.

cbi2019c

Looking at the wider value that annual reports such as this or the CEC State of the Nation series add to the understanding of the impact of CEIAG provision or our ability to judge the progression towards mutually desirable goals is another matter. Member surveys can be useful tools to discover where to prioritize support but if all we have to rely on are the CEC State of the Nation reports based on self reported Gatsby data from schools keen to promote their work and the CBI annual surveys from business also keen to promote their community impact then there the risk is of two distinct, uncommunicative bubbles emerging. While these two stakeholders must work in collaboration and as allies sometimes it would be nice if this environment of partnership spurred a challenge or two to overly enthusiastic claims.

NICEC @instcareer Seminar: Careers provision in Further Education – 18th November 2019

nicec1

The next NICEC seminar on Monday 18th November 2019 5.00pm-6.30pm will be focusing on Careers Provision in Further Education. We’re planning for the event to spark thoughts and conversation from attendees on the similarities and differences on the Careers provision in Further Education compared to other settings as well as putting the spotlight on a sector not always well represented in Careers policy conversations. Sometimes referred to as the “forgotton” sector in Education, Further Education is currently enjoying a rare period in the national spotlight as new vocational qualifications come on line and policy makers raise the importance of the sector to a post Brexit skills landscape.

We’re fortunate to be joined by Anthony Barnes, one of the authors of the Gatsby Benchmark toolkit for Colleges and Emily Tanner from the Careers and Enterprise Company who will revealing new Compass data based on responses from the FE sector.

Speakers include

Russell George – will introduce the session with an overview of the context of work in FE including the roll-out of T-levels and funding constraints and provide a case study of delivery in Milton Keynes College

Anthony Barnes will share insights from the development of the Colleges Gatsby Tool Kit on challenges and good practice in careers provision.

Emily Tanner will share insights from The Careers & Enterprise Company drawing on the Compass benchmarking tool.

There will then be a discussion on similarities and differences with delivery in other settings.

Register for tickets to join us at Hamilton House (WC1H 9BB) for the seminar here:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/careers-provision-in-further-education-tickets-77371441063

T levels are going to be tough

During the recent years of GCSE and A Level qualification upheaval a CEIAG practitioner working with young people has always had to have a quick mental check of future implementation dates before opening their mouths.

Another forthcoming change that (I hope) school based practitioners are now including in their guidance is the introduction (phased from 2020) of T Levels, a new qualification to be offered by Post 16 providers.

When anything new launches the challenge is to persuade potential first adopters that they will be making a choice that places them at the forefront of a soon to be popular wave and not left to flounder as initial enthusiasm dries to a dribble. I remember students gamely studying the 14-19 Diplomas despite being surrounded by teachers and parents who never understood the thing and who were then left high and dry after the Government PR push failed to inspire buy-in from important stakeholders.

We are promised that T Levels will be different and form one of the main choices for students in the Post 16 landscape alongside A Levels and apprenticeships when they begin to be introduced from September 2020. Many post 16 providers are already in the midst of preparing for them by working on new content outlines and building relationships with employers to offer longer and more in-depth industry placements.

Will, though, suitable advice and guidance about the qualification have percolated through schools and CEIAG practitioners to students and parents?

Getting the message out

It’s safe to say that the full complexities of the new GCSE grading system have still to land with a lot of parents/carers so getting across the workings of an entirely new qualification is going to be a challenge.

parents t levels

Added to the fact that, despite CEC optimism over benchmarks not withstanding, many secondary school pupils are not hearing directly from FE providers.

parents t levels1

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/786040/survey_of_pupils_and_their_parents_or_carers-wave_5.pdf

So getting advice from the source might not be the norm and the central marketing which has already launched will have to work hard but the increased awareness of apprenticeships shows this can have an impact.

What should the message be?

Mainly that T Levels are going to be a demanding route of study that will be employment specific. They are a combination of learning

T Level courses will include the following compulsory elements:

  • a technical qualification, which will include
    • core theory, concepts and skills for an industry area
    • specialist skills and knowledge for an occupation or career
  • an industry placement with an employer
  • a minimum standard in maths and English if students have not already achieved them

and each section is significant.

