AEIAG0046
Written evidence submitted by the Heart of the South West Careers Hub
In general, CEIAG is variable from school to school.
Where senior leaders in school are engaged, invest time/resources into their Careers Programme (e.g. Careers Leader time, Careers Leader training, make space available in learner time-tables, implement a progressive programme of CEIAG across Year Groups [starting in Year 7 at the latest], work with a range of stakeholders [employers, education and training providers etc] and employ suitably qualified Careers Advisers to deliver guidance), young people are served well. In these circumstances, young people in all of the categories above are served well. CEIAG programmes are tailored to meet the needs of individuals, additional barriers are addressed, stereotypes are challenged, and aspirations are raised.
In the absence of school SLT engagement and where there is a lack of investment in CEIAG, young people are not well prepared for their futures. In these circumstances, young people in the above categories are disproportionately impacted in a negative way.
Ensuring a qualified and constant adviser to deliver 1:1 guidance is crucial for Alternative Provision and SEND settings. Having someone who understands the cohort and challenges they face is key. Pupils may need pre session work, so they feel comfortable talking to the adviser to make it a worthwhile experience and not just a box ticking exercise.
For example, all SEND schools in Somerset have the same adviser who has experience of working in Special schools, so understands the cohort, their needs, and barriers. In addition, she is the Supported Employment Coordinator, so works to identify pupils with the potential to enter into employment as a progression pathway.
Joined up working with key stakeholders, education & training providers, employers and schools is key to CEIAG success and ensuring the best outcomes for the young people.
Transition panels work well to identify those young people who are at risk of becoming NEET so interventions can be put in place early on.
There is still more work to be done to make sure all schools are on board and making full use of the careers support available; the support and resources provided by the CEC and Careers Hubs is of high quality. Work with parents also needs to be improved, so they can understand all the possible progression routes for their child.
I would question how we measure if a young person has been well served or not? I suspect that being ‘well served’ means preparing a young person to ‘take their best next step’ or enabling them to fulfil their potential. Perhaps we can measure how far a young person has been well prepared to ‘take their best next step’ by gathering, analysing and sharing detailed destinations data. This is not being done adequately at the moment and the requirement to capture 3 years of destination data is almost impossible with no additional, financial support.
If we consider how far young people are able to ‘fulfil their potential’, this is far more challenging to quantify. The categories of young people listed in the question are still over-represented in statistics relating to things like lower educational achievement, under-employment/unemployment, poverty, poor health, limited life-expectancy and criminality. Whilst good CEIAG can mitigate the impact of some broader socio-economic factors, it is not the complete solution. For example, a good CEIAG programme can help raise the employment aspirations of young people with SEND. However, work needs to be done to make the labour market more accessible, i.e. changing the mindset of employers around the recruitment and employment of disabled people. [Note that endeavours in this regard are being undertaken by the HotSW Careers Hub in liaison with colleagues in Devon County Council].
Having an ‘all age’ careers service would certainly help resolve confusion. Schools, young people and parents are unsure of the service provided at different stages and ages via the National Careers Service. Why when you hit the age of 13 are services available? What if a young person has questions before this age? I would argue that it’s young people that need a face to face service and adults would be content with a phone call, webchat or a virtual meeting but the current service offers the opposite.
A website such as Career Pilot https://www.careerpilot.org.uk/ that supports young people between the ages 11 and 19 would be excellent. It’s clear, interactive and inclusive. Young people and indeed parents are certainly deterred from using the NCS webpage since it transferred to .gov pages – it’s not interactive and inviting. The Amazing Apprenticeship website is also excellent but the public get confused about how to access these different pages. Information is hidden and needs to be far easier to find.
If interactive, engaging information for all ages could be bought under one banner, this would remove barriers and allow everyone access to the same level of accurate information.
Careers Hubs could hold local pages to help differentiate geographies.
I’m not sure it matters where a service sits, to the end user this is not important or visible.
However, avoiding duplication and associated confusion is key.
I feel unable to comment with regard to this question as I am the Strategic Lead for the Heart of the South West Careers Hub, directly funded by the Careers & Enterprise Company.
The current system is too reliant on students receiving informed and up to date CEIAG from dedicated careers practitioners within schools. Young people spend much more of their time with teachers and support workers. Teachers and care providers need to be trained and kept up to date on labour market information, experiences of work, career pathways and education opportunities available. Trained and informed teachers and care providers would enable more universal and embedded CEIAG provision.
Careers Education should be included in teacher training to ensure teachers are taught how to embed careers into the curriculum to ensure careers education is not just an ‘add on’ to be delivered as a standalone activity.
Employers need to be a key part of this training – teachers need to learn from the world of business. Employer site visits, role shadowing, information talks from a variety of sectors and talks from FE, HE and independent education providers must form part of ongoing teacher CPD and could be delivered within INSET days.
Currently the Careers & Enterprise Company provide fully funded training to teach Careers Leaders how to make their plan strategic and embed careers into the curriculum giving a whole school approach. There should be a similar training for teachers.
Chambers of Commerce, Business Councils, FSB etc should provide a list of employers open to providing support for education but Careers Hubs via Cornerstone employers and Enterprise Advisers and EBPs where in existence can also help with this.
