Careers Guidance , CEC and Money Trees -New Insights

Dr Deirdre Hughes is one of a small group of academics   regarded as an expert on careers education and guidance. She has just published a  new paper ’’Careers work in England’s schools: politics, practices and prospect’  . Her verdict on the guidance landscape is that ‘The present system of support for careers work in England’s schools is chaotic and congested.’  Her particular concerns also extend to ‘ the disparities that exist and social inequalities that arise when young people have restricted access to independent and impartial careers guidance’.

The Government has long promised a Careers Strategy, aimed at addressing our dysfunctional system so the dots are joined and  better outcomes follow .   This ,we are told, is due out this autumn.  The point about our  current system is that there is plenty of excellent careers advice out there,  from professional advisers, through  individuals , companies , hubs  and partnerships,  but its just that access to it is fragmented and inconsistent,  across the country. And has been for many years.

The Careers and Enterprise  Company (CEC)  set up with taxpayers money, by Nicky  Morgan, nearly three years ago,  aims  to  provide  greater coherence,  across piece , acting  as an enabler and facilitator, knocking heads together. Its impact though on improving access for young people to good professional guidance has been  less than obvious. .

So what is the Careers and Enterprise Company up to? Well it’s a good question.

The first point to make about the CEC is that it was supposed to be self-funded. That was  the intention when it was established . But this is clearly not the case. The taxpayer is still footing its bills.  It now looks and behaves like a new quango.  Government has pleaded poverty when it comes to Careers Guidance. No ring- fenced money was available for schools to support guidance, all money on careers had to come from (autonomous)school budgets . In short there was no magic money tree for Careers.   So within this austere context  its somewhat bemusing  to witness the gradual expansion of the CEC   which  has  no problem in accessing new funds and with no deadline  set  for it to be self-sustaining.  Austere times,  indeed!

Secondly, almost all its work is about promoting enterprise, and creating links and engagement between employers and schools,  while championing good work experience too.  Good though this may be, it hardly amounts to careers education or guidance.

Ministers have been highly supportive of the so- called eight ‘Gatsby’ benchmarks which   are supposed to inform good careers guidance  across the piece.  However, confusingly, the CEC just champions, randomly  as it happens, two or three of these  eight, mutually supporting  benchmarks. In effect   it is prioritising some, to the exclusion of others.  They will claim there is nothing random about their approach, its based on evidence. Maybe,  but  all the other benchmarks are evidence based too.

It also seems to misunderstand the difference between inputs and outputs. Its fine at measuring the former, not so good at measuring the latter.   Indeed, Ministers championed the success of the CEC within its first year of operation, but had no benchmarks against which to measure its success.   Counting the number of transactions or interactions conducted by any organisation  tells you nothing about the impact  its  having or the value its adding.

There is a broader danger here too. And that is that the new Careers Strategy will be all about providing a justification for the existence and continuing role of the CEC, rather than getting back to first principles to mend a broken system that fails far too many young people. What the CEC is involved with, and experimenting with, may be part of the solution,  but it can only be part of it,  if it  continues to ignore the other benchmarks and does nothing to ensure that there is easier access to independent professional careers advice and guidance in schools and colleges.  While there is some excellent work going on in schools and among providers to provide high quality guidance, far too many young people don’t have access to this  On this  the CEC seems to have  adopted a Trappist’s silence.

CECs Flaws  

Hughes  identifies  at least three fundamental design flaws to the CEC:

 

Firstly, the Careers and Enterprise Company is a ‘market player’ competing withother national and local careers providers and relies primarily (though not exclusively) on enterprise and mentoring volunteers from business, supported by government funds.

Secondly, whilst it has fully adopted a set of universally agreed benchmarks for ‘good careers guidance’ – welcomed by those working in the careers sector – and supported a new tool for schools’ self-assessment against the benchmarks – it has so far failed to make any serious attempt to achieve a stable careers programme in schools (benchmark 1); embrace or acknowledge the need for better use of labour market intelligence /information (LMI) (benchmark 2). This is clearly illustrated in its first published research report ‘Moments of Choice’ (CEC, 2016d). The company remains silent on linking curriculum learning with careers (benchmark 4) and young people’s access to personal guidance (benchmark 8).

And thirdly, it has chosen to prioritise use of scarce public funds to aid further experimentation rather than directly supporting impartial and independent careers guidance for young people to be made available in all schools in England’.

