AEIAG0029

Written evidence submitted by Hartpury University & College

The Committee invites written submissions on any or all of the points below:

• 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.

For Hartpury College we know that our service supports students from all backgrounds, every student is given support through a connected Personal Development Journey broken down into years to demonstrate personal progression during their time of study with us that gives rise to both 1:1 (including an online 1:1 interactive service), workshops, employer encounters, online resource and content, work experience and a dedicated Personal Tutoring Programme that provides CEIAG on Baker Clause related themes to ensure students are well equipped to be not only prepared with skills, but also with the knowledge to make informed decisions about their future destination. With between 97% positive progression (Hartpury 18/19) recently at Hartpury this is an excellent measure of impact of this approach.

• 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.

Is the Skills Services offered by several organisations currently broken? In the past 5 years the following organisations have done an amazing job in developing resource and connections. The CEC, National Careers Service, CDI and our Local Careers Hub provide multitudes of content / opportunities that can be tailored and utilised for OUR students. One size does not fit all especially as the post 16-18 options have widened, and having the ability to draw down on resources that match the needs of our learners and the needs of our Industries has been a fantastic step change. We know our learners better than anyone, and a prescriptive or tick box ‘One’ service for all will not provide the tailored development of ALL young people.

• 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.

Same as the above, is this the part of the Careers System that is broken? We believe no, so why change it?

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

Developing a National Advice and Guidance service in ‘Schools’ is where the current Careers system breaks down, so funding needs to be pushed into this direction which will in the long term add value for money for the taxpayer as young people find fulfilment in their working careers.

• 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

This is something that Hartpury does well, connecting up a mix of skills, personal and knowledge development opportunities to allow students to be prepared for the world of work. This starts with a clear statement of Intent supported by our Link Governor, driven by the senior management approach but one that is engaged by Academic delivery and CEIAG professional staff to measure both Implementation against a careers plan and the Impact activities have on students. This is following the leadership laid out by the Gatsby Benchmarks and we adopt the approach that Careers is not an Add On service, both physically in terms of CEIAG professionals and the agenda of Careers as an overall institution, its just embedded in everything we do.

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

Could larger institutions that are closely regulated provide regionally based advice and guidance that is underpinned by the Gatsby Benchmarks. Many schools find relationships with larger institutions or universities to aid delivery of Benchmark related material as part of widening participation plans, as we do at Hartpury University.

• How the Baker Clause could be more effectively enforced

The Baker Clause is already part of the Gatsby Benchmarks, and following scrutiny of these via Compass Audits requires follow-up. As a result, we now have a dedicated Tutorial Programme that ensures all routes of progression are mapped across the year, giving air-time for knowledge gathering by students, discussion and 1:1 guidance where further support is needed. If other institutions cannot adopt a similar programme for students then perhaps there could be a centralised programme that could support this, however again one-size does not fit all, and the success of our programme has been to be able to tap into what differing cohorts and individuals needs in-flight, by region and by the changes in the industries we are connected to. In addition, the information for the Technical Qualifications needs to be made clearer and easily accessible for students who wish to investigate further in their own time.

• 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.

This is not connected to the current Careers Hubs due to CEC funding which restricts this to Schools and Colleges, which does not support the spread of what information is out there and where you can find or make use of it.

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

Overall, we are pleased that there is a recognition that further investment is required on the Skills Agenda clearly highlighted in the White Paper. However, we do not believe that the proposals address the overall challenges of the CEIAG system. CEIAG is not a term referenced as a whole within the White Paper, which causes concern as Careers Education can only be delivered as part of IAG, the paper breaks out the sub headings but we do not need a skills matching system, we need a whole approach to the CEIAG System. Developing the National Careers Website is a great addition. Careers Hubs do not go into enough detail on how their remit will be expanded, with CEC providing funding this limits to just Schools and Colleges which therefore does not tap into the Young Adult agenda. In the section that highlights Improving the delivery of careers advice in schools and colleges. Point 100 in the Paper states that “80% of schools and colleges are using Gatsby”, which has resulted in “improvements in every dimension of careers support”. So, what about the other 20% surely this is the focus? Especially if this is showing positive improvement why aren’t we pushing harder on this? Having a centralised approach takes away responsibility from institution in providing their own Careers Programme, and as mentioned knowing your audience and students is a far better way of delivering CEIAG, certainly from a College perspective.

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

We feel that more investment is needed in the CEIAG system particularly in schools, as the preparation of students on arrival is noticeably varied. However, many institutions like ours will need the flexibility to be able to meet the needs of our industries that we serve. No singular system is going to be able to develop the Industry relevant professional knowledge that our CEIAG staff attain.

We must also understand that CEIAG is not just a 1:1 or advice about future career decision making routes. Our Vocational Subjects lead the way through our teaching teams in providing, challenging and delivering skills development for the industry areas via the curriculum that is being taught. This is something that requires careful internal investment, recognition and planning to meet both curriculum requirements but with a clear end goal of helping students stand out from the crowd in their chosen destination.

We need to ensure we follow this mantra when considering investment “CEIAG is a collection of experiences that help people make informed decisions about their future” 

March 2022