AEIAG0123

Written evidence submitted by Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA)

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

1. those from disadvantaged backgrounds; 
2. those who are known to the care system; 
3. those who are not in mainstream education, including home-educated pupils and those in alternative provision; 
4. those from different ethnic minority backgrounds; and 
5. those who have a special educational need or disability.

The Current CEIAG system does not adequately support the learners in the listed categories for a range of reasons:

• Only IAG is statutory and this is dependent on locality funding thus creating inconsistent support across a conurbation such as ours.  In addition the IAG on offer is often commissioned too late with young people typically receiving it in Year 11 despite the statutory duty on schools to offer it from Year 8.  The statutory duty does not go far enough back through the school system to support vulnerable learners.
• Careers Education is not statutory and whilst this is covered through the personal development aspect of the Ofsted framework not enough is done to drill down into cohorts and hold schools to account for the outcomes and longer-term destinations of these young people.
• There is insufficient resource and available detailed data from the NCCIS and local CCIS data systems  for localities and MCA’s to effectively work on collaborative strategies to inform CEIAG practices.
• Not enough is known by Careers Leaders and Headteachers about the employment opportunities for these young people and the ties with employers are not as strong as those where a universal offer is in place.  In our area our work with the Careers and Enterprise has the full potential to do more on this particular issue and connect to broader unemployment concerns within a geography through stronger partnerships with JCP, NCS GM Higher to take  a place based approach to careers through more robust accountability for these cohorts of young people.  There is available data across all parties that should be made available to MCAs to challenge schools and colleges further so that we can have a more inclusive talent pipeline.
• The Careers and Enterprise Partnership and GMCA have alongside skills intelligence teams to look at the priority sectors to create an inclusive and diverse workforce which means we have the potential to support young people with barriers in a much more focused way but education needs to embrace the need to tailor their curriculum and skills development to the labour market.  We are on the cusp of this because we have  strong universal model that have transformed the CEIAG system in schools and colleges and now we need to go deeped.
• Other system leaders need to be included in the work of CEIAG through statutory services such as Virtual Heads and Directors of Children’s Services to give this work the credibility it needs.

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.

• If this one body was the Careers and Enterprise company GMCA would be supportive given our strong partnership and the work we have achieved over the past six years. That said there are limits with any one body approach that prevents local and tailored services for our young people and this can prevent innovation and flexible approaches that many of the young people need.  With this model MCA’s would benefit from a strong place at the table rather than be subject to grant agreements and short-termism in terms of looking at CEIAG for all ages. Our preference would be for a stronger devolved partnership mandate for all bodies currently active and successful in this space including JCP and DWP.

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.

Current models show these departments to be working separately with limited overlap or connectivity. A single body must understand the importance of synergising both. National Skills Service does not conjure up a collaborative or localised vision for Careers Education. GMCA has worked very hard to tailor the CEC offer to meet the ambition of the City-region to achieve a sustainable model.  More would be needed to understand what is meant by a National Skills Service. Irrespective of that DfE and DWP must been seen to work together on this and in our view does not sit in one but a joint strategy. The disconnect between departments is possibly to blame for the issues with this work here must be a national offer that is replicated as a local model.

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

• There should be a benefit of having some form of national ‘oversight’ regarding careers as this should lead to efficiencies in terms of training/resources etc.
• GMCA is supportive of the CEC and much of the work needs to continue.  We believe it brings value for money.  NCS on the other hand is not sufficiently resourced to serve the needs of the residents in GM. There is definitely no incentive for providers to promote the service to young people in schools which is a phone service and very out of touch with what young people need. Positives on the adult side.
• We enjoy the benefits of the connectivity and learning in other areas and the training and leadership from CEC is good.  We wouldn’t match fund if it wasn’t value for money although more recently there has been a more top down approach that may bring into question that value for money.  There is no evidence to suggest efficiencies of bringing the two together but if you added in Youth Hub work and the Aim Higher investments you may be able to bring about real efficiencies. 

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.

