We need three post-16 pathways: A-levels, T-levels and applied generals

Two post-16 education pathways are not enough: we need an academic route, an occupational route and a career route, argues Rod Bristow

There is a strong consensus in education that we need to do more to offer people a clear pathway to acquire the knowledge and skills they need to succeed at work. That’s why support for the idea of T-levels remains very strong. But as is so often the case with good ideas, concerns about T-level implementation are plentiful.

There are deep concerns about the proposed system of awarding bodies tendering for the new T-levels. These are concerns I share, and when GCSEs were involved, the government shared them too. But risk to T-levels associated with the tendering process pales, when compared to their insufficient clarity of purpose.

Making complex things simple is hard, but it’s usually worthwhile. Making complex things simplistic is much easier, but rarely useful.

The vocational qualifications landscape is complex. First, due to the sheer volume of qualifications – because there are a lot of different jobs, many of which overlap, and qualifications, as well as jobs, have evolved over many years. They will continue to evolve in the future too, adding further complexity.

A simplistic bifurcation between A-levels and T-levels will not meet the needs of learners

Vocational qualifications generally serve one of two broad purposes. Some enable access to a specific job or occupation, whereas others are broader and enable access to a number of different occupations within a sector – either directly or via university. Through T-levels, the government has made a creditable attempt to streamline a large number of occupations into coherent groups. But there is confusion as to whether these two different purposes ought to co-exist. It is essential to address this confusion before T-levels are designed.

With huge growth in AI and automation, most countries are thinking deeply about how their education system supports the future of work, and no country has done more thinking about this than Singapore.

Singapore’s success in education is underpinned by long-term thinking and deep coherence across the entire system. They promote three post-16 pathways:

  • A-levels taught in junior colleges are for those who want the academic skills that are useful in accessing university and in many careers.
  • Institutes of technical education provide the skills needed for specific occupations (what used to be called trades). These ITEs meet in effect, the purpose of T-levels originally laid out in the Sainsbury report.
  • Last, but not least, polytechnic institutes (focused on industry sectors not trades) that, as one Singapore Polytechnic Institute principal once put to me, educate technologists, not technicians.

This last pathway enables progression either directly into a job or into a job via university. The key point is that people are prepared for careers, not just jobs, which will themselves change enormously during the lifetime of a career. This career-focused pathway provides the combination of academic and practical skills that the future of work demands. Students learn about an entire industry, but also they learn by doing, how to apply that knowledge – and it’s the application of that knowledge that is assessed.

In Singapore, these three pathways provide the basis for a system of ‘bridges and ladders’ that meets the needs of the population and of employers too. Britain should embrace three pathways too.

A simplistic bifurcation between A-levels and T-levels will not meet the needs of learners. The 60 per cent of the population not doing A-levels will want a broader set of choices than to train for a particular job.

The applied general route provides this choice to young people and to adult learners too. But it should be given a better name – perhaps the ‘career route’. We’d then have an academic route, a career route and an occupational route. Of course Pearson has a vested interest – in that the career route is of course the route that BTEC best fits – but it is also in the interests of millions of young people, and our changing economy too.

Hull College overspent by almost £10 million in 2016/17, overdue accounts reveal

Cash-strapped Hull College overspent by even more in 2016/17 than the previous year, according to its recently published and long-overdue accounts.

The college, which reportedly received a massive £54 million government bailout earlier this year in order to balance the books, recorded a deficit before tax of £9.69 million in 2016/17 – an increase of £361,000 on the equivalent 2015/16 figure, and brought the college’s reserves down to negative £15 million.

A college spokesperson insisted the deficit was “in line with expectations” and “an indication of the extent of the challenging financial position which the group’s new senior leadership team has inherited”.

The college’s five-year recovery plan, in place since March and backed with the bailout cash, will “resolve previous significant financial and operational issues and achieve a strong and sustainable future for Hull College Group’s staff, learners and communities,” he added.

