LEPs

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.

Careers Advice for an unpredictable AI future

All Careers practitioners know that a portion of their professional skills toolbox should be dedicated to gaining an understanding of the future labour market and the winds of change that are likely to shape that market.

For years, Careers Advisers and the wider education system have been accused of practicing their roles with a lack of regard of the skill demands of the business world that young people will enter into. In recent years, curriculum’s have been rewritten, qualification routes come and gone and entire new types of schools founded all with the aim of aligning education to be closer to the labour market.

Careers practitioners know the barometer for the requirements of this word of work that is forever in the future is known as Labour Market Intelligence (LMI). Through the data of job growth and decline in regions, in industry areas and at qualification entry points, the future demand for certain skills, qualifications or numbers of workers can be predicted.

This data isn’t always easily obtainable or decipherable for the (young) members of the public who it would benefit so it falls to Careers practitioners to be the translator and broadcasters of these resources. Sites such as Nomis, services such as LMI for All and local resources such as LEPs offer the data and practitioners determine when to use it, how to use it and what messages to amplify. We rely on the clearness of the message. If the data says that manufacturing jobs are not likely to grow in the north of England, then we paint a clear picture of the challenge facing a young person wanting to work in that area. If our local LEP is clear on the growth prospects of the nearby airport, then we work hard to get to those employers in contact with our young people to shape their employment prospects view.

Facing the Careers profession today though is a very muddled picture of what is surely the most fundamental disruption of the labour market in the next five to ten years; the growth of artificial intelligence, robotics and automation across a wide swathe of workplaces.

For some, T2 is just a skull crushing step away

On the one hand, the prophecies of doom make for more arresting headlines and grab the attention.

These predictions build likely or probable scenarios onto small-scale tests of technology

Consider: Last October, an Uber trucking subsidiary named Otto delivered 2,000 cases of Budweiser 120 miles from Fort Collins, Colorado, to Colorado Springs—without a driver at the wheel. Within a few years, this technology will go from prototype to full production, and that means millions of truck drivers will be out of a job.

to extrapolate out disaster scenarios.

That isn’t to say that they don’t consult expert opinion but the futurists they do consult are unwavering in their belief in the progress of AI.

426-2017092817_robots_ai_timeline_290_200percent

And these experts, such as Max Tegmark, MIT Professor, or Martin Ford, author of Rise of the Robots, are explicit in their advice that, not only should society and the State start preparing for the consequences of AI (through policies such as Universal Basic Income) but that children should be receiving advice on this future work space now.

For others, AI will complement people skills

Other studies are reaching similar conclusions that automation and AI will fill the labour market in roles requiring logic, process or repetition but that it will be the very human skills of community building and socialisation that will still lead to in-demand employment.

Research by David Deming, a professor of education and economics at the Graduate School of Education and a professor of education and public policy at the Kennedy School, shows that workers who combine social and technical skills fare best in the modern economy

socialfigvi-2

And that, educators and advisers, should be nurturing the skills of change management, teamwork and project work in their students to prepare them to succeed in this labour market.

Other skills such as literacy or numeracy (which the current UK education system places heavy emphasis on) are also ones which will computers will (and already do) outperform humans.

Almost a third of workers use these cognitive skills daily in their jobs and yet their competency levels have already been matched by computers. About 44 per cent are still better than the machines. The remaining 25 per cent have jobs that do not use these skills every day.

This is not to say that low skilled jobs will completely vanish but that even those workers will need to build their human skills to be able to work alongside technology

Research by Richard Blundell, an economics professor at University College London, suggests the low-skilled tend to fare better in big companies that invest heavily in research and development. They have higher wages than other low-skilled workers and tend to stay with their employers for longer.

This collaborative ideal is still a fundamental change in the labour market due to the numbers of low skilled roles that will be affected. The question remains on the scope of this new market to soak up the displaced and provide employment at the levels we see today.

And that Governments should act upon the things they can control. If the capital and resources gained by technological progress is more fairly redistributed by the State, then the offsetting factors of commercial expansion and growth would provide new employment opportunities elsewhere in the labour market. The pool of employment opportunities would change shape but not drastically shrink.

In this scenario, Careers Advice becomes a sign poster of the future jobs such as Drone Traffic Controller or Augmented Reality Designer.

And for some, AI won’t make much of a difference at all

Here, the faith is placed in the churn of technological progress and investment in new areas of business to bring new jobs to replace those lost to automation. Economies with high levels of automation such as Germany and Japan have strong job growth. The percentage of people in full-time work in the USA and the UK is growing steadily. In short, there just isn’t any evidence that AI is effecting the jobs market.

