Employer Engagement

The impact of the Your Life STEM campaign

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


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

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

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

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

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

but more specifically to

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

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

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

The Impact Report details how the campaign approached achieving this by

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

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

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


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

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

a level entries

and Ofqual


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Bored students at Careers events (part 2)

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


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


“Miss, no WAY!” *hides under coat*



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




Picture bottom left – “zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”




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


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

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

The Cold Spots accountability hole


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karren Brady & walking the walk on public services

It’s a truth that any nationwide structural improvement in the offer of Careers Education Information Advice & Guidance for school children is going to need to the fundamental support of employers and the business community. Clearly that has been acknowledged by the early work of the Careers & Enterprise Company as they have built a network of Enterprise Coordinators and Advisers and positioned themselves as a professional facing organisation.

Practitioners know that the networks needed for this work are built through finding gatekeepers in other companies with shared goals, working on achievable projects and, sometimes, through being complimentary

to help build a positive image of engaging with education. There are times though when this flattery seems like an easy public relations win glossing over past actions that are not in the spirit of great public concern.

Karren Brady (Baroness Brady CBE) is a regular media contributor to the national debate on the transition of young people into the world of work

sometimes calling out companies for not offering quality work experience but also offering opinions

“One of the biggest challenges employers face is that school-leavers are simply not ready for work. They lack even basic soft skills like confidence, engagement, conduct and punctuality.”

(that do not reflect business survey data)

skills report7

and offering advice to young people on how to be well prepared for the world of work via stakeholders such as Barclays LifeSkills.

Her day job though is Vice-Chair of West Ham Football Club, owned by two majority shareholders David Sullivan and David Gold. In was in this capacity that, in 2016, she completed the negotiations of the “deal of the century” with the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) for West Ham to move into the ex-Olympic stadium for a 99 year period. This was the result of a tortured and controversial bidding process. The stadium, after a £272m conversion to be suitable to host both football and other events, cost the taxpayer at the time of the deal £701m. In a complicated deal that includes further add-ons if the club is sold, reductions in fees if the club is relegated and splits of hospitality income and upkeep costs, the bare bones were that West Ham would pay a £15m upfront fee and £2.5m a year in rent. Costs continued to rise for the taxpayer even after the deal was agreed due to further conversion complications.

I have previously calculated that, for every secondary school in England to be funded in line with the costs determined by the Gatsby report, £181m would need to be found each academic year.

Warning: extremely simplified accounting follows:

£701m – £15m, – £5m (rent for 16/17 & 17/18 seasons) = £681m

£681m divided by £181m = 3.76 academic years worth of Gatsby standard careers provision the West Ham deal currently removed from the public purse.

Of course, this is not a cut and dried case. Many pointed fingers at the time at the LLDC for negotiating such a one-sided deal for the taxpayer and the continuing losses that mount up. Others blamed West Ham for taking advantage of the public purse, especially when the revenues of Premier League clubs have never been healthier.

Brady had previously, as a Conservative Peer, voted through Tax Credit cuts for working families and promoted the party line that Labour were profligate with public money (both on Twitter and in person at the 2013 Conservative Party Conference)

while then leading a negotiation that resulted in the taxpayer covering some huge financial losses while the business she advocated for, gained a substantial commercial asset.

Employer engagement is a vital part of Careers work and employers should be congratulated and encouraged to get involved with building the skills of the next generation. What this sort of community work should not be treated as though is a way of keeping up a positive profile while at the same time taking business decisions which do not aid the wider community. This is not a zero sum, either or, game, plenty of Careers practitioners will be working with colleagues from business who not only dedicate time to helping young people but also lead their business with an ethical mindset, the EY Foundation being just one example of the sort of work organisations such as Business in the Community want to encourage. Supporting the Public Sector prepare young people for the world of work is more than just an afternoon at a speed dating interview event.



