AEIAG0098

Written evidence submitted by (Member of the public)

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.

The current careers landscape in confusing and fragmented and these groups are only receiving face to face careers guidance with a L6 qualified professional if the FE provider’s CEIAG programme is rigorous, comprehensive and has a high profile within the organisation. If not, these groups can easily slip through the net.  The Gatsby benchmarks encourage providers to address the needs of each individual student and to keep records, but often these groups are the hardest to reach and need ‘targeting’ to ensure they access the full range of support open to them. Those who do slip through the net are more likely to drop off courses and become NEET.

Colleges do not receive any direct funding resource to enable the offering of 1:1 personal guidance to every learner on campus. Instead Colleges have to fund this much needed service through study programme funding and it is very challenging, especially for Colleges with high student numbers. To comply with Gatsby Benchmark 8 the person offering the personal guidance 1:1s has to be qualified at Level 6 in CEIAG, and this is as it should be, to ensure that these young people and adults get the correct support and guidance that they require, but these professionally qualified staff have to be paid accordingly, and this brings us full circle to the complete lack of direct funding for Careers Education delivery within Colleges.

The further education sector has to flexible and creative in our approach to IAG in order to encourage these groups to voluntary engage with services rather than be ‘targeted’, which again, takes additional resources, manpower and time. In the current system, successfully working with these groups involves a whole college approach, whereby key staff in these young people’s lives, (who may be tutors, mentors, employers, support staff) can quickly and effectively bring in the right professional, e.g. a career adviser, at key points in a young person’s life when the IAG is most effective.

The National Careers Service as it stands is a postcode lottery for learners and even within one college campus, some learners are able to access additional local authority IAG services and 1:1 personal guidance due to where they live, whilst others on the same course cannot.

• 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.

It would be useful to have CEIAG under one body, however, the white paper is limited in its vision for the future.  It refers to LMI, and careers information on websites coming under this one body. It talks about careers hubs development CEIAG provision within schools under the current Gatsby model, but there is still a huge gap which the white paper does not recognise in this new proposal.

This gap in provision is the funding resource to provide 1:1 guidance from a L6 qualified careers adviser who offers impartial guidance. Other considerations are the obvious ones of who employs them, a training provider, college, employer or HEI. 

Telephone and web services currently provided by the National Careers Services do not fill this gap.  

Even with an alignment between the two organisations into one body, the available resources for the provision of personal 1:1 career advice and guidance from a Level 6 qualified independent and impartial guidance professional would still be confusing, fragmented and unclear. Many school and colleges currently sub contract these 1:1 personal guidance service because they do not have enough staff trained within their own organisation.

It has to be remembered that for students studying at a College that their “go to” place for careers support, is quite rightly their own Careers Team, and as such this should be suitably funded, with the offering of external agencies as required, and not the current external postcode lottery with the National Careers Service.

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

The CEC and the NCS have been cheaper than the Connexions Service, but the scope of services offered to partners and young people cannot be compared between these different organisations. The CEC has been valuable in sharing good practice and raising the profile of employers in the CEIAG programme and by offering CPD opportunities, often funded and also valuable research funding. 

The National Careers Service has been very limited in the services it can provide to young people and its career website is very poor compared to those of Careers Wales, and is very difficult for people to navigate around as well.

The full cost of the careers landscape is ambiguous, as schools and colleges have found the funds from other sources to buy in 1:1 personal guidance services.  This is still a cost to the tax-payer, but the full cost of ‘careers’ has been hidden in other government funding streams, when it should be quite transparent and Colleges should have additional direct funding to support Careers provision.

• 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

Considerations here should be around Gatsby, CDi Framework, Skills Pledges from local employers to support with initiatives such as Give an Hour, all of which enhance and help prepare for the world of work. 

• 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

           ○ 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.

Schools and Colleges can be supported by clear, simple up-to- date information about the technical and academic pathways, backed up by LMI predicting where the jobs will be in the future. This information should also be accessible to parents, young people and employers.

An independent careers service could enforce the Baker Clause with providers within its geographical area. Careers Advisers employer by this service who were assigned to partners for free could deliver impartial IAG and promote the Lifetime Skills initiative. Education providers should not be required to find additional funds for other sources to pay for this resource, this ideally should be made available to them through a separate funding stream for this delivery.

To ensure young people have access to a L6 qualified professional, independent careers adviser will require money and resources to bring together and rebuild an organisation, such as a career service to deliver this service impartially to a range of education and trainer providers. An alternative model would be to provide funding for the FE sector to build up the number of staff trained in Careers Guidance and given the remit to promote the Lifetime Skills initiative.  In both models there is likely to be a skills gap in the numbers of professionals available in the labour market with this skill set. Currently, people providing this role within schools, colleges and training providers have other responsibilities within the organisation and are not dedicated to careers. To increase the access to IAG for learners, there will need to be an acceleration of the training of who are appropriately qualified in careers guidance.

• 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 white paper proposals fall short in not discussing in detail 1:1 careers guidance. This is something neither the NCS, nor the CEC current deliver. They can promote good practice and bring together career information and even enforce the baker Clause, but young people, especially those in under-represented groups require face to face guidance from an independent and qualified career adviser who is trained to understand the local and national labour market picture and have an overview of what all provider in the local area deliver so they can offer impartial advice on a range of progression pathways bespoke to the needs of a young person. This expertise comes at a cost, and some Colleges are providing this service at a cost to themselves, as there is no direct funding stream available to them, even though Colleges have high student numbers to support, and also deal with many widening participation groups.

March 2022