How can the CEIAG profession react

In a recent post, Professor Tristram Hooley covered much of the same ground in this post and suggested that, due to this uncertainty between competing visions of the future labour market, advice could be offered across three frameworks:

  1. Adaptive Guidance – Preparation for change
  2. Expanded Career Guidance – broaden concepts of meaningful work
  3. Emancipatory Guidance – encourage realisation of and challenge of the system

and that a possible curriculum

hooley1

would plan opportunities for clients to grow these capabilities.

Which is all work Advisers would be happy to cover and would provide clients with enriching learning experiences but what strikes me is the fact that the profession is tasked with preparing for this wide range of eventualities. The lack of clarity from both Governments and Business voices on the shape of the future labour market is unhelpful. The Business lobby is not shy on coming forward with the skill demands they place on education and CEIAG to meet more definitive labour market needs. Whether looking at the strategic needs of nation economies or drilling down to an oversupply of graduates from a particular vocational area, Business leaders are clear on what they require from education. For such a large disruption potential to employment, the lack of clarity on what we should actually be expecting is noticeable. The type of preparation work outlined by Professor Hooley would be much better served alongside as clear guidance from business leaders on what will likely be the reality of the impact of AI and automation on the labour market.

More Careers inquiry fandango

Recent weeks have seen not one but two sessions on CEIAG held by the joint Education & Business sub-committee. In fact, due to Ministerial illness, a third is soon to come. What a time to be alive.

The first session, with witnesses from the CDI, Careers England, AELP and the West Midlands LEP, was not broadcast as it was held away from the Westminster estate so only a written record has been published while the second session, with witnesses from the Careers Enterprise Company, the National Careers Service and Ofsted, is online for your viewing pleasure.

Across these two sessions there’s a couple of things which peaked my interest.

  1. The CDI are treading very carefully around the funding issue

Suggesting that HE Widening Participation funds be funneled off to help fund careers support might be an idea with merit and fit as a solution to the dropout data but asking funding to be directed from another strand of the social mobility levers isn’t without downsides. Careers work with young people is something that a Government should see as a stand alone good and fund as such. In the current climate, asking Government for cash is a sure fire way to be swiftly shown the meeting room exit door which makes persuasion harder but it shouldn’t be dodged because of this.

The confusion over strategic funding ideals and what this funding gets spent on (see point 5) is also exacerbated by the strong call from all witnesses for Careers Quality Marks to be an integral part of any recommendations put forward by the Committee. This would come with a significant cost for schools currently under huge financial pressure (plus the forthcoming evidence toolkit will surely weaken the argument for quality awards even further, but that’s another blog). The issue of funding needs a joined up message from the CDI and not left to other unions.

2. The National Careers Service offer for young people isn’t being held to account 

Around the 16.30pm mark Joe Billington, the Director of the National Careers Service, is asked how many young people have used the phone service but the conversation is diverted and the answer never comes. The most recent data shows that just 4% of the 25,000 telephone users of the service were 19 or under (page 19). That isn’t enough.

3. Generally, the MPs didn’t seem very well briefed

Around the 16.38pm mark, a number of the MP’s seem shocked to learn that a wealth of data on skills mismatches and employer views on the employability of young people was already readily available even before the Careers Enterprise Company used it to form their “cold spots” map. Both the UKCES Employer Perspectives survey and the annual Employer Skills survey have this information in droves. That these MPs, on this specific sub-committee, looking at this specific issue, were not aware of this is baffling. Amanda Milling MP then goes onto ask about the interaction between business and schools, it’s true that a lot has been published on this subject but, at the very least, could she not be aware of the work from the department she is meant to be scrutinising?

4. Relying on Ofsted to be the all knowing overseer of careers work in schools is a busted flush

They don’t have the time, the capacity nor the inspection framework to do it. It isn’t happening on the scale it needs to now and, with the ongoing move to a school lead system and a new Chief Inspector to be appointed, won’t in the future.

5. This is a lot of strategic stuff without asking, “Day to day, who’s talking to young people?”

For all of this talk about “umbrella” organisations, Quality Marks and websites not a lot of time or attention seems to be focused on who is actually going to enabling this provision for and with young people. To their credit, the CDI are clear in their expectation of suitable CPD and qualification status for professionals and the work of the Careers Enterprise company will help provision levels. Helping schools focus on, fund and find time for careers work to happen seems to be the roll your sleeves up work though nobody wants to roll their sleeves up for.

