AEIAG0050

Written evidence submitted by The Education People/Kent County Council

Why are we contributing?

We are contributing because CEIAG falls under our remit in the county as it contributes to effective participation in post 16 education, NEET reduction, school improvement and benefits the local economy. KCC is currently completing a review of Post 16 education with TEP support and improved CEIAG across the education system has been identified as a key issue to ensure young people are successful in post-16 education and beyond.

CEIAG has recently become an important topic in the county.  KCC is responding robustly to Covid-19 and part of that response is to ensure that the employment prospects of young people in the county are not damaged by the impact of the pandemic.  CEIAG has also been identified as a key response to all age unemployment and the changes in the local economy that have come about as a result of the pandemic. Consequently, Kent has a lot to say on this issue.

Submission

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

Currently we do not believe that the system serves young people well. There are examples of good practice across Kent but no consistency. 

CEIAG is the responsibility of schools.  There are not enough trained and experienced staff to deliver this.  There are also constraints on time available to careers activities due to the time required for curriculum delivery.  In most cases, delivery is not embedded in the curriculum or given the prominence it needs to be successfully delivered.

The fact that disadvantaged and vulnerable young people are over-represented in out NEET cohort and under-represented in in certain professions and employers tell us that students arrive poorly prepared for work also suggests that the system is not serving young people.

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.

A single body responsible for CEIAG would be a positive development. It would bring greater consistency to delivery and simplify the Journey for a young person through the CEIAG system.  There is, however, a danger that this could take responsibility away from local delivery and not meet local needs or strategies. Clear guidance and adequate resources should be provided to education providers to enable delivery, and LAs, alongside the CEC or a similar body could provide the strategic lead and support to develop coherent local systems and encourage collaboration. The National Skills Service could be delivered by the LA as it links so closely with their responsibilities regarding tracking and participation in education 

A skills service should also provide quality support so that the sector knows what good looks like. A collective approach to employer engagement would also be more efficient and simplify the message for employers.

A skills service could make it easier for young people to navigate the systems by

• Creating a clear timeline with milestones for support to prepare young people for transition through education into employment.  A shared understanding of this would avoid confusion.
• Co-ordinating the dissemination of information to support decision making as there is an overwhelming number of sources.
• Provide clear guidelines on experiences needed and skills to be developed to facilitate progression through and beyond education.

All of these would support education providers to improve their delivery. It would also ensure that people knew where to go for support once they were beyond full-time education. This is particularly important as our experience is that when young people become NEET they do not know where to go for support.

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.

This depends on what the focus of the service is to be.  If it is to ensure that young people receive a quality careers experience as part of their education it would sit best with the DFE, backed up by Ofsted.  If it was to provide all age support without reference to education provision it may sit best with DWP. The DWP, however, does not always show an understanding of the young people’s education system and uses very different language, which will hinder working with schools.  Close working with schools will be essential for this agenda to be delivered successfully.

The other organisation to consider is the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education as it also overlaps this agenda.

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

In Kent the CEC has offered good value.  It focusses on building capacity within education rather than offering direct services which may become unsustainable if funding is withdrawn.  There have been previous attempts to embed careers frameworks in education and establish support agencies which have not worked well, but the combination of Gatsby and CEC has been successful.  The CEC supports most of our schools and there are now slow improvements taking place.  Their clear focus on creating and empowering Careers Leaders is a powerful one.  The impact and thus the value for money, could be increased by giving them more visibility and authority within the system.

It has been particularly good value in Kent as the primary relationship has been with the local authority.  This has meant that we can effectively embed them in our teams and strategies, aligning closely with local need.  Working closely with the school improvement and participation teams has helped education providers understand the need for improved CEIAG and its link to the Ofsted inspection framework.

When the Connexions Service was abolished in 2010 it cost £14m per year in Kent. Connexions delivered intensive support for vulnerable learners in addition to careers but even if you halved that budget to account for that, it was far more expensive than the CEC team.

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

There a number of ways this could be achieved:

Clearer accountabilities

Education providers respond to clear accountability measures. The current Ofsted inspection framework contains the personal development judgement.  Careers is a part of that but it could be strengthened still further. To improve the quality of careers delivery, it could also be included in the quality of education judgement.  Quality of destination measures could also be improved and more emphasis given to them.

Training

Most teachers and tutors are not trained to deliver CEIAG. Good careers professionals are taught a strong theoretical underpinning for their work and have a clear idea as to what good practice looks like.  Due to lack of training, most teachers do not have this. This could be delivered by a centralised skills service.

Treat CEIAG as a curriculum area

In many education providers, CEIAG is seen as an add on that takes away time from curriculum delivery. It needs to be treated as an essential part of the curriculum and could be written into the National Curriculum as one of the “Other Compulsory Subjects.” It could be treated the same as the Relationships and Sex Education, which is now statutory. In most subject areas, teachers have good subject knowledge, an understanding of how to sequence and deliver a curriculum and can monitor/facilitate student progress and students are given a clear framework in which to acquire knowledge and skills.  The same is needed for careers.

Improved visibility

In some schools, students, when asked if they have received any careers education will say no even if they have.  In some education providers this is because CEIAG is delivered in a series of unlinked activities which are not linked to a student’s career or future life. At the very least schools need to clearly identify careers ;earning to their students when it takes place.