We are beset on all sides by the tyranny of bad CEIAG reports


“say jobs of the future again, I dare you, I double dare you”

A lot of reports get published that look at the state of CEIAG provision for young people in the UK and offer improvement ideas. As well as policy makers there are a vast number of stakeholder organisations in this arena and across areas such as social mobility, apprenticeships, vocational education that all overlap with Careers Advice. Some of these organisations are more upfront in the policy ambitions of their backers than others but all have found that publishing a report is a proven method of gaining those all important media column inches if you want to advance your agenda.

Some sink, never to pass over the desks of Ministers while others take center stage in shaping Government thinking. The quality spectrum of these reports is wide and two came out recently that, to my mind, should be filed at the weaker end of the publication pool.

First up came Beyond the Numbers: Incentivising & implementing better apprenticeships from the University of Sheffield. Branded under their “Sheffield Solutions” research arm, the publication was based on a number of interviews with

local and national stakeholders in education, training and youth services, staff members – including tutors, trainers and employers

views from apprentices which were collected from

two focus groups and a number of in-depth, semi-structured interviews

as well as previous publications. The report includes quotes and stories that rehash the cliches of school CEIAG’s relationship to apprenticeships, including a lack of information regarding alternative to HE routes, a belief that apprenticeships were treated as a second class pathway and that high achieving pupils were actively discouraged from applying for them. The actual application figures of young people compared to the opportunities on offer, isn’t considered.

Where the report really falls down though is in it’s recommendations for schools


  1. Rethinking school league tables to include apprenticeships – this already happens. When you go the DfE school comparison site you can find individual school data through school name, distance to your postcode, through Local Authority area or through Parliamentary Constituency. Users can then scroll down past huge amounts of information about the school to find the Pupil Destinations – what pupils did after key stage 4 drop down menu and, hey presto, there is that information.


You can also find this data about key stage 5 leavers on the 16-18 tab further up the page.

Apprenticeship destination information is a single drop on a website that is an ocean of information about each school from the number of teachers, to the performance of disadvantaged pupils, to the number of pupils entered in Physics, Biology and Chemistry. Data on pupils remaining in education or employment after leaving the school is included in the headline data


but the sheer amount of other information means that users are left to navigate to find what is important to them.

2. Extra training and resources for Careers Advisers in school about apprenticeships – nobody is ever going to say ‘no’ to more resources or extra training which is why the DfE has contracted organisations across the country to offer this to schools. The provider across the Midlands is Workpays. They will come into school to offer provision for students, send you resources and offer training. The DfE has a page with resources for schools and advisers and the ASK (Apprenticeship Support & Knowledge) providers will come and offer events for students. The University of Sheffield is, again, recommending something that already exists.

3. Coordinated, single application process for apprenticeships – Guess what, it already exists. Find An Apprenticeship is not a great website (it’s text search is terrible) but it is a single, coordinated portal for apprenticeships. All of the apprenticeships, they’re all on there. What it is not though is a single application process as many apprenticeship vacancies require an applicant to click through to the employer website to register (again) and complete an application. This is something that is out of the hands of Government as many employers will insist on their own hiring methods that are standardized across their business for all job roles. This is part of the challenge when supporting a young person through a labyrinth registration process on a company website full of business jargon but it fits established employer HR practices.

So all three of the recommendations for education are, to some extent, already in place which highlights how, while diagnosing problems with CEIAG provision may be achievable, offering solutions requires more a real understanding of the landscape.

The other report that caught my attention was Averting a 90Bn GDP crises: A report on the image and recruitment crises facing the built environment carried out by Kier Group by polling “2000 secondary school teachers, advisers and parents.” The Group, a profitable player in the UK construction market, look very keen to play their part in improving student career advice by pledging 1% of their workforce to act as ambassadors and place a “virtual world plaque” on sites to help the public “explore a digital world of information on a project.” They hope that these initiatives will begin to change widely held views of their industry as their poll reports 73% of parents not wanting their child to pursue a career in the sector and, despite 76% knowing that apprenticeships lead to careers in construction, 45% wouldn’t encourage their child to take an apprenticeship when leaving school. To it’s credit the report gives context to the current CEIAG landscape by devoting a whole page the loss of funding and the placing of the legal duty on schools in 2012.

