AEIAG0081
Written evidence submitted by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority
The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority – comprising of Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton, and Wirral - is committed to delivering on the priorities of our 1.6 million residents. Our mission is to continue working towards becoming a prosperous and economically, socially and environmentally sustainable City Region.
Submission:
1. Whether the current system of careers education, information, advice and guidance (CEIAG) is serving young people, particularly:
○ those from disadvantaged backgrounds;
In answering this question, two important considerations need to underpin any response:
What constitutes a young person is often confusing and the confusion is generally the consequence of a mixture of statutory references e.g. Raising the Participation Age – RPA; departmental roles and responsibilities, and funding eligibility criteria.
For the purposes of this response, our evidence in the main will refer to young people of school age but will also include references to those in the transition 16-18 phase and covering: the statutory duties of LAs to reduce NEET (schools in the LA area); track their residents at the end of KS4; ensure the delivery of the September guarantee; and meet the needs of those with an Education Health and Care Plan.
In addressing the issue of the term ‘disadvantaged backgrounds’, the most widely used and accepted individual-level indicator for identifying socio-economically disadvantaged young people is whether someone is on free school meals- reflecting the income levels of the household where the child resides.
It must be emphasised however that merely being on free school meals does not by itself explain poor educational outcomes and therefore by inference that access to high quality CEIAG is absent.
Our work with teachers, partners, employers and wider stakeholders tells us the value in supporting all young people to become aware earlier of career choices and the skills and attributes required for particular job roles and industries. This should by default be the position- high quality CEIAG that meets the needs of all young people irrespective of their age; background (income; care leavers); ability; gender; ethnicity; disability and /or learning difficulties.
Easier and more equitable access to Careers Education, Information and importantly, guidance services and support for all young people in school, can inform and have positive impacts on option choices, attendance, motivation and ultimately school outcomes.
We believe that more young people would benefit from face-to-face guidance and support of the type that is not available to them currently. This is especially true of those young people who are more at risk of becoming disengaged and who lack confdence and clarity in making learning choices in school, and which impacts on their motivation to suceed.
It is essential therefore CEIAG is part of a diffentiated support offer for all young people aged 11-19 and that includes a personalised face-to-face offer for those that require it.
Many young people need to be supported to understand their own skills, passions, attitudes and motivations within the context of their own personal ambitions and circumstances setting their goals and ambitions and then supporting them to achieve these. Only then can we expect them to focus on learnng and career choices successfully otherwise they only succeed in making choices that often lead to dropping out of learning, and employment. Careers interventions that explore a young person’s interests, passions, skills, aptitudes etc. are often made avaialble when it’s too late; it is no use focusing on these areas after a young person has chosen their exam subject options.
Provision is still piecemeal - despite the government’s statutory guidance – and inconsistent in the way that it is delivered and quality assured in schools and other settings; some schools will choose and/ or be able to secure the full-time services of a level 6 qualified CEIAG practitioner, whilst in other schools the careers duty is bolted on to a teacher’s existing responsibilities - and in such circumstances arguably sends out a message that high quality CEIAG is not valued. When schools do ‘buy-in’ external Careers support as part of fulfiling the Government’s statutory careers guidance requirements, local feedback suggests that demand is for Level 6 Guidance qualified staff to deliver this support - but with a reluctance on the part of the school to pay the common daily rate, previously estimated at £250.
Unless we can faclitate young people gaining a greater depth of awareness of their unique portfolio of skills, passions, motivations and values - at the right time, it is impossible to create a personalised pathway to a fulfilling future and deliver better outcomes. If Government value certain outcomes then they must fund the appropriate and best activities that secure these outcomes to deliver meaninfgul impact for young people.
Some partners across LCR support the concept of a common Growth Blueprint for Life (fundamentally a Personalised Gatsby Benchmark) across all age groups, and which would contribute to improved outcomes for all young people.
Lower attainment can limit choice- irrespective of disadvantage measured by income
Liverpool City Region LEP area contains the highest number of deprived areas in the country. Liverpool and Knowsley are both in the top 3 most deprived LAs in England.
