Written evidence submitted by Mr Gordon Lewis

Whether the current system of careers education, information, advice and guidance (CEIAG) is serving young people, particularly:

• those from disadvantaged backgrounds;
• those who are known to the care system;
• those who are not in mainstream education, including home-educated pupils and those in alternative provision;
• those from different ethnic minority backgrounds; and
• those who have a special educational need or disability.

Having retrained as a Careers Advisor in the 1990s, I joined the service shortly after it transferred from local authority control to private ownership.  The service remained free from Year 9 through to age 19 (25 for SEND).  As well as spending four days in two different schools each week (two days per school), I would run community drop-ins  at strategic locations targetting those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who were not in mainstream education, as well as providing ongoing support to school leavers who were at risk or had already become NEET.  Relationships with schools and colleges were developed, plus every Careers Advisor was expected to spend some time during school holidays visiting employers, large and small, to promote young people for apprenticeships and other training schemes.  By the early 2000s, Connexions appeared and provided additional PSHE support within schools and the community.  Careers Advisors worked alongside Connexions’ Advisors until both services were amalgamated around 2004. 

Connexions continued the good practice of both local careers companies and the work of its own Personal Advisors.  I continued working in my two schools but with the added benefit of a Personal Advisor who would visit each school once a week.  My only real criticism of Connexions was that it was fixed on county boundaries and, working in an area where three authorities joined the county in which I worked, it was extremely difficult to establish data sharing agreements across county borders.  I remember advocating at that time that, rather than being restricted to geographical counties, there should have been a “Connexions Plus” modelled on Jobcentre Plus.  This would have allowed young people to access the service away from their home county, removing the need for data sharing agreements.

From 2010, Connexions started its unfortunate demise following a General Election and a change of Government policy.  Schools and colleges were still expected to provide CEIAG, but this became a chargeable service and only schools and colleges that were financially sound could afford to contract the services of a careers company or, as in my case, an independent Careers Advisor.  This had a huge impact on those from ethnic minorities, who often attended poorer inner city school, removed the support given by Careers Advisor to SEND young people and, crucially, saw the closure of community drop-in centres which had been an essential service to those young people who were non-attenders, NEET or simply needing more support than that which could be provided in school.  The careers services became disjointed, with Careers Advisors working in isolation and, more often than not, contracted on a term-time only basis.  Added to which, as an independent Careers Advisor, I am unable to provide a service in school holidays as there is no one to fund such activities.

I now work part-time in one school for two days each week, but I struggle to provide the service that I once did while employed by Connexions.  Where possible, I aim to have some face to face contact with each Year 11 student, but recognise that I could do much more if the school could afford three or even four days a week.  I know of a neighbouring school that only offers CEIAG through an online app which cannot question or challenge any unrealistic ambition that a young person may have.  Another school, close to my home and where family members have attended, has employed a non-qualified Careers Advisor who considers giving out college prospectuses to be sufficient.  It is not!  Based on this and my experience of almost 25 years, I have seen the provision of CEIAG deteriorate from a fully funded professional service to a fragmented function that no longer provides the support required to those from disadvantage backgrounds, ethnic minorities, non-attenders and NEET.  Those living in care or identified as SEND receive some support in school to a certain extent, but this concludes at the end of Year 11.

Whether and how the Government should bring responsibility for CEIAG under one body, for example a National Skills Service, to take overall responsibility for CEIAG for all ages, and how this might help young people navigate the CEIAG system.

As already mentioned, I was advocating a national “Connexions Plus” approach to CEIAG between 15 and 17 years ago.  Not only would such an approach resolve data sharing issues and provide young people with the opportunity to access CEIAG in places away from their home authority, it would also seek to provide quality provision and consistency across the country.  A national and fully funded service would mean that every secondary school and college has access to fully qualified and experienced Careers Advisors, ensuring that every single young person has access to quality CEIAG irrespective of their background or the finances of the school or college they may attend. 

Whether such a National Skills Service is best placed in the Department for Education or the Department of Work and Pensions to avoid duplication of work.

While there should be no duplication of work, there needs to be a new department created purely for overseeing CEIAG.  There would, of course, need to be close liaison with the Department for Education and the Department of Work & Pensions, but being part of one or other of these two departments would not give CEIAG the full attention that it needs in the 21st century. 

Whether organisations like the Careers Enterprise Company and National Careers Service provide value for money to the taxpayer.

Speaking from experience, neither the Careers Enterprise Company (CEC) nor the National Careers Service (NCS) provide value for money to the taxpayer.