The baseline for the total programme hours matches the total learning hours for Level 3 BTEC Extended Diplomas

We expect the total time for a T Level to be around 1,800 hours over the 2 years, including the industry placement. This is a significant increase on most current technical education courses.

while the Industry Placement aspect takes up a great allowance of those hours meaning 16 year old starters will have to be work ready to impress employers enough to sign up to a significant programme of work experience.

Every T Level will include an industry placement with an employer focused on developing the practical and technical skills required for the occupation. These will last a minimum of 315 hours (approximately 45 days) but can last longer.

The academic learning required will also be of a high standard as evidenced by UCAS’ decision to award Tariff points equivalent to 3 A Levels.

ECZ2wgIXUAATH4k

The content to be covered by each T Level is slowly being confirmed by the Institute of Apprenticeships as consultations complete.

A quick scan through any of those “Finalised Outine Content” will show readers that a lot of “stuff” has to be covered in both the Core knowledge and Technical Occupational Specialism components of the qualification and that the Specialism is a vital component. For some young people, the specificity of the route may be a turn off.

All of this though is meant to, according to the T Level Action plan not only prepare students for the workplace in their specialism but also provide a base of skills that will allows for progression onto Higher Education routes, thus the importance of the UCAS tariff inclusion despite reluctance to accept them from the Russell Group.

Entry requirements

In the past month the TES seemed baffled by the fact that these demanding Level 3 qualifications were being assigned entry requirements similar to other demanding Level 3 courses by the first cohort of providers recruiting students in 2020.

There is a point to their story that if, system-wide, choices for those school leavers who do not achieve GCSE qualifications that allow them to access A or T Levels narrow then those young people could be left with fewer options. Moving on from the obvious (“Huh, who knew, better GCSE grades give an individual more choice”) any rebuttal should be based on that it is not beholden on FE providers to lower entry requirements to qualifications that demand potential students to have the capacity to succeed at Level 3 (and wouldn’t be able to fit in GCSE retakes anyway). The rightly much maligned “parity of esteem” phrase beloved by politicians usually desperate for something to say about FE has an actual value here; you can’t possibly expect FE routes to achieve “esteem” by only offering routes for young people with low GCSE achievement. The other mitigating factor are the plans for a T-Level transition year for those

who are not ready to start a T level aged 16, but could be expected to complete one by 19.

It is always a challenge to elicit interest in young people about routes they know very little about and this challenge has been reflected in the small recruitment targets for the first wave of T Level providers. Perversely what might actually help recruitment though is the lack of knowledge of Applied General FE qualifications among stakeholders who say that they are trusted qualifications that offer good value and prepare young people for the world of work but then also claim that nobody really understands what their results mean.

applied general 1

If parents and potential students are already inspired by careers in any of the areas offered at a College local to them as a T Level, then that will probably be enough to tempt an application. Where CEIAG practitioners can offer support though is on the challenge to the young person and the work readiness needed to make those transitions a success.The reality of this and the entry requirements may alter the cohort of students they routinely talk to about FE altogether.

Where are Careers Hubs starting from and ending with?

I think it’s safe to say that the Gatsby Benchmarks have been a game changer in the CEIAG world. Not because they offer new ways of working with young people or reinvent the purpose of CEIAG but because they included practice with a solid research backing and standarised what a comprehensive careers programme in schools and colleges looks like. This standarisation has enabled other stakeholders and professional to quickly understand a common rationale and purpose behind such a programme and so buy in to the shared goals.

The benchmarks have been supercharged in some areas of the country with the support of local CEC supported Careers Hubs. With the second wave of 20 Hubs to come online in September 2019, the CEC has been keen to show evidence of pacy progress towards meeting both technical goals around Benchmarks but also highlight that this work is happening in disadvantaged areas of the country. 