Hughes concludes that all schools and colleges require leadership and practical support if they are to develop effective careers work  And If,   as she calls it,  the English careers experiment (CEC) continues in its present form, greater fairness, transparency and accountability are required between private and public sector arrangements.

She says ‘ An important and, as yet unresolved issue is whether the role of government is to pump-prime a new player in the careers market (one which is neither fully independent or fully-private ownership) – and for this to be self-sustaining within a set timeframe – or whether government’s role is alternatively to guarantee access to careers provision and ensure quality by bringing coherence to an unregulated marketplace.’

She adds that ‘there is a growing and justifiable demand for Treasury funds to be directed into regions for more targeted delivery of CIAG in schools and local communities.  A renewed strategic focus combined with the economies of scale that can be achieved through an all-age national careers service merits further attention. you randomly bolt on initiatives, mix careers and enterprise nomenclature, for example, enterprise co-ordinators reliant on employers and volunteers for careers work in schools, and overlook the added-value contribution of career development professionals’ work, this complicates understanding.’

How do we mend a dysfunctional system , albeit one  that  includes  areas of  real excellence,  to ensure all young people have easy access to good independent professional guidance at  crucial stages in their lives  and ensure that the barriers that prevent this are removed? Can we  better harness and direct the  excellence already  in the system  and build  on  it?  The  answer clearly is not to keep calm and just  carry on,  relying on the CEC and its experimentation.  There are clearly resources available. Cant we use them better to secure the outcomes  and returns we need ?

Note

The Industry Apprentice Council, set up by Semta, has  just delivered a survey which suggests that many apprentices feel they  received poor careers advice and that there is a gender bias in much careers guidance . Many in the sector, however, believe that much of the outstanding work that is being delivered  by  professional  advisers, with young people, on the ground ,often in difficult circumstances and with  limited resources , is not being given   sufficient recognition in terms of its quality and its  impact on outcomes. The reality on the ground is that professional advisers are  at the forefront in highlighting apprenticeships aswell as  other non-traditional pathways   into employment that are increasing in scope.  Nor has there been much recognition of significant improvements in quality assurance throughout the sector and the increased professionalism of the sector and improving  status . If schools conduct careers education and afford access to qualified independent professional guidance experts that is the best way to ensure they are equipped to  make informed career  decisions.

CHERRY PICKING MINISTERS THREATEN THE CAREERS STRATEGY

The Minister Lord Nash, responding to a PQ in the Lords on Careers Guidance this month, said there is clear evidence that if  one relies on face to face careers guidance that  this is a very ineffective strategy. Most studies have concluded  ,he intoned, that the best careers advice comes through activities with employers, and there is evidence that five or more employer engagements during secondary school means that students are seven times less likely to be NEET. Really?  Come again.  Does the Minister truly  think that face to face careers advice from a trained guidance professional is ineffective- and that the best careers advice comes from employer engagement and that this engagement is the same as professional  careers guidance ? The alarm bells are ringing! If he does then the careers strategy will be a dogs dinner, marginalizing professional advisers and yet another missed opportunity. And , guess what, its the most disadvantaged  students who will suffer the most. (talking evidence, its  disadvantaged students who  benefit the most from face to face professional  guidance)

Employers are not trained in giving guidance. Giving information is not the same as guidance.  At a time when the guidance sector is focused on improving quality assurance, for guidance professionals , Ministers want to send lots of employers into schools. So where is the quality assurance in this process? Do they have the right skills? Do they have the knowledge base ? Are they good communicators? Have they worked with young people before? Do they know the routes into different professions, outside their own sectors and the qualifications required.? Will they be  impartial and disinterested , or will they promote the merits  of their company sector or profession? Would they know what a facilitating subject was ? Where are their guidance qualifications? In short,  Where, on earth is the quality assurance in this engagement process? Ministers endlessly quote the same one piece of research which they manage to fundamentally misunderstand and misuse about the importance of employer engagement. To base policy on such a narrow and selective evidence base will lead to poor policy design and ultimately a hopeless strategy.  .Nobody suggests that its only about careers advice from professionals. This has to be combined with (quality assured) employer engagement, of course, careers education ie equipping young people with the tools to make informed choices ,and high quality work experience.
Ministers though are stuck on one track. Employer engagement with schools, and, err, that’s about it. They should adhere to all the Gatsby benchmarks on careers guidance, one of which, number eight as it happens,  covers personal  face to face guidance from a trained professional.  Rather than specifying a particular model  it said ‘ , the indicator for our benchmark is that the interview should be with an adviser who is appropriately trained to have the necessary guidance skills, the knowledge of information sources and the essential impartiality to do the job.’ It continues ‘ This person might be an external adviser (the professional association for career guidance practitioners, the Career Development Institute, maintains a register of qualified practitioners), or might be one or more trained members of the existing school staff, whose careers role could be part-time or full-time. School leaders told the authors of the Gatsby report that they thought personal guidance important because it:
– Tailors advice to individual needs;
– Can direct pupils towards the information sources of most use to them, and the actions most relevant to them;
– Can (and always should) give impartial advice that has only the pupils’ interests at heart.
The authors stated ‘Alongside our evidence from international practice, there is research evidence that personal guidance has an observable impact on young people’s careers and progression.’ So Ministers should stop cherry picking. Stop cheery picking both  the empirical  evidence and the Gatsby benchmarks. Otherwise the Careers strategy will be dead in the water..