• Since its inception, CEC has promoted the Gatsby Benchmarks and the need for each school to have an Enterprise Advisor (EA).  I was working to what is now the Gatsby Benchmarks when I first qualified, continued to work to these aims and objectives with Connexions, and have continued to do this as an independent Careers Advisor.  I resent being told to follow the Gatsby Benchmarks by those who have no knowledge of CEIAG over the past 25 years.  CEC also fails to recognise that those working in schools are unable to attend regular and often meaningless meetings because it is far more important to meet young people face to face.  As for Enterprise Advisors (EAs), my school was not allocated an EA for around 18 months after these were  first announced.  When an EA was provided, the person linked to my school was unreliable, disinterested and quite unprofessional at times.  CEC had not even checked that this EA had received DBS clearance for working with young people within a school setting, some of whom are vulnerable.  Needless to say, the school asked this particular EA not to continue and, since then, CEC has shown little interest or support to my school.  There is absolutely no need to have such an ineffective organisation in existence.
• Having used NCS online resources, these are minimal in content and the job profiles do not always reflect the realities for all careers.  For example, the profile for ‘Secondary School Teacher‘ suggests that the working hours will be 37 to 45 hours per week term-time.  I have yet to speak with a Secondary School Teacher who does not regularly work in excess of 45 hours or during school holidays!  I have noticed some improvement to information accuracy in recent years, but there is still a very long way to go.  As far as obtaining advice from NCS, I do not have any direct experience of using this service.  However, my own daughter did contact NCS while in the process of dropping out of university at the start of her second year.  Instead of listening to my daughter and asking why she had chosen to drop out, the advisor went straight to finding her another university so that she could transfer.  That was not what she wanted, because it was university life in her second year which had forced her decision.  She sensed that the advisor’s aim was simply to get as many people into or back to university as possible, rather than provide individual and personalised CEIAG.  I recognise that this may not be representative of NCS as a whole, but I do find such an approach rather alarming.

How careers and skills guidance could be better embedded in the curriculum across primary, secondary, further, higher and adult education, to ensure all learners are properly prepared for the world of work

From personal experience I can only comment on embedding CEIAG within the secondary curriculum.  I am fortunate that my school is proactive in promoting CEIAG within the curriculum, but the biggest challenge is finding the time to do this, especially during the last two years where education has been impacted by Covid-19.  There is an active CV and mock interview programme which fits perfectly with English, while transferrable skills gained within, for example, History are emphasised as being relevant to a wide range of possible careers.  With the emphasis starting to focus on green careers, Geography and STEM subjects are able to integrate useful and relevant CEIAG into lessons.  Likewise DT subjects tend to be more vocational, so have the advantage of being directly related to specific careers.  STEM also leans itself to careers within engineering, research, medicine, finance etc.  The biggest challenge are subjects that fall within creative arts and sport because, although some career opportunities exist, it is important to promote these within a realistic framework in which only a proportional few will succeed.  Every classroom now displays CEIAG related posters for individual subjects, while posters for all subjects are displayed in a communal area used students.  Much more could and should be done on embedding CEIAG within the curriculum, but schools and teachers will need to be given sufficient time for them to do this.

How schools could be supported to better fulfil their duties to provide careers advice and inform students of technical, as well as academic, pathways.

Working within a school that does take CEIAG seriously, I am contracted to provide professional careers advice to Years 9, 10 and 11.  However, the school can only afford two days each week and there is much more that I could do if the school could afford an extra day or two, including Years 7 and 8.  I already discuss technical and academic pathways with young people, including apprenticeships at all levels.  Yet I know that there are schools that either use unqualified Careers Advisors or simply ask young people to complete an online careers quiz that provides no interaction with another person.  If schools are to be supported to better fulfil their duties in providing the full range of careers advice, the schools must either be given ring-fenced funds to access a qualified Careers Advisor or, as with Connexions, the service should be fully funded by Government.

How the Baker Clause could be more effectively enforced

I am fortunate that I have followed what is now known as the “Baker Clause” throughout my own career as a Careers Advisor, albeit focussing on Year 10 and 11.  Training providers, colleges and employers, large and small, visit the school regularly to meet and speak with young people, providing information about both academic and non-academic routes.  Personally, I fail to see why any responsible Careers Advisor, in conjunction with their school, has not continued to do this even in the fragmented world of CEIAG.  Of course, those schools that do not have an actual Careers Advisor will not be doing this because there is no one to organise and co-ordinate activities, which is something that needs to be resolved as quickly as possible.  Those schools who cannot afford to contract a Careers Advisor are likely to be the ones with disadvantaged young people and/or those from ethnic minorities. 