Schools and colleges in this first wave of Careers Hubs are already outperforming the national average across all aspects of careers education. After two terms, schools and colleges which are part of the first wave of Hubs are:

  • outperforming the national average on every single one of the eight Gatsby Benchmarks of good careers guidance
  • the majority (58%) are providing every student with regular encounters with employers
  • the majority (52%) are providing every student with workplace experiences such as work experience, shadowing or workplace visits

Most striking is that improvements are strongest in disadvantage areas including in Careers Hubs located in Tees Valley, Lancashire, the Black Country and Liverpool City Region.

There are a two issues which should provoke some discussion about the work of Hubs.

Starting from a higher base point

The CEC Prospectus for the Careers Hubs bidding process was clear on the criteria areas had to meet to put forward successful bids.

cec hubs 1

It would logically follow then that Compass data for those schools and Colleges involved in Hubs should be, on average, at a lower point than School and Colleges not in Hubs at the start of the scheme. Sure, other factors such as destinations and achievement feed into the definition of Cold Spot areas but CEIAG and employer engagement provision is a central metric. There may also be some individual exceptions of providers offering high Gatsby compliant provision within those Cold Spot areas of course but, taken in the round, if the self reported Compass data is a consistent picture of practice and provision then it makes sense for the initial Hub Compass data to be below the national average. Yet this wasn’t the case. Using the July 2018 data (the left hand blue bars) from the CEC tweet below

and comparing it to the nationwide State of the Nation figures from 2018

state of the nation2

we can see that the Hubs were reporting a higher percentage of schools and colleges meeting already every Benchmark than the national average (apart from one – Benchmark 3) before the Hub scheme had even begun. The CEC is right to say in it’s press releases that by March 2019, Hub schools and colleges were

outperforming the national average on every single one of the eight Gatsby Benchmarks of good careers guidance

but what they don’t include is that this was the case for all but one of the Benchmarks before the Hubs had even started work.

This is concerning for the questions it raises on the reliability of the Hub awarding process, Compass as a self evaluation tool but should also prompt queries for the CEC over the pace of progress of those institutions involved in Hubs. Is it easier to roll the CEIAG snowball down the far slope once it’s already closer to the summit?

2. The more you know, the more you doubt

At the recent National Careers Leader Conference in Derby I was fortunate to attend some brilliant sessions including this from Dr Jill Hanson who is undertaking the Gatsby Pilot evaluation for ICEGs. I posted about the interim report back in March 2019 and it was great to hear about the positives the Pilot resulted in. After 2 years of the pilot young people at pilot schools and colleges were more likely to recall participating in CEIAG provision

icegpilot1

and the 2018 cohorts reported much higher scores on a career readiness index

icegpilot2

with clear correlation for higher readiness scores for those in providers who had fully achieved more Benchmarks.

A pause for concern though comes in responses from the same students who completed the career readiness index in both 2016 & 2018. These show significant drops in pupil confidence in career management and planning and information and help seeking skills but not work readiness skills.

icegpilot3.JPG

As Tom Staunton notes in Dr Hanson’s slides, there could be a number of overlapping explanations for this. In the room, the practitioners present concluded that this might be a case of young people being introduced to a wider variety of routes that had pushed them beyond their comfort zone and in doing so reduced confidence and certainty in the routes they had previously been aware of (if any). If suddenly the world seems larger, your place in it will seem smaller. This is a theme which has been described in previous CEC research “Moments of Choice” and it will be interesting to see if a) this trend in the data continues and b) what steps the providers involved should take to address the issue (if any). Potential remedying work through personal guidance offering more support to those students reporting a lower level of confidence in those areas or more “nudge” based interventions aimed at groups? Or nothing at all?

Going forward

Up-scaling a model such as the Gatsby Benchmarks comes with pitfalls to avoid, particularly the temptation for providers to over-rate their progress or look for tick box filling solutions that don’t translate into substantive outcomes for learners. As Sam Freedman notes here

about a different education policy proposal, compliance isn’t always the full recipe and the intangible’s that can help make a good school CEIAG program (parental relationships, drive of the practitioner, heck, even office placement in the school) are difficult to measure. The forthcoming Compass Plus has the potential to address some of those issues as it more closely ties provision to self-evaluation.

