Is the Government ignoring the needs of the most disadvantaged pupils?


The Government points out that the highest performing education systems are built on a high level of autonomy and the right approach is to allow educational professionals to make the decisions about where to target resources. The principle of schools autonomy is sound. Surely it is best to ensure that Heads and governors are empowered to make the key decisions affecting their schools. School autonomy is the main justification for Minsters approach to Careers guidance in schools.  So there should, they say, be no earmarked funds for careers  advice  and it is up to  Heads and governors   to decide how best to deliver Careers advice in their schools, whether its by telephone, face to face, or through a web portal.  

But this fails to take into account one important point. We live in a world not as we would like it to be, but as it is.  Schools have a poor record, to date, in ensuring that their pupils have had access to sound, independent,  professional careers advice,  with most experts rating  it as ‘patchy’ and  have a financial interest still in keeping pupils on their rolls, whether or not that is in the interests of  the pupils concerned ,  a fact  acknowledged, amongst others, by the Minister with responsibility, John Hayes. He now wants to trust their judgement to ensure appropriate  advice, combining this  with very  weak accountability measures. Professor Tony Watts  our  leading expert in Careers Guidance has already pointed out the folly of such an approach.

It is also true that Hayes’ approach runs counter to a main thrust of Government policy-that is in supporting disadvantaged pupils, improving their opportunities and encouraging social mobility.  Experts  are as one is pointing out that if the Government is serious about reducing NEET, Truancy and in  advancing the Social Mobility agenda (which I think they are) including ensuring that our most disadvantaged pupils can get access to Higher Education, then   it is imperative that pupils, aged from 13  have  good ‘face to face’ advice, that is given in context, with the full information available on that pupil  and in which proper ‘ face to face’ interaction   between the pupil and  the professional adviser takes place. This optimises the chances that pupils will be given the best advice to suit their specific circumstances, and reduces  as well the the chances of them making silly mistakes ie studying the wrong qualifications for the route they want to choose. It is worth noting that many admissions tutors remain frustrated that pupils often take inappropriate qualifications because either they receive poor advice or no advice at all.

The fact is schools, including those with the most pupils on FSM, will be under financial pressure to opt for the cheapest option -web based advice. True, for some pupils this might be adequate. However, nobody believes, certainly those with    whom I have spoken  ie those  dealing  with the most disadvantaged pupils  and who are involved with the Inclusion agenda, that web based advice is appropriate for  most disadvantaged pupils. As such, the current approach undermines the Governments key focus on improving the opportunities for  the most  disadvantaged, a worthy policy aim that has widespread support and the current approach is  therefore deserving of a radical rethink.

As for school autonomy, it is, as we have said, a sound principle to guide policy. However, Hayes must be aware that under current arrangements schools have some of their autonomy circumscribed in certain specific areas for legitimate reasons (which are built in, for instance ,to their funding agreements, in the case of academies). Schools can do as they please but within certain parameters in order to ensure for instance that  equity  is safeguarded.  It is perplexing that the Government is choosing to pursue a policy that is self-evidently going to harm the interests of  the cohort of pupils its education reforms are  targeted at, the most disadvantaged, who will benefit most from face to face advice.

According to the ASCL the Advisory Group on the All-Age Careers Service established by the Government has been reconstituted as the National Careers Service Advisory Group. After some discussion at a pre-meeting of the Group where resignation was considered, the lay members present agreed to continue to support this work. But they wish to place their concern in the public domain about the significant reduction in the Group’s remit and in the scope of the new service.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s