The latest revelations about the Hull’s finances come just two months after its 2015/16 accounts, published almost 18 months late, lifted the lid on the college’s vast debts.

It declared a pre-tax deficit of £9.33 million over the year – equal to 19 per cent of its £49.69 million income – compared with a much smaller loss of £492,000 in 2014/15.

Those accounts were published just weeks after FE Week reported that the college had received a massive £54 million from the government’s restructuring facility.

It’s believed to be the highest single payout from the restructuring facility, but neither the college nor the government has confirmed the figure, citing a confidentiality agreement.

Hull has been in dire financial straits since November 2016, when it was forced to request exceptional financial support from the Education and Skills Funding Agency after its bank withdrew support.

That led to a financial notice of concern, which in turn prompted a visit from FE commissioner Richard Atkins.

Among the issues highlighted by Mr Atkins in his subsequent report, published January 2017, were the college’s “unaffordable” staff costs, which stood at 78 per cent of income in 2015/16 and were forecast at 72 per cent in 2016/17.

The latest accounts reveal a drop in both staff costs and numbers from 2015/16 to 2016/17: from £33.94 million to £31.3 million, and from 934 to 902 full-time equivalent employees.

But while the number of teaching staff fell year-on-year, from 362 to 308, the number of non-teaching staff actually increased, from 572 to 594.

FE Week asked why this was, but did not get an answer. Instead we were told the college couldn’t comment on decisions made under its previous management.

Earlier this year the college was involved in a bitter dispute with the unions over plans to shed more than 200 jobs.

Members of the University and College Union walked out for three days in May in protest over the proposals, which the union said would reduce the workforce by a third.

But a final strike, planned for seven days in June, was called off after both sides reached an agreement that removed the threat of compulsory redundancies.

In an exclusive interview with FE Week in June, Michelle Swithenbank, Hull’s chief executive since June 2017, said the cuts were vital for the college’s survival.

With the imminent introduction of the FE insolvency regime, “we had to become a solvent college by the end of this academic year”, she said.

 

Delay of at least a year to apprenticeship system expansion could leave 1,500 providers out in the cold

Over 1,500 training providers on the government’s apprenticeships register will not have direct access to funding for small employers until at least a year later than planned.

An update from the Education and Skills Funding Agency revealed the news today which claimed it was “acting on user feedback”.

The agency had planned that all employers would be able to use the apprenticeship service to access apprenticeship funding from April 2019, but this has now been delayed.

“Having listened to feedback about the scale and pace of the apprenticeship reforms that we have introduced since May 2017, we want to make sure that future changes are introduced in a gradual, well-managed way,” the ESFA said.

“This is to give time for employers and training providers to prepare to take full advantage of the new approach and to keep stability in the marketplace.”

To “ensure a more gradual transition”, the government will not open up its apprenticeship service to  small employers to use in April 2019 as planned.

It will instead “extend current contracts for training providers delivering training for employers that do not pay the apprenticeship levy for 12 months, from April 2019 to March 2020”.

Over 1,500 training providers on the government’s apprenticeships register do not have a small employer allocation, so their only alternative will now be to subcontract from the 683 providers that do.

The ESFA said that over the summer it will “work closely with employers and training providers to plan what a gradual transition should look like”.

“We will provide further details in the autumn, including what this will mean for providers with existing contracts and plans to develop the apprenticeship service for all employers,” it added.

The AELP has mixed feelings about the decision.

“On balance this is probably a sensible decision in the sense that we don’t want the government to move to a new funding system in April 2019 which hasn’t been properly thought through and might lead to further instability,” said the association’s chief policy officer, Simon Ashworth.

“At the same time, we are acutely aware that this is not going to go down well at all with those good quality providers who weren’t awarded a non-levy contract at the end of 2017 and therefore we are keen to work with the ESFA to try and find a way to get these providers back into the non-levy market as soon as possible.