Regarding the negative effects on student confidence in their future planning skills, the results of the Careers Registration Learning Gain project in Higher Education are a useful longitudinal comparative. Using a similar method (asking students to complete a career readiness set of questions year on year), these show that more mature learners can move towards higher rated career ready states. By the final year of a degree an increase of 18.28% of students reported themselves to be in the Compete category (see NICEC Journal April 2019). Could it be that the less confident younger students Dr Hanson found are a perfectly natural, even desirable outcome of Gatsby compliant CEIAG provision and that confidence in career planning only comes with greater maturity? Should CEIAG practitioners in schools revel in the fact that their students are less confident about their route but more aware of the diversity of options? These are fascinating questions that we have the potential to find answers to as the Gatsby Benchmarks standarise provision across the country.

Degree Apprenticeships: The balance of promotion vs opportunity

A often repeated recommendation in lots of reports in the education policy sphere is to improve the Careers advice on offer to young people as authors conclude that this would have beneficial outcomes for the focus of their research. Sometimes these pleas have merit but sometimes they feel to me that the authors are reaching for a scapegoat to direct attention from more relevant failings elsewhere in the system. A recent example of this can be found in this report on degree apprenticeships from Universities UK.

The report reaches a number of sensible conclusions on the worth of degree apprenticeships to the economy and the skills pipeline but also on how to grow and promote the route. The CEIAG related recommendations are that

universities report 3

Which, on the face of it, is a recommendation (alongside the wider belief of the report that degree apprenticeships are extremely valuable routes) that I’m sure much of the Careers community would agree with. Investment in the system is certainly towards the top of the concerns of Career Leaders who are tasked by law to provide information on the variety of routes open to school leavers. What intrigued me though is the assertion that a “fit for purpose” CEIAG system dedicate equal time to degree apprenticeships considering the current data on opportunity and that this would increase their numbers

The report includes some survey data that highlights the distance to travel with improving the knowledge of students about degree apprenticeships.

universities report 4

(which includes a mistake in the height of the “I know everything/ a lot” response bar for eligibility requirements) but that still shows roughly a quarter of students believe themselves to be knowledgeable about the route. We also know from other survey sources that over half of students are now receiving information about apprenticeships but some of this isn’t then getting through to parents.

apprenticeships survey1

Which, even at roughly a quarter of students, equals a lot of young people being told about degree apprenticeships. There is a lot more to dig into here around the weighing of positive vs negative messaging that pupils are receiving about apprenticeships. The report includes concerns aired by parents about the route

Parents, in particular, expressed the anxiety, in focus groups, that degree apprenticeships are a cheap form of labour and exploitation of young people. They raised concerns about the quality of the learning provision and the kinds of skills and knowledge that students would gain through these apprenticeships, often  voicing the belief that these would be narrowly and mechanistically focused on the needs of the employer, rather than advantaging the learner.

but, surprisingly to me, no concerns over the numbers of opportunities actually accessible to their children.

18 year old population

In 2017 there were 766,000 18 year olds in the UK with the ONS forcasting numbers to fall until 2020 when the population bump will cause them to rise. As 18 year olds are the youngest cohort to be able to apply for degree apprenticeships, Universities UK are roughly saying that 191,500 students come into the labour market potentially informed about degree apprenticeships as a route.

From a labour market intelligence standpoint this is a huge mismatch between demand and opportunity. Degree apprenticeships (Level 6) are a relatively new route in the labour market

apprenticeship starts1

but a route that is growing in starts year on year. The report says

the number of degree apprenticeship starts has increased, from 1,614 in 2016–17 to 7,114 in the first four months of 2018/19 (IfATE, 2019). The top five degree apprenticeship standards are Chartered Manager, Digital and Technology Solutions Professional, Senior Leader, Chartered Surveyor and Registered Nurse, and the range of degree apprenticeships increased from 11 in 2016–17 to 32 currently.