I would also add that Government needs to place more emphasis on the responsibilities of employers in conjunction with work experience.  Every employer of 50 or more staff should be legally obliged to offer work experience placements while all insurers providing various liability insurances should be instructed to add work experience cover as a matter of routine.  In my school, I am currently trying to place 200 Year 10 students in suitable placements for this summer, but 50 are still unplaced at the time of writing.  The companies are there, but so are the excuses; uninsured, too young, not company policy, lack of confidentiality and, of course, Covid-19.  Many of these companies are the same organisation complaining about the lack of skilled staff, but are doing very little to encourage young people to explore such skills and careers while they are still at school. 

Such negativity I have found with the private, public and voluntary sectors, and there needs to be legislation which makes work experience placements part of all business operations.  I would also add that age restrictions on apprenticeships should be removed for the same reasons, allowing all school leavers to be in a position to be employed as an apprentice if that is their preferred route.  A local multi-national petro-chemical plant company close to my school has always employed 16-year-olds as apprentices but, just a few weeks ago, changed its recruitment policy to only accept applications from those aged 18 and over.  Yet the company still only requires five GCSEs grade 4 to 9 including English and Mathematics.  Despite challenging the Apprentice Recruitment Officer, one independent Careers Advisor would never win against such a large company.  The company in question has been employing school leavers for 30 and more years, so why has the policy change to the detriment of school leavers?

How the Government can ensure more young people have access to a professional and independent careers advisor and increase the take-up of the Lifetime Skills initiative.

Every school and college should have a fully funded and qualified Careers Advisor for every 1000 pupils or students.  Even on a 1:1000 ratio, it would potentially leave some gaps in provision, especially if more CEIAG interaction with Years 7 and 8 with be expected.  Obviously some of the organisation and administration could be carried out by the school’s own Careers Leader, but in most cases this is an additional responsibility added to existing roles and the time allocated remains unprotected.  Schools should have funding to have a 0.5 Careers Leader at the very least and who, in turn, should not be expected to carry out other duties within the time allocation for CEIAG activities.

Whether the proposals for CEIAG in the Government’s Skills for Jobs White Paper will effectively address current challenges in the CEIAG system.

While I believe that weaknesses within the National Careers Service (NC) can be improved without too much additional cost, the Careers Enterprise Company (CEC) should be abolished and be replaced by a far more efficient organisation that actually understands the difficulties faced by schools and Careers Advisors working within what is currently a very fragmented service to young people.  Therefore, CEC should not be involved in discussions on the White Paper and nor should my own professional organisation, Careers Development Institute (CDI), who I do not find particularly supportive of its members, especially those who work part-time.  When a member of CDI does express concerns or seek support, their concerns are often brushed aside even though members are expected to work to the CDI’s own Code of Ethics.  Professor Sir John Holman should also be advised to consult with Careers Advisors, Careers Leaders, School and College Management teams AND young people themselves, all of whom would be able to give a much clearer overview of current CEIAG provision.  He should then look at examples of good practice which could then form the basis for the nationwide provision of effective and consistent CEIAG.  Professor Sir John Holman will not gain the level of information by working solely with NCS and definitely not the CEC.

Whether greater investment to create a robust system of CEIAG is needed, and how could this be targeted, to create a stronger CEIAG.

Strong and realistic investment will be the key to developing a stronger CEIAG by 2030.  The profession that is followed by qualified Careers Advisor should be given far more recognition within schools, colleges and employers across the country.  Managed by a central organisation, localised teams should also exist to address geographic variances but, ultimately, everyone would be employed by and answer to the same central organisation.  As previously mentioned, each school should have at least one fully funded and full-time Careers Advisor depending on the size of each individual school.  However, there is a shortage of Careers Advisors, at least in my region, and if Government really seeks to create stronger CEIAG, it also needs to start training future Careers Advisors sooner rather than later.  Having come from the private sector 25 years ago, I know that even a full-time Careers Advisor is not paid a salary that brings value to the role.  However, I have enjoyed working in schools for over twenty years, but I have not enjoyed the lack of understanding coming from Government and, more recently, CEC who do not converse with practitioners at ground level.  I now work part-time or, more appropriately, semi-retired and, within the next six year, expect to fully retire.  Although contracted by my school to retain independence, I know that the Head and senior leadership team are already worried about whether there will be anyone to follow in my footsteps and whether that person would have the knowledge and expertise to provide high quality CEIAG through a range of 1:1 meetings, group sessions and whole year activities.

February 2022

6