“Many of these providers are currently having to unnecessarily subcontract and we have already highlighted how some primes are taking advantage of this through inappropriately high fees meaning less funding is making it to the front line.”

He added that AELP still maintains that a “minimum annual budget of £1 billion is needed to meet SME demand for apprenticeships”.

The extension of non-levy contracts follows a shambolic procurement process that providers battled with last year in order to win a portion of the £650 million pot allocated.

The tender left providers fuming as it saw some defunct organisations winning contracts while ‘outstanding’ ones missed out. Several small providers simply went out of business.

Ofsted watch: Improvement for struggling FE providers

A training provider previously banned from taking on any new apprentices and a formerly ‘inadequate’ council have been making strong improvements, monitoring visits have found.

Key6 Group had its first revisit from Ofsted last month since it was told its delivery was “not fit for purpose” in March, as part of the inspectorate’s investigations into new apprenticeship providers.

Its latest monitoring visit, published yesterday, only reviewed the provider’s safeguarding arrangements, of which ‘significant progress’ is being made.

“Leaders and managers took seriously the significant weaknesses for safeguarding,” inspectors said.

“They have worked tirelessly to ensure that the safeguarding arrangements have improved significantly and these now meet the provider’s statutory duties.”

Key6’s first monitoring visit report, which found all areas including safeguarding to be making ‘insufficient progress’, was so bad that skills minister Anne Milton immediately put a stop to it taking on any new apprentices.

The ban was however lifted two months later because “there was demand from employers” to use the provider, according to the ESFA.

Despite this, Ofsted’s new monitoring report noted that the group has “not recruited any new apprentices since February 2018”.

Ofsted is expected to conduct a full inspection of Key6 later this year.

The Wiltshire Council, which was rated ‘inadequate’ in December 2016 before improving to ‘requires improvement’ in January this year, was also found to be making “good progress” in a new monitoring visit of its provision.

“Tutors have received appropriate training and are now taking a qualification to equip them to provide advice and guidance more effectively to learners before they start their courses and to prepare them for their next steps,” inspectors said.

“Managers now routinely and regularly undertake formal and informal observations of teaching and learning.”

Ofsted also published a monitoring visit report into ‘new’ apprenticeship provider KPMG Limited Liability Partnership this week.

The company is a member of the global KPMG network of professional services firms, and currently trains 366 apprentices for Civil Service Learning.

It was found to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in the three headline fields judged.

“Leaders and managers have a clear strategic purpose and direction to use their expertise in professional services to deliver high-quality apprenticeships,” inspectors said.

“They work in close partnership with CSL to deliver apprenticeships designed to meet skills shortages within civil service departments.”

Lastly, there was a short inspection report published for private training provider Didac Limited, in which the Bristol-based provider maintained its ‘good’ rating.

“The teaching and assessment of practical skills are good,” Ofsted said.

“As a result, apprentices and learners develop very good practical skills and self-confidence, and a high proportion achieve their qualifications.”

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Key6 Group Limited 17/07/2018 09/08/2018 M M
KPMG Limited Liability Partnership 11/07/2018 06/08/2018 M M

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
The Wiltshire Council 04/07/2018 08/08/2018 M M

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
Didac Limited 10/07/2018 06/08/2018

Baker clause update: DfE gears up to start ‘direct intervention’ as minister encourages providers to grass on schools

The Department for Education is threatening “direct intervention” from September at schools that are failing to open their doors to FE providers, as part of a crackdown on non-compliance with the controversial ‘Baker clause’.

At the same time skills minister Anne Milton (pictured above), writing for FE Week, is encouraging providers to grass on schools that are barring their access, by contacting her directly.

“We want to make sure young people are getting all the information they need about the options available to them post-16,” a DfE spokesperson told FE Week.

“We will be taking action from the start of the new term in September to strengthen relationships between schools and providers and share best practice across the sector about what is working well.”

This action could include highlighting best practice or even direct intervention, she said.