 THE CAREERS AND ENTERPRISE COMPANY-IS IT DELIVERING? NOT ON FACE TO FACE GUIDANCE

Gerard Liston, an enterprise and employability consultant, told Schools Week,  that  he had “real concerns” about a “lack of progress and lack of sustainability” at the CEC, and said its funding – £70 million over this parliament – would be better spent on training teachers to deliver guidance in classrooms.

“There is a real limit to what can be achieved in a school through one day a month with a volunteer from business,” he said, adding that he was disappointed with the “lack of results and the superficial nature” of projects from CEC so far.’

There are fears that the CEC, is front loaded, meaning its heavy on marketing itself but light on delivery. Within a year of its establishment the then Minister Sam Gyimah talked of significant achievements omitting to  mention  what they were. Inputs are clear outputs less so. There is nothing on the CEC web site about the impact it is having on the guidance offered to  young people.  There is also a  perception developing that it is almost entirely focused on employer engagement  and ‘enterprise’ rather  than in  ensuring that pupils have easy access to professional independent guidance, including face to face guidance which evidence tells us  benefits the most disadvantaged more than anyone else  . Nor does it seem to understand what Careers ‘education’ means.    Its beginning to look like an expanding  Quango, with  as much being  spent on its  25  staff , (at least three are on six figure salaries)  its contractors  and  central London rent, as is going in to  ensuring that the quality of professional  guidance is raised throughout the system, that guidance is no longer a lottery and that the end user, the pupil , confronted with  hard and complex  choices, benefits directly.  Its most recent research confirms what we already knew, that with so much information out there pupils find it all rather bewildering, with information overload- and don’t know where to start. Which is precisely why many of  them, indeed most, would benefit from  a  meaningful,   face to face chat with a guidance professional. Very few get this though. Instead employers are being turned into proxy guidance specialists, but without the  necessary qualifications, information  and knowledge to offer real support, or guidance.

Meanwhile, pupils making crucial early choices about what routes and qualifications to take are too often not able to make informed choices. Putting an employer or Enterprise Adviser into a school does nothing to address this.  No surprise then that social mobility remains stagnant. As Dr Deirdre Hughes , a leading Guidance expert, has said “It’s great that they want to be known as an evidence-based organisation .But we don’t need to have a quango producing what’s there already. What we need is to get independent, impartial careers advice back into communities” Hughes would like to see the CEC  funding making a difference at grassroots level. Wouldn’t we all.

So rather  than paying lip service   to the Gatsby  benchmarks and cherry picking, CEC  should revisit Number 8 ,on Personal Guidance. It says:

‘Every student should have opportunities for guidance interviews with a career adviser, who could be internal (a member of school staff) or external, provided they are trained to an appropriate level. These should be available whenever significant study or career choices are being made. They should be expected for all students but should be timed to meet their individual needs.’ Why has the CEC done so little to make this happen?