Overall educational attainment in these areas, but more broadly across LCR, is poor when compared to the England average and in particular the number of young people who attain the expected minimum outcomes inclusive of English and maths. This therefore limits a young person’s learning and work options at key transition points, and arguably their motivations and ability to demonstrate higher ambitions.
Many young people of school age may not be in receipt of free school meals but they may be in a school that is located in an economically deprived area, where young people come from households that have few role models, networks and where parents are less inclined to be motivated to reinforce positive messages relayed in school. The chance of attending an Ofsted Outstanding or ‘Good’ school in some of our local authority areas is extremely limited.
The Careers and Enterprise Company has recently published a research report[1] that makes a number of relevant points in relation to CEIAG for those from a disadvantaged background and which link to our overall assessment and experience, in particular that the focus of support should also include:
Covid-19 has highlighted and exacerbated existing disadvantages
The experience of our LA partners is that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds can tend to be less academically focused, have a reduced access to ICT systems at home and are the ones who have struggled most from the covid home learning system.
Many of these families have low aspirations, tend to be unable to afford high speed broadband and computer systems for use of the whole family and therefore tend not to engage in learning at the same level as other students and who therefore or are also unable or less inclined to engage with CEIAG opportunities. Local experience of the adequacy of the availability of government provided laptops to families is mixed and let down many of those who were identified as vulnerable or disadvantaged.
Parents working from home took priority for access to ICT systems leaving their children falling behind. Many schools offered in-school support, but these tended to support key worker families rather than facing disadvantage. Many Secondary schools developed support mechanisms to support their students with home learning CEIAG activities, but again more affluent families have benefited significantly more than those schools and students with a lack of access to technology.
Home education and the need to level up has meant a dramatic fall in engagement with and delivery of school CEIAG programmes overall, in favour of additional time for catching up in core subjects and mental health support. CEIAG and wider enrichment opportunities are again variable across education institutions- especially with teachers and schools facing ‘judgement’ by the reinstatement of the more traditional exams and assessment methods; Careers education has dropped down the priority of many schools and often only a prospective OFSTED visit will change that priority assessment.
From having a universal service (e.g. Connexions), the necessity for schools to have to pay for interventions has widened the inequality of opportunities for many students to access high standards of CEIAG.
○ those who are known to the care system
Many young people with experience of care have a tendency to display chaotic lives and have a lack of focus as they face more important challenges that are more important to them than career planning.
Traditionally, local experience has suggested that there has also been a historical lack of engagement with further and higher education. However, this appears to be changing through intensive support through the local authority interventions both in school and through leaving care teams.
Post -16 interventions are more effective at providing a holistic approach to engaging youngsters and providing them with appropriate CEIAG relevant to their needs and aspirations. The benefits of local authorities being embedded into the delivery of CEIAG to those in the care system is the integration of aspirations and step planning into the Care Plan and known to all professionals working with a young person.
○ those who are not in mainstream education, including home-educated pupils and those in alternative provision;
Children missing from education or those in alternative provision who used to be supported by the Careers service, generally engage with Risk of NEET careers support towards the end of their year 11 studies.
Alternative provision has historically had regular contact with level 4 and 6 qualified careers specialists to provide appropriate IAG through post 16 to University level support with additional emphasis on age and ability appropriate apprenticeships. Again, for many of these organisations, delivery of the core subjects may be more of a priority than appropriate CEIAG until the students achieve mid to late year 11 status, at which point Interventions with organisation-based staff or local Careers company professionals will be considered.
○ those from different ethnic minority backgrounds; and
Partners do not see significant evidence to support ethnicity as a barrier to accessing appropriate CEIAG. In fact, many youngsters of ethnic minorities, especially those having refugee status or backgrounds have families that are massively incentivised for learning and aspirations for higher and further education, despite them having additional barriers such as language and culture. Those in mainstream education tend to have very supportive families and are driven to look for academic success but we recognise that they often then face barriers in achieving positive employment outcomes.
