Julia Von Klonowski looks at how girls could be encouraged into a broader range of digital-related careers.

Education, at its best, should allow everyone to have independence of decision, fulfilment and equality.

It should enable entrepreneurship, leadership and life balance whatever your gender.

Much has been written about the difference between women and mens’ business achievements — often backed-up by a variety of studies and statistics.

This spans a whole variety of career pathways, including digital and technology — an industry which is facing a huge skills shortage in the coming years.

Instead of discussing why, in 2016, this is still happening, I want to focus on what colleges and employers can do to help lose the gender bias and widen the pool of talented employees that so many businesses are desperate for.

More women succeeding in technology and digital careers will result in more female role models

As in any successful long-term project, we have to ask ourselves if there is a quick win, which I believe there is.

Firstly, we need to steer away from presenting the opportunities available within the digital and technology industry in too narrow a way.

For example, we should stop using words such as coding, technology companies, STEM, maths , engineering as the only way of representing digital and technology careers.

This is because it is these areas that so many girls see as being male-dominated.

Of course this perception needs changing, but it will take time and is not something we can fix quickly.

What is true though is that the more women succeeding in technology and digital careers will result in more female role models.

This will in turn encourage more girls to follow their lead, which is crucial.

We must also ask the question as to why so many girls are attracted to the areas of HR, PR, marketing, fashion, beauty, journalism, apps and design.

We will all have many different answers to this question and ultimately it will be for a variety of reasons.

However, these sectors (and many others) have already won the hearts and minds of girls — which begs the question, why are we not using them to influence their career decisions?

There are so many technology and digital careers in these very industries, and yet when I talk to careers advisors in colleges and schools, they are often not aware of them and neither are the students’ teachers or parents.

We often choose our careers based on the lifestyle it represents, so we should therefore be using this to “sell” technology and digital careers to girls.

I wonder if we are frightened of talking about these areas because we fear we may be continuing the male/female bias.

Women (like men) are attracted by the lifestyle a job will give them, and will thrive in areas that they feel confident in.

Girls still tend to see certain areas as female domains — such as teaching, nursing and hairdressing, and STEM areas as male subjects. Why not use this bias as a means of leading them into STEM careers?

There is a similar issue with apprenticeships.

These have traditionally been perceived as a male-dominated area, with most people associating this educational route with becoming a plumber, builder or engineer.

Companies can help change this outdated view. For example, if employers within the fashion and beauty industry were to engage girls in technology and digital apprenticeships, this would help to change the perception of our industry.

It is widely recognised that much of the education system in this country fails to recognise the link between work and education.

Fortunately, the FE sector is leading the way when it comes to understanding employers’ and business’ needs, but there is still a way to go when it comes to opening up digital and technology careers to girls.

We need to work with our careers advisors, parents and teachers to broaden the minds of the next generation of women — with regard to the many exciting jobs that are available and the skills that are necessary.

Changing long-held perceptions is no easy battle and for this reason, policy change needs to happen.

However, small steps can and must be taken by employers, colleges and schools to help ensure that the UK’s digital and technology industry is not missing out on some very talented young women to fill the huge skills shortages it faces.

Steve Frampton leads a sixth form college which decided against applying for academy status following an area review. He explains here why this decision was taken and advises other senior managers facing the same choice.

The area based review process is about change – it may be your wish to be stand-alone, as we did, but this will require internal change.

For example, you will need to consider whether you plan to increase set sizes, specialise or rationalise your provision to create economic efficiencies and improvements to quality and the student experience.

Or will it involve one of several external change models? This options appraisal work informed by thorough research, cost benefit analysis and risk analysis by governors is very time consuming, and demanding.

My advice is, ensure you know the candid views of your stakeholders, especially all your governors, your students and their parents, your staff and key partners (secondary/primary schools, employers, trading partners) and the three parties who may have seats around the table: your local authority, LEP and HE sector.

You will need to identify a range of options, and your preferred option at an early stage, and be able to confidently articulate this in line with your college strategic plan, linked to your financial and accommodation strategy.

Our board — based on a community consensus viewpoint, and looking at what was best for the students in our city — concluded that remaining as a stand-alone SFC was their preferred option.

As a very innovative, rapidly growing college, in a locally declining demographic environment, they wanted to communicate this very robustly and very regularly to both the area review team, and all local audiences, including our staff, parents and students.

Staff especially valued this approach.

Financial stability for the sector is the driving force behind the area review process and colleges who are showing financial weakness enter the process under pressure to have a miracle cure for their financial ills or face merger.

Going into our review, Portsmouth College’s financial challenge was also its saviour due to the impact of the lagged funding for 16-18 growth.

Leading up to 2015/16, the growth in applications was so significant that the governing body agreed to recruit additional staff to ensure a quality experience could be enjoyed by all students in the anticipated swollen student body.

This decision was taken in the knowledge that a deficit would be incurred in 2015/16, and a financial health score of ‘satisfactory’, but in the calculated hope that there would be ‘jam tomorrow’.

The college curriculum teams were able to clearly demonstrate that the claimed efficiencies would be made and that despite further anticipated growth in 2016/17, a reasonable surplus would be posted.

Colleges who are showing financial weakness enter the process under pressure to have a miracle cure

The on-going surpluses predicted were reflected in the three-year financial forecasts allowing cash reserves and liquidity measures to improve and a financial health score of ‘outstanding’ by year three.

On April 28, our local draft area review report validated our governors’ assessment that we are a high quality, innovative, viable, resilient and sustainable stand-alone institution. We’re an agile and very responsive SFC that wants to serve all its local secondary and primary partners.

This is the most appropriate outcome for our city and our current and future students, but is by no means the right option for all other colleges and communities.

It has been a very time consuming process, especially for college principals, chairs of governors and their senior governors, and our finance director, but it has forced us to look very closely at our mission, values and future strategic direction.

It was based on a very secure understanding of our college finances, student recruitment, partnerships, curriculum offer and delivery, accommodation strategy, and staff recruitment, retention and succession planning.

This has been the real bonus for us, and brought all of our staff and students even closer together and focused on what is right for our learners now and as we go forward.

It does seem ironic that as an educator, we have learned so much from going through the process, and working with the area review team, that we might never use it again.

The recent schools white paper was essentially geared at simplifying the system by making them all academies.

It seems that simplification is planned for post-16 academic and vocational learning.

The FE sector’s very own skills white paper will strip away many post-16 qualifications to make way for the introduction of 15 technical and professional education (TPE) routes.

But in an effort to funnel young people into a university or recognised work-related route the government should avoid creating a two-tier system and restricting choice.

It should think very carefully about provision below level two as well as bridging courses between the pathways at level two and beyond.

And in the creation of 15 routes, Ministers could go as far to seek simplification in accreditation, by tendering for a single awarding organisation for each.

It was considered by the previous Secretary of State for the new GCSES and A Levels, but quickly dropped in 2013.

So this might be a once in a generation opportunity to reorganise who accredits TPE routes, but surely the single point of failure problem is unsurmountable?