And  why is it paying out so much taxpayers money to its senior members of staff ,  with such limited accountability,  and without addressing  the most fundamental challenge- to transform the quality,  accessibility and scope of professional guidance available  to our  young people .

http://www.gatsby.org.uk/uploads/education/reports/pdf/gatsbygoodcareerguidance8pagea5.pdf

See Schools Week Article

£70m government-funded careers company insists it has ‘achieved a lot’

 

 

SOME PRESSING ISSUES FOR THE NEW EDUCATION SECRETARY

Whats pressing on her agenda ?
Justine Greening, the new Education Secretary ,has attracted headlines over her apparently relaxed attitude to Grammar school expansion. But arguably she has  other more pressing priority  issues to address. Here are some:

Schools funding shortfalls. School budgets are stretched. Income is down on average around 7% so Heads and governors are having to make significant adjustments. Some may be tempted to use the Pupil Premium to make up the shortfall, as there is no obligation to ring fence the PP.
National Funding Formula– there are funding inequities in the system and these need to be addressed but there are on-going delays because its not easy . And there are political sensitivities ie there will be both winners and losers.
Teacher recruitment and retention crisis. – Around 40% of teachers who begin their initial training are not in a state school job five years later. That means of 35,000 or so individuals training to become teachers each year some 14,000 are not teaching five years later. And only about 40% of Teach First graduates are still in teaching five years on. Its costly training teachers and this all looks wasteful. There is a shortage in Stem specialist Teachers . Remember the government says ‘ High-quality teachers are the single most important factor determining how well pupils achieve in schools.’
Leadership crisis – there is a shortage of high quality Heads particularly in disadvantaged areas. How do you transform schools in deprived areas, if you are short of leaders? The National College is not really set up to deliver a pipeline of good heads, so what is the short term solution? Many Heads are close to retirement. Its estimated that maybe as much 40%  are due to retire or move out within 18 months.
The ITT system in a bit of a mess as there is now a mismatch between demand and supply. Although Primary places are pretty full, the same cant be said for Secondary.

School Places An additional 750, 000 school places are required by 2025. There is a significant shortage of Primary places across the system, but critical in some areas. Recent projections by the Local Government Association suggest that the population bulge that has hit schools at the Primary level is having a knock on effect  now at the Secondary level
An incoherent assessment and accountability system– which lacks easy  comparability with the past – how long will it take before we know if the system is improving?  Try giving a brief verbal overview of the new accountability framework and you will see that its complex and therefore not easily understood by key stakeholders (ie parents)
An incoherent system of school governance – the transition from an LA-based system to a school-led system is struggling . There is a shortage of good governors with the right skills particularly where there is most need (ie deprived areas). And the government has signalled that it wants more skills  based governance to  drive  improvements. But where exactly will these new governors come from, and where are the incentives?
Autonomy/Accountability-There is confusion over the implications for the system of autonomy and accountability and getting the balance right. . Increased regulation is creating a new bureaucracy (DFE,RSCs and Ofsted) perhaps stifling innovation, and reducing autonomy. So making it more challenging surely to deliver improved outcomes?
Academisation programme- a shortage of funding, sponsors and unrealistic time frame suggests a need for a re-think on the programme (New Bill?) Too many MATs are still underperforming. The rate of free school starts appears to be slowing and academy sponsors appear put off by mixed messages from the government and its agencies about expansion and the lack of incentive to do so. In addition there has been a signal lack of transparency in the process of approving schools. It is unclear-  its a secret garden, in which people are making important decisions according to criteria that are opaque . Indeed no one seems to know the ultimate criteria for deciding on competing proposals for different types of schools
The Free Schools Programme– The government is committed to 500 Free schools in this Parliament .But there is some evidence that local authorities are doing their utmost to stifle the growth of new Free schools ie through planning permission etc. But local authorities are very aware of the demand for new places. There may be a case for developing two separate programmes: a basic need new schools programme, on which the school commissioner’s office and the Education Funding Agency would work closely with local authorities to identify the local need and find a suitable provider to meet it; and on the other hand a free schools programme, through which the DfE would allow new schools to open in areas or poor provision or where parents have very little choice
The new Careers Strategy has been delayed-both Ministers (Gyimah, Boles)who had responsibility for adult guidance and schools guidance, are gone. Will a new strategy be ready by the end of year? It seems that Robert Halfon has taken over the mantle.  But does he get that good Careers guidance is not just about getting more employers into schools?  Gyimah and Boles didnt.
New Skills Strategy and establishment of Institute of Apprenticeships, needs the setting  of clear milestones. Taking forward the Sainsbury panel recommendations, streamlining the system and creating a common framework of 15 routes across all technical education. The routes will group occupations together to reflect where there are shared training requirements. Rather than the current crowded landscape of overlapping qualifications, the aim is to ensure that only high-quality technical qualifications which match employer-set standards are approved. The new, employer-led Institute for Apprenticeships will regulate quality across apprenticeships and its remit will be expanded to cover all technical education
HE Bill-Overseeing significant reform of HE-  the Higher Education and Research Bill through Parliament (Second Reading -19 July). At least the new SOS will have a  very capable Jo Johnson to help  guide this through.