Where the report fails to offer much value is, again, in the recommended solutions, both those from within the construction industry and from government, to improve the situation. Despite clearly identifying that parents are a persuasive and influential negative voice against young people aspiring to work in their industry they suggest nothing to then engage with parents. That parents are an important voice in shaping the career views of a young person is backed up by other data and we also have clear indications of how young people would like to receive their CEIAG and what types of provision help them most. An important type of provision is work experience and workplace visits, the report also fails to acknowledge or offer a proposal to grow the dearth of these opportunities in the sector.


The 1% workforce ambassador pledge will hopefully, from a very low base, improve the number of work inspiration opportunities.

From Government they ask that the Careers & Enterprise Company is allowed to continue it’s work (it will be so this isn’t much of recommendation) and

2. Mandate that every school gives children a minimum of three one hour careers advice sessions – the first session with a school advisor, follow up sessions with ambassadors from relevant industries.
3. Ensuring the frameworks and resources are in place to support schools and colleges to meet all of the eight benchmarks identified by the Gatsby Foundation14 for best practice careers advice
4. Mandate that the careers advice process begins as early as possible in a young person’s life to enable them to make informed choices about their subject/course selection

which are all useful and worthwhile suggestions but after earlier acknowledging that

as part of the difficult choices made through austerity measures, funding for Connexions was cut, leaving a significant responsibility largely resting with schools themselves

and that

given substantial and repeated budget cuts, other schools are unable to provide the kind of service that they would aspire to

the report fails to then include the obvious point that these (uncosted) increases in service provision would require more funding. This shows a lack of willingness to bring up the funding of public services for the wider benefit and a failure to acknowledge the financial reality in schools.

Reports that help shine attention to the issues with employer engagement and CEIAG in schools but also then offer constructive solutions that work within the realities of the landscape are to be welcomed. Reports that finger point at a Careers service under funded and unable to solve all of the problems laid at it’s door without significant collaboration and investment, only have one purpose; to shift the focus of blame away from the other stakeholders.

A picture collection: Bored students at Careers events

Getting CEIAG events organised, planned and running is no mean feat. You’ve done all of the prep work, you’ve booked the guests months in advance, managed to find a free room and then held off other members of staff trying to see if they can pinch it at the last-minute, you’ve reserved a parking space, smoothed things over with the lesson teachers that will have to supervise pupils a little over excited that something different is happening and then, the time arrives.

Your Careers event is finally taking place.

Perhaps a member of the Senior Team pops their head in and agrees that “it’s very important that they think of their futures, isn’t it,” perhaps the speaker isn’t as jovial or attention grabbing in front of the rows of hard to impress teenagers as they were in your planning meeting, perhaps the TA you were promised is off sick without cover and you…well, you just want everything to go well. You would like the pupils to get something positive from the event, for the feedback sheets to show they’ve taken something in and begun to reflect on their own future but it would also just be great if you could get a quick photo for the school website to show parents and the world that Careers work does happen here. Now you just need to find those interested looking faces to take a quick pic…

Classic “is this really going to last till break miss?” face on the young lady


Never snap when the 2am GTA streaming session is about to show itself in a yawn (bottom right 2nd pic)


A classic example of the “always frame it to miss out the back row kids” rule


“Sir! I said don’t take a photo!”


Add your own examples in the comments, none of us have been immune to the odd sour face messing up a photo of a great CEIAG event. Once, on a trip to a Russell Group University, I had a Year 10 flat-out refuse to take part in the group photo at the end of the day and went and stood by the car. The rest of group soon followed which meant I had a full on strike on my hands and had no photo for an expectant Headteacher looking for a good news story when we got back. I hope you enjoy your start to the new school year and are planning lots of exciting CEIAG events for teenagers to look nonplussed in.

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.


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


plus their satisfaction on school leaver skill levels


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.