Those 7,114 degree apprenticeship opportunities is still tiny in number though compared to the number of 18 year olds entering the post Level 3 labour market as shown above. The previous qualification levels of that cohort should not be a barrier to applying for degree apprenticeships as over 275,000 of them are applying for University courses.

Even then the 7,114 number is a false figure as many degree apprenticeships are currently taken by older learners

newplot

and the growth in degree apprenticeships is being driven by firms enrolling older workers onto these schemes.

82 per cent more people aged 25 and over doing higher-level apprenticeships at levels 4 and above, according to FE Week analysis.

Meanwhile, starts at level 2 have plummeted by 51 per cent and starts by 16- to 18-year-olds have dropped by 23 per cent since the year before the apprenticeship reforms were introduced in May 2017.

In that time, starts by those aged 25 and above at levels 4 upwards increased by 69 per cent.

There is, as far as I know, no publicly available data on how many degree apprenticeship starts are new hires from an advertised vacancy. Many, including some highlighted in the Universities UK report are not new jobs but training opportunities for already hired employees.

On one nursing degree apprenticeship programme, delivered in a collaboration between the University of Sunderland and four NHS trusts, all 64 of the degree apprentices are currently healthcare assistants working within the trusts

Other examples include

This even further reduces the number of available opportunities actually open for young school leavers to apply to. The Universities UK report is silent on how the expansion in careers learning dedicated to degree apprenticeships should tackle the issue of those opportunities being the third, fourth or even fifth steps in a school leavers progression.

There is a balance to be found in raising awareness and promotion of a route with the labour market intelligence of that route actually being obtainable to your audience. Even when opportunity is scarce, LMI does not have to be a negative influencer but a motivator to inspire clients on the steps to take but at some point those wishing to promote degree apprenticeships are going to have to acknowledge that a) overly positive framing can result in negative perceptions as many young people will this exciting route far too difficult to obtain and b) there are other routes in that market that appeal to clients and so deserve the focus of careers learning exactly because of their widespread opportunity.

Compass Plus

Coming soon to your school computer that takes a solid 30 minutes to boot up in the morning is a new website service from the Careers & Enterprise Company called Compass Plus.

A revamp and an expansion of their Compass self evaluation tool and Tracker provision recording tool, this new method of planning, recording and evaluating your Careers provision has the potential to have a number of benefits throughout the system. Currently being presented around the country after a period of development and testing, the tool will help (initially only school based) Careers Leaders.

compass plus 1

For ease of understanding, imagine that the CEC had taken that spreadsheet with your activities throughout the year mapped against the Benchmarks, reached into your drawer and added the student registers you scribbled down at those activities and also pinched your other Excel sheet with your employer contact details and the stack of slowly returning student destination forms on your desk and put all of that into an online tool that you could share with colleagues – that’s Compass Plus.

The improvements this could offer a Careers Leader are clear. Rather than completing cumbersome spreadsheets, your activities can be uploaded against the Benchmarks immediately updating your Compass completion scores both for planned and completed activities. The ability to integrate with your school’s MIS so that activities are added at a pupil level is potentially a huge positive for the both Leaders and Careers Advisers working in schools.

compass plus 3

As the CEIAG record of an individual student will be there for a Personal Guidance session to build upon or for a Leader to then tailor registers for future events so that all learners have access to CEIAG.

Your employer engagement could also benefit from the ability to store your employer contact details so that all of your colleagues access them for their own activities plus, the soon to come Tracker Enterprise which will allow Enterprise Co-ordinators to also add provider and employer details who can then connect with your activities and opportunities for engagement.

compass plus 4

The CEC is managing the on-boarding process quite tightly

compass plus 2

which is an effort to manage the demand pipeline so that the technology copes with the growth in usage. The potential for Plus to work with other systems such as Unifrog or Start Profile is also exciting.