Senior Leadership/Headteacher backing is essential, any change needs to come from the top.
Ofsted inspections need to consistently ask for evidence of careers embedment into curriculums to ensure education establishments understand the importance and that careers education is compulsory and a whole school commitment.
Careers Hubs have worked hard to increase the number of employer encounters schools and colleges have. This has undoubtedly had an impact on raising the profile of vocational and technical education but more needs to be done. Parent access via events, information and virtual workshops needs to improve. Parent surveys/focus groups created to ascertain knowledge levels (identifying where the gaps are) should be introduced to ensure myths are dispelled.
Parent Governors should receive training and the creation of a vocational & technical lead Governor alongside a careers link governor would have an impact. A regular invitation to the Careers Leader and Enterprise Adviser at Governor meetings is having an impact where implemented.
CEIAG into teacher training, ongoing teacher CPD alongside provider training would help. Teachers are often called upon for advice from young people and don’t always have the skills or knowledge to help. Signposting to careers professionals is key.
Afterschool clubs, lunchtime interventions, student ambassadors could all help with vocational and technical pathways. Specific interactions focusing on questions, uncertainties, barriers and understanding of vocational routes should be encouraged. The remit of ASK should be lowered to ensure Apprenticeship, T Levels and traineeships information advice and activities are available for younger age groups, not just year 10 and 11.
Designated budget for independent Careers Advisers in school/college as mentioned within other questions is paramount. Careers advice should not be measured by number of meetings but quality of meetings.
Reinstate requirement for reporting on destinations to Yr 14, in line with Gatsby Benchmarks. Change in funding model for destinations data is required– data is so expensive that it does not encourage investment in more meaningful detail which schools and colleges could better use for assessment of their CEIAG outcomes.
Consistency challenged and enforced by Ofsted and Careers award organisations.
Benefits should be clearly stated to ensure the messaging is consistent.
Schools currently pay for independent advice – therefore the service to young people is generally patchy. The Gatsby Benchmarks ask that every young person have a 1:1 appointment with a suitably qualified (L6) adviser before the end of year 11 but still, some schools prioritise, and some don’t. The quality of the advice and guidance given is rarely monitored or followed up due to time and funding constraints. The benchmarks advise that another 1:1 appointment is offered to those in further education but generally this is optional and not mandatory. FE advice and guidance teams vary significantly, some have large teams and can therefore offer ample appointments, and some have just a small team available.
It would be positive to see funding guidance available for schools (perhaps via a youth service provided by the NCS) to support young people and the National Careers Service face to face remit lowered to 16+ so that those leaving secondary education at 16 have a seamless route through and careers advice and guidance services are ongoing. Careers interaction and activities can then be monitored and tracked for impact.
The Careers & Enterprise Company provide Compass + to do some of this tracking but the system needs advancing and schools/FE establishments need to be using the same system to minimise confusion, ensure consistency and enable continuity at the point of transition.
It is essential that careers advisers receive continuous CPD with national, regional and local inputs and that the quality of advice is monitored.
Ensuring employers are at the heart of careers education and skills is key. Careers Hub have shown that where employer engagement is meaningful and constant, outcomes and impacts are high. Where careers education and employer interaction is embedded into curriculums, motivation, behaviour and attendance figures increase, particularly for those in APAs and SEND establishments.
Lowering the careers education remit to year 7 will help but I’d argue simple careers activity should be embedded into primary schools to ensure a basic understanding and a seamless transition.
Some careers hubs have piloted this activity but would like to see this rolled out nationally.
CEIAG should absolutely be included within teacher training. This needs to be mandatory so that all teachers know how to embed career into their curriculum. There should be an expectation that teachers receive LMI and industry placement CPD on an annual basis.
CEIAG should be mandatory rather than optional. It should be embedded rather than stand alone. There should be a guidance and an expectation that the Careers Leaders role is full time and the post should be allocated a team to ensure a quality programme is delivered and embedded (as with any other curriculum area).
Additional funding allocated to the agenda would certainly help. Having a designated Career Leader in each school is all very well but unless they are appropriately trained (and the CEC provide fully funded places so there should be no barrier to this), have SLT backing (or are a member of SLT), and have sufficient, protected time allocated and a team in place to deliver, the role can evaporate. The Careers Leader role should be as important as a Head of Department position and should have a dedicated focus to it, similar to the SENCO role.
Consideration of budget requirements to enable students to access a full careers programme, is essential. Rurality should be taken into consideration and transport costs subsidised – the CEC allocate Careers Hubs funding to support with school and college careers programmes but there is a restriction on spend for transport. In Devon & Somerset, transport costs are a significant barrier for some of our schools – this puts these students at a disadvantage when needing to visit activities, employers, providers or HE provision.
Investment into IT and digital technology to support high quality virtual activity and opportunities to help overcome this rural disadvantage should also be considered.
If schools are to provide students with the greater breadth of opportunities provided by a hybrid of face-to-face and virtual provision as well as access to supportive software (e.g. Career Pilot) they need increased access to devices which can be used in school and also loaned out to those without access to a device or the internet at home (with 4G or 5G provision). This requires additional investment and would benefit other subjects too.
March 2022