Side note – If I was a tinfoil hat wearing type I would also note that, last year, the revamped careers duty for schools was released on the 25th March and the Guidance the year before that on April 14. Postponing the Ministerial witness session to beyond those dates this year could allow them to appear in front of the Committee with a new document to offer.

 

CEIAG in Labour’s Skills Taskforce Policy Review

Released today was a document that sets the recommendations for 14-19 education that the Labour shadow cabinet will consider when writing their 2015 election manifesto. It has a substantial section dedicated to CEIAG for this age group at point 4.2

There are 3 final recommendations:

6) A responsibility on schools to track the destinations of all students, and an element

funding conditional on passing learners onto the next stage of their education or
training post-16
(7) LEPS to broker high quality and independent Information Advice and Guidance (IAG)
locally, working with schools and employers, supported by funding withheld from
schools who fail to secure a next step in education or training for their pupils
(8) A new statutory responsibility for schools and colleges to collaborate with one
another to share resources, build opportunities for young people and deliver a
comprehensive upper secondary framework, including a Tech Bacc for vocational
learners

Initial Thoughts

The Careers community that has been so aghast with the Coalition’s policy in this area that removes Careers guidance professionals from the equation and relies solely on the input from Business will find much heart from the paragraphs that maintain the importance of independent IAG input. The reliance on NEET outcomes to maintain funding does cause me a pause as individual school NEET statistics are volatile (percentages can be based on very small numbers of individuals by school). A check on the attendance of ex students on 1st November could gain very different results from exactly the same check carried out two weeks later. The NEET population isn’t a stagnant blob of youngsters, learners are constantly moving off and into training, learning or employment outcomes so it would need to be measured in a considered way not for it to be open to manipulation. The LEPs idea will please the Association of Colleges as it closely resembles their “careers hub” proposal.

Securing Indepedent Careers Guidance – FE & Sixth Form Colleges – the mid point of the funnel

Should schools be at the widest point of the funnel?

Following on from the Guidance for secondary schools on securing Independent Careers Guidance, a similar document, but for Further Education and Sixth Form Colleges, has now been published by the Dfe

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/securing-independent-careers-guidance

It’s a good policy document. It’s snappy but covers what it needs to, gives some excellent case studies to spark ideas, offers resource links, busts some myths and speaks glowingly of the good that Careers work can do to guide life chances.

I think though, it’s a document that doesn’t and shouldn’t exist in its own little bubble. Alongside it coherently fits a recent report from Ofsted into the Local Accountability freedoms which FE Colleges and Sixth Forms should be embracing to drive the skills agenda to match the needs in their communities from their nearby employers.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/slow-start-for-policy-give-colleges-more-curriculum-freedom

The call is for FE Colleges to:

tailor their provision to meet more specifically the needs of various community groups, local residents, businesses and employers in their locality

The findings of the report, that they hadn’t been utilising their new freedoms to achieve this goal yet, isn’t my focus. My focus is how that vision of College provision should drive Careers work both Colleges and feeder schools.

Because, the vision that FE Colleges should be important skills factories for local areas, sending work ready students out into the local labour market is an exciting one and should have a great impact on the required day-to-day work carried out by FE Careers IAG. If FE Colleges truly do embrace these freedoms and, working collaboratively with Local Enterprise Partnerships, continuously moulded their offers and provision to meet the local skills needs, then Careers workers in those Colleges would need a flexibility to build new links into specific business areas, become experts in routes into those industries and adapt to match the changing subject areas of the College. Their IAG input would happen at a mid-point in the funnel above and their area expertise will need to be all the more in-depth because of it.

So, if they are at the mid-point of the funnel, schools then should surely be the widest point of the funnel. The establishments with employer engagement and interaction from the biggest range of business areas that might skim the surface of those careers but would entice an interest from the young learners. So much variety might seem scatter shot in its execution but, it’s through this provision that hitherto unknown interests could be uncovered. Research from the Education & Employers Taskforce shows how vital these encounters can be

http://www.educationandemployers.org/research/taskforce-publications/its-who-you-meet/

not even at the more complex level of networking or mentoring but purely at the most basic level of igniting a spark or providing a guiding beacon to aim for through the complexity of Post 16 choice.

Is either of these scenarios the case currently? Ofsted say not for FE Colleges and will soon report a verdict for schools, but I think it’s a compelling vision for a section of how things could be for the student journey and where Careers IAG fits into that journey.