Ages and stages

CEIAG should develop in successive stages of a person’s life. In the primary stage, young people need to develop an understanding of the world of work and that their learning is preparing them to join it.  In secondary then focus should be on acquiring more in-depth career related knowledge to facilitate decision making, development of soft/employability skills and having experiences of employers/vocational areas.  As students get older, the focus should shift increasingly to “how to get the job” so they understand the qualifications skills and experiences they need to succeed in their chosen field.

When an adult receives support regarding careers they are often assessed for deficits in their learning (e.g: maths and English).  Alongside this needs to sit assessments of career readiness.  Courses should contain elements of careers enhancement/readiness for those who need it.

Involvement of Employers

Research by the Gatsby Foundation shows that regular encounters with employers reduces the likelihood of a young person becoming NEET and improves transition into employment.  Involving employers in curriculum helps young people see the relevance of their studies and improves engagement with learning. (Good Careers Guidance, The Gatsby Foundation).

There are a number of policies and initiatives that currently support this.

• CEC/Gatsby benchmarks.  This has been developing for several years but could be accelerated.
• Local Skills Improvement Plans will provide the voice of employers regarding their skills needs.  This needs to be shared as Labour Market Information and used to drive curriculum deliver.

Employers should also be encouraged to offer more opportunities , such as apprenticeships, traineeships and work experience, through their involvement in education. Employers have an important role to play in improving CEIAG but are not the whole solution.

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

There are currently a number of barriers to this: 

• Schools with 6th forms generally wish to keep their students to ensure they remain viable.  School in this situation often prioritise information about their offer. 
• Many parents view the academic route as the gold standard.
• Many teachers do not understand the full range of pathways and are unable to support students who may be better suited to a non-academic route.

Some potential solutions are:

• CPD for staff on the full range of pathways.
• Placing the responsibility for post 16 progression and applications with an external body.  LAs are ideally placed to do this due to their experience of school admissions.  In Kent we have had online applications system since 2007, which is used by about 70% of year 11 learners. 
• Support for parents to understand the full range of pathways.
• Ensure there is parity between institutions – this may be less of a problem nationally, but in Kent, our 16-19 review has identified that many people feel that college is where you go if you can’t stay in 6th form and thus the courses they offer must be inferior.

How the Baker Clause could be more effectively enforced 

In our 16-19 review we have clearly seen that many schools wish to keep their students in their own sixth form.  A large sixth form can enhance reputation; support staff retention and many schools believe that keeping students in a familiar environment helps them achieve academically.  Thus, many schools have an incentive not to comply with the Baker Clause.

One effective way to ensure the clause is enacted in every school would be to give responsibility for it to an external body, such as a local authority. In Kent we have a team of 4 staff who offer practical support to schools regarding post 16 transition. This includes running sessions for groups of students explaining the full range of post 16 options including apprenticeships and specialist training providers. We also run area-based events where students can interact with all the providers available to them.  We are most successful at supporting schools without Sixth Forms and with identified cohorts of students where there is a concern that they will become NEET. Colleges report that many schools will not allow them in to talk to students.

Kent has an online resource, www.kentchoices.com, containing all the training provision available to 16-19 year olds in the county.  We write to every year 11 family in the county directing them towards this.

To enforce this there needs to be a much clearer accountability measure with clear consequences for schools that do not comply.  The most effective sanctions for any education provider are Ofsted and funding.

How the Government can ensure more young people have access to a professional and independent careers advisor

The main barrier to this is cost.  Currently many schools allocate less than £1,000 a year to support careers activities.  This is simply inadequate to pay for comprehensive access to careers advisors. This could be met by supplying additional ring-fenced funds or by running an external service to provide careers advice in schools. This could be delivered by a delivery arm of the Careers and Enterprise Company.  A larger, external organisation has the advantage of being able to provide comprehensive CPD and support to their staff, more resilience of service and true impartiality.

Another barrier is the availability of trained staff.  With the abolition of the Connexions service in 2010 and the halting of progress towards careers guidance becoming a chartered profession, many people left the industry.  Many of the remaining careers staff in schools are not qualified to level 6 and thus should not be offering advice and guidance. There will therefore need to be additional training and the development of a careers structure to make the profession attractive again, ensuring we have enough staff to deliver this.

Another possible solution is to write the entitlement to professional and independent advice into law/statutory guidance, making it non-negotiable.

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

The main suggestions are to

• Align the CEC and the National Careers Service to produce an all age careers service.
• Strengthen the Baker Clause
• Increase the role of employers
• Extend the coverage of careers hubs to all communities.

All of these seem sensible but are inadequate in their own.  More resources, support and accountability are needed to ensure that the current challenges are overcome. A clear structure is needed to support young people to develop the knowledge, skills and experiences they need to progress into employment.  Some thoughts also need to be given to existing local partners who already have responsibilities in this area.  Local Authorities are ideally placed to lead or support this due to their links to the local economy and education systems.

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

Greater investment is undoubtably needed. The cost of providing universal independent careers advice alone is beyond most schools. Funding is needed for extensive training and ongoing CPD to upskills the teaching workforce.  Additional resources are needed to develop and maintain local collaborations to ensure there is cost effective and impactful delivery that does not contain endless duplication of effort.  Vulnerable learners require a more bespoke approach and those who are at risk of not progressing in education and into employment need a personalised, case working approach to overcome barriers and ensure their success.

Young people who are unemployed very straight from school or early in their careers feel the impact of this for much of their lives based on a range of indicators from income to health.  Additionally, Covid is likely to affect young people’s employment prospects and social mobility for approximately 6 years  (Resolution Foundation: Class of 2020).  Additional investment is needed as soon as possible to ensure that young people start their careers successfully.

March 2022