This could be done by:

• Strengthening the Ofsted Framework and inspection regime and make it essential to school and college improvement plans.
• Ensure it formed part of ITT and teacher training as subject leaders
• Continue to work with CEC or CEC type organisations to connect employers into school and this would be done by devising new models for primary and HEIS in a similar way to the work we currently do in secondary and post-16 institutions.
• Strengthen the powers/influence that MCAs have to work with education leaders to connect CEIAG to the economic picture as a conurbation.  This includes working with Directors of Children’s services, as well as Skills Leads in localities, MAT CEOs to change the system.
• Give education leaders time and incentives to prioritise this which will include improved data sharing about the long-term impact of unemployment and the impact on communities especially in the most deprived areas.  Numeracy and literacy had to be embedded in all subject areas and Careers is exactly the same. Careers is not an event management issue but a leadership within a community issue that requires more than just education leaders to do this. This is beyond a Skills Service it’s a whole system approach and we have a good model to build on through Careers Hubs/Communities of practice

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.

• The introduction of the Baker Clause has gone some way to addressing the challenge of raising awareness of vocational pathways in schools. There needs to be more accountability on sixth forms to prepare and support young people to frequently support all learners to consider pathways to occupational outcomes. 
• A greater depth of knowledge about skills gaps and employer demand.  The current Careers Hub model is a good vehicle to support schools but there is no imperative for schools and or sixth forms to really connect to the economic picture and what this means for their young people.
• Commissioning powers and resources which encourages closer working with MCAs in a similar way that GFEs do in terms of curriculum design and the connectivity with employers.
• Make Ofsted Inspections pay closer attention to the implementation of the Baker Clause

7. How the Baker Clause could be more effectively enforced.

• Ofsted could enforce but it’s not frequent enough. There could be a role for MCAs to add challenge back into the system to support economic recovery by meeting skills demands.
• Continue the Careers and Enterprise work through developing more employer focus that values both the academic and technical/vocational.
• Make available more longitudinal data that can track back from the employment outcomes of their learners and the sectors/occupations they have gone into and or study pathways using DWP data.
• Use behavioural insights work to change the way School leaders think about technical routes.

8. 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.

• Increase the funding to schools ring-fenced for IAG with stipulations that it’s level 6 qualified guidance practitioner and it is in partnership with the local authority.
• Offer LAs more funding to commission for its vulnerable learners – it could be one locality commission.
• Mandate that IAG by a qualified practitioner happen every year and tailored to age
• Improve the professional standing of the advisor as well as the quality of the advisor by developing a national training model and network.

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

It doesn’t go far enough.

• With respect to young people, lowering the age of the provision from year 7 is helpful although we would encourage engagement at primary level too.

• There needs to be better alignment between the National Careers Service (NCS) CEC and other national initiatives to support young people into education, training or employment. The NCS website should be a single source of government-assured careers information, including regional breakdowns and links to suitable ‘guidance’. There should also be closer alignment between the supply and demand of skills – make it easier for employers to engage with education and training providers.

• There should be more local and national activity to raise profile of CEIAG and careers information offers so that a wider pool of adults and young people access help. This should include increasing the numbers of careers meetings per pupil, per year, involving education and training providers across the sector. Engaging parents in careers information is key, big influencer; need to share good practice across schools/college networks and embed parental engagement in careers work.

• Employer engagement in education and vice versa has not been groundbreaking enough. We are still skirting around the edges of this and are too reliant on a selection of businesses, sectors, partnership groups etc. investing in this. We need a cross-sector campaign with tangible investment of resources and opportunities by industry. Social value and CSR needs to be more robustly directed, tracked and evaluated. Engagement in education needs to be seen as a cost-effective investment.

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

Targeted investment into areas  like MCAs to continue the work we have done with the Careers and Enterprise Company so take the work further and galvanise a system in ways that have already started but cannot go further due to the disconnect between skills and education.  MCAs can bring this together with political weight behind the mission and supported by Ofsted,

Investment in primary careers education and greater imperatives to connect primary and secondary career planning so the sectors work more in harmony to build on learners’ tranistions.

Systemic change is needed. We must invest in a skills framework that is valued in the same way as qualifications. Education leaders need to value this aspect of education and integrate it into the whole learning experience. Funding needs to support this. There needs to be statutory elements to curriculum content that incorporates real-world learning and links to the world of work. This needs to be co-designed by subject and industry specialists. There needs to be mandatory curriculum time to allow employer engagement and workplace experiences with enhanced provision for those identified in Q1.

March 2022