For the CEC, the rollout of this type of system is logical as it will also offer benefits to their data collection. Currently, Compass evaluations are based on Leaders judgement without the link to activity to evidence those claims. The structure of Compass Plus, (a school’s Gatsby Benchmark compliance rating being automatically generated from actual provision and activities recorded at student level) provides a much stronger evidence base on which a school will self evaluate and then how the CEC collates that data across LEP, region and national pictures for publications such as their annual State of the Nation report. This tool should make it clear to Enterprise Advisers and Co-ordinators (and perhaps in time even Ofsted) that 39 weekly Careers lunchtime drop in sessions that the same 4 students attend isn’t a Careers programme that meets the standard required. With this in mind, I could envisage, even expect, that some schools who had previously scored highly against the Benchmarks, even those achieving full compliance, would see lower Benchmark scores when using the Compass Plus tool.

As a Careers Leader working in FE, much of the Compass Plus tool struck me as processes that already happens in FE. Student level activity recording will already happen in most FE Colleges not only for Careers activities but also other enrichment provision. Those with helpful data teams will have their own versions of the reporting ability that Compass Plus offers to show how many students have attended a Personal Guidance interview or been present at X number of employer encounters. When ever the FE version is developed and tested, the CEC might find that Colleges are much more reluctant to give up systems they have designed to achieve similar aims.

There is a FAQ on the CEC site

https://www.careersandenterprise.co.uk/compass-plus-faqs

and I would encourage all secondary school Careers Leaders to set up their on-boarding as soon as possible.

https://www.careersandenterprise.co.uk/schools-colleges/compass-plus

The numbers in the Careers Hubs Benchmark 8 progress stats are pretty wild

Launched in September 2018 with 20 Hubs across the country (plus the orginal North East pilot area), the Careers & Enterprise Company is now expanding this policy with another 20 Hubs. When launched, I was positive about the structure of support they would be able to offer local areas and could see the rationale behind expanding the North East pilot but was concerned that the funding model those schools and colleges enjoyed was not also being replicated. The initial wave of hubs covers locales across the country:

  1. Black County – 36 schools and colleges
  2. Buck Careers Hub – 21
  3. Cornwall – 40
  4. Cumbria – 40
  5. Greater Manchester – number of schools & colleges involved not clear
  6. Heart of the south west – 40
  7. Humber – 26
  8. Lancashire – number not clear
  9. Leeds City Region – 35
  10. Leicester – 20
  11. Liverpool City Region – 34
  12. New Anglia – 32
  13. North East – 40 (plus 10 colleges?)
  14. Solent – 32
  15. South East – ?
  16. Stoke – 20
  17. Swindon – 40
  18. Tees Valley – 35
  19. West of England – 25
  20. Worcestershire – 40
  21. York – 35

The CEC says the total number of schools and colleges involved is 710.

As we reach the end of the first academic year of their existence, the CEC claims that schools and Colleges in those Hubs are progressing faster towards meeting the Gatsby benchmarks than schools and colleges not located in Hubs and large proportions of them are already meeting a number of the Benchmarks.

 

Which shows rapid improvement in the percentage of Hub schools & Colleges reporting that they are fully meeting Gatbsy benchmarks. Within those figures though a truly eye opening amount of work must be happening.

d6r-s2mw4aab-8f

Let’s take one benchmark in particular – Benchmark 8, Personal Guidance. The claim from the CEC is that 61% of Hub schools and colleges are reporting that they are fully meeting this Benchmark.

The School Guidance for this Benchmark is clear that to achieve it, every pupil should have a guidance interview with a Careers Adviser by the age of 16 and, if the school has a sixth Form, another if required by the age of 18.

gatsby8

While in the Sixth Forms & Colleges Guidance the wording is slightly different to take into account that students can complete Entry, Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 study programmes at different ages up to 19 so the age of the student isn’t the limiting factor, just as long as the IAG interview occurs during the learners study programme.

fegatsby8

But the aim remains the same; every young person gets a 1:1 Careers meeting with a qualified professional.

Across the 710 schools and colleges in the Hubs it’s hard to find published the exact numbers of schools and the exact number of dedicated Post 16 providers (I’ve included the total number of providers for each Hub above where I could find it) but whatever those figures are, the CEC is now claiming that 61% of Hub providers are fully meeting Benchmark 8. This is extraordinary in itself but what I find even more remarkable is that 56% of those providers were reporting that they were already fully compliant with Benchmark 8 back in July 2018 before the Hub started. That is a very high level of provision in terms of pupil numbers.