Where the focus is on ethnicity per se, there is evidence locally that some groups (such as white working- class boys) are more likely to face barriers relating to attainment in school. This does not therefore follow that they receive poor or inadequate CEIAG that therefore leads to poor outcomes such as higher levels of NEET; lower employment rates.
○ those who have a special educational need or disability.
On the whole, our partners indicate that schools are critically aware of the additional support their youngsters with SEND need to have with regards to CEIAG.
One of our LAs has themselves audited several schools around their SEND offer; the criticism from several parents was that their child did not receive the same opportunities as those youngsters with fewer or no challenges. Based on auditable evidence, LA officers found this criticism to be not only unfair but fundamentally inaccurate. Most schools with SEND students tend to know them better than their more able peers and tailor their CEIAG provision and opportunities more appropriately to their pupils’ individual needs. Many schools have created or bought in packages specifically to provide their SEND students with the most appropriate ability focused support. In fact, many students are held back by the lack of confidence and knowledge of parents who underestimate the abilities of their children.
With the delivery of EHCP production from an earlier age, the needs and focus to support CEIAG interventions can be much more focused than previously occurred.
2. 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.
3. 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.
The needs of young people, especially those still at school, are completely different from the needs of Adults. The intent behind the delivery of CEIAG interventions are therefore different. For young people we need CEIAG delivery frameworks that better empower young people at primary at secondary schools to create aspirational futures, connect with people and networks that will help their learning and employment journey in their community and contribute to the world around them.
A properly funded (back to the outcomes that are important to Government and how they value them) all age service has merits where there is a clear strategic framework that sets expected quality delivery standards, interventions and which is age specific and appropriate.
We are aware that Sir John Holman’s review is considering options that would provide a delivery framework that sets standards and expectations and where the choice may be between bringing all services for young people under the umbrella of the Department for Education (e.g. CEC) and services for Adults under the umbrella of the Department for Work and Pensions (e.g. services currently delivered through the National Careers Service) . In respect of the latter, it highlights the different intent behind the delivery of CEIAG services e.g. supporting those out of work to secure a job, and supporting those in work to progress as opposed to the intent of advice delivered to a young person age 12-14 which should be about career options; their ambitions; passions; skills and how subject options calibrates with these. Irrespective of how support is commissioned and procured nationally, there are challenges about how local areas need to cohere the provision to ensure that accurate, timely and correct information and advice is provided to recipients. There is a significant risk that this is not the case due to the myriad of providers in place in local systems as a result of national commissioning.
Of more concern locally is the availability of qualified Careers Advisers and Careers Leaders in institutions but also on the ground delivery needs to be lead locally and fully integrated into local systems. Personalised rather than general CEIAG for a young person needs to reflect everything going on in and around the young person and therefore needs to come from a local delivery platform and be integrated into local partnerships.
4. Whether organisations like the Careers Enterprise Company and National Careers Service provide value for money to the taxpayer.
We are unable to provide quantifiable evidence on this. But, our view on the CEC is part of our overall assessment of the provision of CEIAG services- a view which we have consistently articulated to government, specifically : we currently have a plethora of initiatives and services, supported by a myriad of providers all claiming to do the same thing operating across the City Region. This is not effective, efficient or joined up, and there seems to be a new initiative directly or indirectly (e.g. CEC funded projects) from Government every month.
Our LA partners have fed back that they believe that the Careers and Enterprise Company was initially a very useful tool to bridge the knowledge gap between schools and the workplace. However, delivering appropriate work-based support to schools has not been as effective as was initially hoped. Local experience suggests that their interventions rely more and more upon digital and virtual interventions and impact assessment is limited
As with many initiatives, where Interventions are paid by results, the volume of paperwork to justify and claim payments far outweighs the benefits for many organisations. Data capture/ harvesting tools such as the CEC’s Compass don’t by the nature of their design assess the actual individual intervention impact. The National Careers Service payments model is similarly bureaucratic and less than generous when comparing the financial drawdown for delivering services to adults that often requires multiple face-to-face sessions for priority customers. That said, there is historically more impact evidence for the NCS.