CAREERS STRATEGY PAPER

The Governments new Careers Strategy appears to be almost ready for publication. It wont appear before the EU Referendum but conceivably it could appear between the Referendum and the Summer Recess in  late July. Alternatively it could be released over the summer.

The Government is clear that it wants  much more employer engagement with schools, along with enterprise advisers and co-ordinators  in the regions  and better work experience. What it is less clear about , is how to generate more systematic  and meaningful contacts between  qualified, independent careers advisers and young people. It keeps on strengthening statutory guidance for schools   but this has had  little impact on the way ‘autonomous’ schools deliver careers advice, which remains unacceptably  patchy, both in terms of quality and scope. Guidance only has any impact if there is a robust and transparent accountability framework. And this doesnt currently  exist.  Destination measures may  help longer term but are  still in the design phase  and are not helping  young people going through the system now. Ofsted makes the right noises on careers guidance and is pretty scathing about how so many schools fail to step up to the plate, but you can still get an outstanding rating  with poorly rated  careers provision and the light touch regime means that many schools escape the regulators eye for many years .

There are   subtle signs that MPs from all parties are beginning to lose patience with a lack of action from Ministers in this area and will be looking at the new strategy very carefully .   They may  understand that if you want to improve social mobility, inclusion and productivity and to fill the skills gaps it is vital  to improve the access our young people have to high quality professional advice at key stages in their lives,  along with greater employer engagement ,of course  .It is not either, or, it is both. They are mutually supporting.  If they stick to  ensuring the strategy is informed by all the  Gatsby’ benchmarks’ then they should be OK. If they cherry pick, including some, but not others, it will end up an incoherent mess with no system wide impact. Watch this space.

CAREER EDUCATION – WILL SOMEONE TELL MINISTERS WHAT IT MEANS ?

Lack of  clarity at heart of government policy on careers  .

Sam Gyimah, the Minister responsible for Careers guidance in schools, has recently been referring to  the importance of career education. Well , it  is important ,but  it is not at all clear that he understands what it means. If you look at his comments, in context, he seems to be talking not about career education but  instead  about work related learning and employer engagement. Worthy though that might be, it  is not the same as career education.   But he  is not alone in repeating this misunderstanding. This week researchers from the University of Bath told us how important career education is, and its impact on young peoples   future earnings  The researchers say  ‘The ever changing education system confronted young people with a complex world. This has been partly addressed by government emphasis on career education while students are at school’. But the research  was focused on employer engagement with young people and its long term  benefits, not on career education.

The reality is -there   isn’t any emphasis on career education in schools. In fact, career education, as commonly understood, is  virtually non-existent in most schools  which lack a   strategic approach to the teaching, learning and assessment of career education . There may be more interaction between employers and students (although it would be interesting to see the data on this)  but that is not strictly speaking career education.

This could  go some way to explaining the confusion at the heart of the governments policy on careers and the fact that the Careers  and Enterprise Company are focused almost entirely now on employer engagement and championing what are termed  ‘Enterprise’ advisers.   They really do think that employer engagement is the same as career education (and Guidance too  it seems)

The Career Development Institute says about career education that it is   ‘Planned and progressive programmes of activities in the curriculum which help students to develop the knowledge and skills to understand themselves, research the opportunities available, make decisions and move successfully on to the next stage’.

Career guidance, offered by an independent qualified professional,  (signally lacking in too  many schools) plays a vital role in helping individuals make the decisions about learning and work that are right for them. But there is an underlying assumption that for this   to be  really effective,  young people  also need career education.  Meaning  young people   need to have the knowledge and skills to access and make good use of the information, advice and guidance they are given . They also need to be equipped with  the skills of career management to seek out opportunities, make successful applications and manage transitions. That is whats  accepted as  career education.  The OECD sees career education as integral to Career Guidance- so career education programmes involve specifically  help  and support  for individuals to  develop their ‘ self-awareness, opportunity awareness, and career management skills ‘(Career Guidance-A Handbook  for Policy Makers – OECD -2004)

And so its safe to assume that a Career educator is not  in fact an employer involved in an interaction with a young person but instead a qualified  professional  individual  with the right pedagogic approaches to develop individuals’ career management skills, to seek out opportunities manage transitions, and so on.

