Editorial Comment:

Focus

This report outlines the findings of a survey of careers education and guidance (CEG) in schools, conducted between May 1994 and June 1995. The purposes of the survey were to analyse the standards and quality of students' work in CEG and to appraise the factors that influenced it. The report provides evidence, which it is hoped can be used by all schools to improve their own provision.

This survey was undertaken following two significant developments: the awarding of the first contracts to independent Careers Service providers; and the announcements of significant additional central government funding to support the development of CEG in schools. The choice of LEAs for the survey took due account of these developments.

Evidence for the report was drawn from some 117 Ofsted school inspection reports undertaken in the 10 LEAs during the specified period (May 1994 - June 1995). Reference has also been made to evidence from other HMI inspections, including those of General National Vocational Qualifications (GNVQ), General Certificate of Education (GCE) A and AS- level examinations and 16-19 guidance. One hundred and twenty-one of the schools visited have sixth forms; these varied in size from under 100 students to over 300. The survey included schools whose students arrived in each of years 7, 8, 9 and 10. During the visits by HMI discussions were held with head teachers and those staff responsible for planning, providing and monitoring the CEG provision. Teaching was observed, written work was scrutinised and discussions were held with students in each of years 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 about their subject, course and vocational aspirations.

The report is concerned with the standards of achievement in CEG of students at KS3, KS4 and Sixth form; Quality of learning; quality of CEG teaching; Assessment, recording and reporting of students progress in CEG; Quality and range of CEG curriculum; Equality of opportunity; Management administration and staffing of CEG; Resources for learning; impact of government initiatives; and links with parents and the careers service.

Findings

Approximately one-third of the schools were judged to be providing good or very good CEG for their students. In another third strengths were balanced by weaknesses, while in the remaining schools both the provision and its quality were poor and provided only limited benefits to students.

Schools provided generally sound careers guidance for students at the end of KS3, KS4 and the sixth form. Careers education was handled less successfully on the whole and students needed to be helped to develop a better and more realistic understanding of the changing nature of the workplace and the implications for their own futures.

Recent government funded initiatives have significantly improved the level and quality of resources for CEG in most schools. However, the impact in the first year of the additional funding to support CEG for students in Years 9 and 10 has been modest and there was considerable confusion in schools regarding its purpose and scope.

Under half of the students spoken to had visited or used information in their school's careers library prior to making their subject choices for Year 10.

Standards of work in CEG were noticeably higher where schools had a good written policy on CEG covering each of the Key Stages in the institution and linked to the school development plan and a planned programme of CED provided by designated staff who had received proper training and support.

Between Year 10 and Year 11 most students demonstrated a significant growth in their knowledge and understanding of the post-16 choices open to them; and they had acquired many skills that would be useful in making decisions and implementing them.

By the age of 16, nearly all students interviewed were actively seeking guidance from a range of relevant sources, including the school's careers adviser. However, most had left serious consideration of their 16+ alternatives until the latter part of year 11 and for some their actions amounted to too little, too late.

Most Year 11 students had only a limited understanding of post-16 GNVQ courses, offered in the sixth form or elsewhere. Students' knowledge and understanding of the demands of GCE A-level were also superficial among half those who were considering this step.

In reflecting on their choice of course, about a third of Years 12 and 13 students had misgivings about their chosen combination of subjects at GCE A and AS level.

Most sixth form students were knowledgeable about the application procedure for higher education and had researched their options thoroughly. However, other students were often poorly informed about the available options

Work experience was particularly well planned and effectively delivered in KS4 in the large majority of schools. For many students work experience prompted serious consideration of post-16 choices and thinking about careers matters generally.

Equal opportunities issues were handles well in the careers programme of most schools.

Most schools with sixth forms resolved the tension between providing comprehensive, objective and timely advice to year 11 students and the need to market their own provision impartially and to the students' advantage. However a minority did not.

Links between schools and Careers Services were generally good although in some schools the partnership had been adversely affected by staffing changes in the Careers Service or among the teachers with responsibility for CEG (referred to as careers co-ordinators in this report)

Senior management teams in schools seldom played a major part in promoting or co-ordinating CEG. As a result:

The place of CEG in the curriculum was often insecure; relatively few institutions had a coherent and developmental CEG provision across the Key Stages and where appropriate the Sixth form.

Service Level Agreements with the Careers Service were too often perceived as a mechanism for identifying and recording the priorities of the local Careers Service; the impact of the various government initiatives had in many cases been limited; and quality assurance measures were weak and ineffective.

CEG support for students with special educational needs in schools other than special schools was unsatisfactory.