So, we meet again, my old friend the Careers Statutory Guidance for schools. It’s been a long journey we’ve been on, you and I. It was way back in 2012 that you first appeared, much slimmer than your current form and with an almost naive belief that your lack of specificity or detail would encourage schools to cope with a new set of responsibilities suddenly thrust upon them.
Since then, year by year, you’ve grown and expanded. In 2013 you talked more about the “responsibilities” of a school
perhaps fearful that schools hadn’t paid much attention to your first appearance.
In 2014, you updated again, this time shaped by Matt Hancock who included much more on the positives of school/employer interaction.
By your 2015 incarnation, you were approaching a level of detail that brought warmer words from the professional bodies. The references to Quality Awards, employer engagement, professional face to face guidance where at least there, if the wording of could/should/must still sparked debate. By now though the continual expansion of the Duty document and the recommendations contained were in danger of designing a roof without worrying about the walls.
And so we reach your latest edition, “Careers Guidance and access for education and training providers January 2018” which is your most comprehensive to date. I understand that you can’t really help this bloat, since your inception the landscape around you has grown and you have to acknowledge this. You have to reference:
- Careers & Enterprise Company
- The recent Careers Strategy
- The Baker Clause
- What Ofsted will inspect
- The Gatbsy benchmarks
- Local Enterprise Partnerships
and all of the things still to come
I want to commend you on much of your content, you’re full of recommendations and suggestions that Careers professionals working in schools would heartily agreed with. Of course Careers Leaders (to use your terminology) would want to include providers of all routes in their careers work, track and monitor the destinations of students, challenge work stereotypes, engage with employers, contract personal providers, consider and plan for the skills needs of the local labour market and work with all relevant stakeholders for the good of all pupils. The detail is there on how to achieve these things, the resources to use, the steps to take, the clarity provided by the Gatbsy benchmarks is wholly helpful.
You outline the “why” we want to achieve these things in a way that, again, would be music to a Careers professionals’ ears
good careers guidance connects learning to the future. It motivates young people by giving them a clearer idea of the routes to jobs and careers that they will find engaging and rewarding. Good careers guidance widens pupils’ horizons, challenges stereotypes and raises aspirations. It provides pupils with the knowledge and skills necessary to make successful transitions to the next stage of their life.
But here, I’m afraid, the praise and welcoming tone of my letter to you must end for you hope to achieve so much, yet offer so little. Much like your Careers Strategy step-father, your ambition outstretches your reach. Money, it seems, is not worthy of a mention.
To satisfy your requirements now, schools will need to fund
- a salary at a level to entice a capable Careers Leader
- funding for L6 IAG training for the Careers Leader (or) a contract with a L6 qualified provider
- funding for work experience
- funding for coach trips to events such as the Skills Show, employer visits or visits to other providers such as Universities
- a budget to cover the costs of events in school
- admin support for this post
And, because of the need from September 2018 to publish their Careers plan, schools will have to think carefully about the provision they publicly commit to and the funding this will require from future budgets. And this omission is not for the lack of numbers. We know that Gatbsy & PWC did the work in great detail.
You’ve just chosen to ignore it and hope that, somehow, schools will just deal with these new costs every year.
I’m sure that we’ll meet again soon, you already mention a September 2018 update, in the meantime I hope that you acknowledge, at least, that quality outcomes do not just come from standards papers. Investment begets performance and that the level of quality provision you outline does require, I’m afraid, investment.