Work-related learning ,on the other hand, is a separate issue. This provides opportunities for young people to develop knowledge and understanding of work and enterprise, and  to develop skills for enterprise, something that Ministers talk about all the time. And this involves engagement between young people  with employers, enterprise advisers and, of course, combined with  access to  good quality work experience..

In a recent briefing paper for Careers England and CDI,   Tristram Hooley, Claire Johnson and Siobhan Neary gave an insight into the challenge faced by those who want to offer career education. . They   said  “The professional training and career progression for careers teachers and careers leaders in schools is less clearly defined.” But ,” While various attempts have been made to establish a CPD pathway for teachers who focus on careers work, these have generally had a limited reach into the teacher workforce.”

Tami McCrone of the NFER  in her recent evidence to the Select Committee wrote ‘I conclude that there is considerable robust evidence that suggests that quality careers advice provision would benefit from an equal focus on first laying the foundations with careers education and ensuring that parents are well-informed in terms of the careers education and guidance their children are receiving.’

So ,its pretty easy to conclude   that the government really  hasn’t been placing emphasis on career education, (if only it  had)

What it has been doing is  placing emphasis  on employer engagement and work related learning., important though that might be to the guidance offer.  But this is happening almost to the exclusion, of career education and genuine independent, professional guidance, including face to face guidance.(which evidence tells us benefits the most disadvantaged pupils, the most)

If you are unclear about what you are talking about, how will you get your policy right?

In the meantime the Careers and Enterprise company (CEC)  would have us believe that it is transforming career guidance. What it  actually means is that  it is  increasing the level of engagement that young people have with  employers and enterprise advisers, which  is not the same as improving career guidance or  providing career education.

The CEC will be able to measure its inputs fairly easily, but will have a challenge on its hands  to measure its outputs, both in terms of the quality of the employer interventions it facilitates , the value they add, and.  more broadly on the impact the CEC is having  on  on the availability and accessibility  of  high quality professional career  guidance in schools.,to young people, particularly the most disadvantaged. .

It remains the case that young people in our schools are not getting better access to independent  professional careers guidance  than they did five years  ago,     then rated as  ‘poor’ and ‘patchy’. And  with the modest  resources that are available ,  going mainly to employer engagement, under the aegis of the CEC,  this is unlikely to change.

WILL THE GOVERNMENTS FORTHCOMING CAREERS STRATEGY BE INFORMED BY INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE? DONT HOLD YOUR BREATH

Dr Deirdre Hughes OBE ,an expert on Careers Guidance ,recently gave evidence to a Sub-Committee of the Education Select Committee (on Education Skills and the Economy) which is looking at Careers information and guidance. This is timely because the government is currently drafting a new careers strategy. Deirdre mentioned international evidence and the findings of the 7th International Symposium on Career Development and Public Policy held in Iowa (June 2015).What were those key findings, based on contributions from seasoned international guidance professionals? According to Deirdre Hughes:
‘Career development policies, systems and services need to support young people to access work-related learning from an early age. Work-related learning should be a core part of the education system for all young people and include learning about entrepreneurship and social enterprise.

Strategies should aim to provide national co-ordination, benchmarks and evaluation, while respecting the need for regional/local tailoring.

Career development services need to be both widely available and able to contribute to a range of client needs from supported self-help through to intensive personalised support. This requires a diverse workforce, frequently operating through devolved and dispersed networks.

There is a need for a cadre of professional career guidance practitioners in every country who are able to guide, develop and support diversified delivery networks. There is also a need for some career specialists educated at the second and third levels of higher education, to deliver higher-level training courses, undertake research and evaluation nationally, and engage with the international academic community.’

So a big question arises. Are these the areas where the new Careers and Enterprise company and its 18 staff is focusing all its efforts and resources at the moment? I think not. Its work is almost entirely focused on work experience, employer engagement with schools ( a proxy it  now seems for professional careers advice and guidance) and expanding enterprise advice and advisers in schools.

Meanwhile, there is a haemorrhaging of experienced careers guidance specialists from the sector, so the cadre of ‘professional career guidance practitioners’  seen as vital ,in Englands case at least ,  is diminishing daily, something that the new Careers strategy should urgently address. The scary part is that there is a possibility that it might not. If this is the case, then the future of careers guidance in England looks bleak, and the government, moreover, will be seen to have turned its back on evidence led policy.