Dfe data is that, on average, there are 948 pupils in a secondary school.

Across the 20 Hubs lets say, conservatively, 700 schools of the 710 participants are secondary schools that gives a total school pupil population of 663,600.

That leaves around 10 Sixth Forms or Colleges (in reality, it’s likely that these Post 16 providers take up a greater number) and these providers can vary tremendously in size. For example, Sunderland College has around 4,800 full time learners while Sixth Form Colleges have, on average 1,823 and School Sixth Forms even smaller at 202 students on average.

Sunderland College were part of the North East pilot Hub so I’ll include their learners but be conservative on the other participants and say the rest are smaller Sixth Form Colleges. That would result in a total of 21,207 Post 16 learners included in the Benchmark 8 figures in the pilot.

So the total number of students covered by the Hubs = 684,807 pupils (although this is likely to be larger)

If 61% of providers are now reporting fully meeting Benchmark 8 then that’s approx 423,832 young people in those 20 areas that have had a Careers interview. In July 2018, before the Hub started, 389,092 (56%) of young people were having a Careers interview. This is a huge amount of Careers and guidance provision occurring in those localities.

There should be huge lessons for those practitioners in the rest of the country to learn from these figures.

  1. What was the practice and structure already in place that allowed those 56% of those providers to already meet everyone of their students for a Careers interview? Considering that Hub areas were chosen specifically in response to the CEC’s own cold spots research which was meant to indicate a dearth of Careers provision,

cec 2

There should be learning opportunities here for the CEC as well as their Personal Guidance fund is another pot of money looking to support innovative practice in this area of CEIAG. Their publication in the “What works series: Personal Guidance” shows though that there are not many short cuts to providing provision in this area and how time and cost intensive Personal Guidance is by it’s very nature.

personal guidacne1

In a 948 roll secondary school, a Year 11 cohort would equal around 190 pupils. Seeing 5 of those pupils a day for a Careers interview would take nearly 38 days or over 7.5 weeks so this is a significant staffing allocation and that is just one year group. As a practitioner in an FE College with around 3000 full time students attending, I am another Careers Leader looking for ways to offer a guidance service that meets all of the quality points above but is also flexible enough to maximize capacity.

Hopefully the CEC is learning from those providers in the Hub areas how, despite rating lowly on the Cold Spot metrics, over half of them were able to previously achieve Benchmark 8.

2. How does that level of provision compare to providers outside of Hub areas?

Other sources offer insights but not directly comparable data. The most recent DfE omnibus survey (surveying pupils in Year 8 to 11) reports 47% of (under 16) pupils say the experienced a face to face guidance session

face to face iag

while the 2019 Youth Employment Survey (3008 young people aged 14-24) reports that 67% of young people had an interview with a Careers Advisor.

face to face youth iag

The most recent CEC State of the Nation report shows that 48% of all schools and colleges completing Compass reported that they were fully meeting Benchmark 8 in their first submission but this figure has risen to 55.4% on second rating.

personal guidacne2

So the Hub areas were already starting from a higher base than the rest of the country before the Hubs had even started.

3. Is this stable and should a new Benchmark 8 rating be submitted by the provider every year?

As Deirdre Hughes asks here for Benchmarks 5 & 6 but her question is equally applicable to Benchmark 8

 

 

Each academic year will bring new students for a school or college to work with and many things (loss of staff, internal restructures, expanding school roll) could result in a provider not maintaining their 100% compliance with Benchmark 8. Could the percentage of providers meeting Benchmark 8 in a Hub area fall as well as rise?

4. What changes have lead to the increase in capacity to be able to offer more or attain more take up of Careers interviews since the Hubs started?

Is it more schools and colleges dedicating more staffing towards this provision or something else?

It will be interesting to see how the new Hubs add to the lessons the CEC is learning over the next academic year and whether the rate of progress against Benchmarks continues particularly in areas which require high resource allocation.