Feedback locally suggests that advisers frequently spend more time completing what they perceive to be disproportionately bureaucratic evidence paperwork trails rather than actually working with young people (and adults in the case of NCS) to allow them to make positive progress. Again, a payment by results system can reduce interventions with the more challenging or needy clients- this can be especially true of the NCS service to adults. The aim to provide a low-cost universal service option will largely benefit those that are able to help themselves rather than support those that need more help or advocacy.
5. 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
See also the answers to 3 and 4 above, but also:
a) Provide schools with the funding to either employ school- based CEIAG professionals or bring in level 6 qualified support and for delivery to be nested within clear and universal minimum quality standards;
b) Provide funding to allow school staff to take sabbaticals in a work-based environment in their specialist subject area. Many teachers have a very limited knowledge of work-based training and the wider world of work outside education and so may find it challenging to deliver Gatsby benchmark 4. A strong programme of placements and work shadowing will ultimately benefit the curriculum and wider education system; and
c) Ensure OFSTED assess the extent to which schools embed CEIAG and skills guidance in schools and /or reflect this in their School Improvement Plan. All reports should by default refer to CEIAG adequacy.
6. How schools could be supported to better fulfil their duties to provide careers advice and inform students of technical, as well as academic, pathways.
○ How the Baker Clause could be more effectively enforced
On the whole, most schools are very much aware of the need to be independent in their delivery of CEIAG.
Those schools who do not have a 6th form tend to be extremely effective at providing an impartial information and guidance system.
Where the Baker Clause is challenged, this tends to not be towards the staff of a school without a post -16 option; the senior management of those organisations who are pushing for a strong post- 16 cohort in institutions with a sixth form generally are those where more influence needs to be secured. Inevitably, there is a degree of self-interest and a need to often ensure a sixth-form’s viability.
On the whole, those schools who employ external level 6 advisers, provide a very effective and impartial service that ensures that students are provided with guidance appropriate to their needs, not those of the school.
To enforce the clause, you need a mechanism to know when it’s not being followed and a body that can enforce ‘penalties’ on an institution that would have meaning to that institution to secure future behavioral change.
Furthermore, we must remember that parents who have often spent 2 years trying to support the successful settlement of their child in a school would, in most cases, be reluctant to work to relocate their child to a UTC or Studio School at age 14.
○ 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.
Allocate every school, college, University, Adult education provision with Level 6 qualified professional Careers Advisers centrally paid for by government through whichever body is deemed able to deliver or have oversight of a National Careers Service.
In addition, pay for schools to access age-appropriate digital resources; access to these should not be based on the ability to pay. Locally, we are trying to address this through our own all age local Careers Portal- but this should be centrally funded and supported in future years.
As an additional enabler, Government should provide school aged children with greater access to a home-based digital platform and access to broadband
Finally, partners believe that Government should be willing to enforce the requirement for every educational institution, and LAs for those not in an educational institution, to provide access to trained careers advisors and have a mechanism in place to verify this, and establishing a mechanism for taking action if it isn’t in place.
7. Whether the proposals for CEIAG in the Government’s Skills for Jobs White Paper will effectively address current challenges in the CEIAG system
○ Whether greater investment to create a robust system of CEIAG is needed, and how could this be targeted, to create a stronger CEIAG
The review by Sir John Holman into the roles and responsibilities and of the Careers and Enterprise Company and the National Careers Service is welcome. We note however, that Sir John’s final report will be a set of recommendations to Government Ministers-which they can chose to adopt or ignore.
Partners locally are seeking the reinstatement of, and the professional need for, standards of the level 4 and level 6 careers professional and for them to be paid appropriately. When teachers are frequently paid up to twice what a Careers Adviser can earn, the professional standing of CEIAG professionals has been eroded. In addition:
March 2022
9
[1] Effective Careers Interventions for Disadvantaged Young People: A Report by the Behavioural Insights Team (November 2021)