In her latest monthly column for FE Week, published today, Ms Milton urged providers that have had access to their local schools blocked to report their experiences to her directly, via her parliamentary or constituency offices.

“I’m really keen to hear from any providers that have had difficulties with this, or have been blocked from going into schools,” she wrote.

The Baker clause, so called because it was proposed by the former education secretary Lord Kenneth Baker, was introduced as part of the Technical and FE Act 2017.

He acknowledged at the time that it was likely to be “met with great hostility in every school in the country”.

The duty, which came into effect in January, forces schools to open their doors to FE providers to speak to their pupils about technical qualifications and apprenticeships.

However, there have been warning signs that schools are failing in their legal duties.

In June the Association of Employment and Learning Providers carried out a survey on behalf of the DfE in June, asking providers about the impact of the legislation, following reports that schools were either unaware of or choosing to ignore the law.

That survey has now closed, but the DfE has refused to reveal its findings.

Simon Ashworth, AELP’s chief policy officer, said that feedback it had received from providers before the survey indicated that “the reasons for schools’ apparent resistance to the statutory requirements were the ones that prompted Lord Baker to move his amendment in the first place”.

Some schools placed “limitations on which year groups and ability groups the providers can have access to” while others “aren’t keen on any access at all”.

“Of most concern is the reported number of schools which haven’t published a provider access statement yet which is a clear breach of the law,” he said.

An FE Week investigation in January found that just two of the 10 largest multi-academy trusts in England were fully compliant with the legislation.

Writing for FE Week in March, Ms Milton said she expected “to see schools setting up careers events, assemblies and options evenings so that providers can talk to pupils about what they offer and what it is like to learn in a different environment,” as a result of the new duty.

 

Ofsted claims ‘huge number’ of £2.4m set-aside for research projects will be FE-related

Ofsted will soon call on FE providers to help it undertake a “huge” amount of FE-related research projects, according to its director of corporate strategy.

The education watchdog has set aside around £2.4 million, or 4 per cent of its inspector resource, to spend on 20 studies over the next two years.

It is part of Amanda Spielman’s drive for a more evidence-based inspection regime after Ofsted went years without basing judgements on research, under the leadership of former chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw.

We would be doing a disservice if we weren’t making sure that our inspections were based on latest evidence

But of the 20 upcoming projects (see table below), not a single one has been dedicated solely to FE and skills.

Despite this, Ofsted director Luke Tryl told FE week that a “huge number” of them will be “related to FE”.

“A lot of what we do is cross remit,” he said.

“The educational effectiveness literature review is specifically looking at the evidence related to FE, and the project we’ve just carried out – ‘inspection methods and practice’ – tested lesson observations and work scrutiny in FE providers.

“Both of those, which are our two major evaluation projects, are very much applying to FE as well as schools.”

Mr Tryl continued to list more of the research projects which will be FE-related: “The project looking at how to measure intent, implementation and impact in a model of curriculum quality is with FE providers.

“We are doing a specific project on the 16 to 19 curriculum which is going to be an FE specific study focusing on the vocational curriculum and the curriculum as applied to apprenticeships.

“The workload and wellbeing project includes FE providers who we surveyed and followed up with visits, and the knowledge gaps for students is specifically a college project.”

Luke Tryl

Ofsted’s research into knife-crime, special educational needs, and initial teacher training will also be carried out using FE providers.

“We think we’re doing quite a lot in FE but because it doesn’t specifically say it in the title it looks like it’s only schools,” Mr Tryl added.

All of this work is being carried out with the ambition of ensuring the 2019 inspection framework is the “most evidenced based in Ofsted’s history”.

“When it comes to our own inspection practice gone are the days where an inspector walks into an institution and based on their experience they can come to a judgement,” Mr Tryl said.

“Actually their judgement should all be grounded in the evidence. We would be doing a disservice if we weren’t making sure that our inspections were based on latest evidence and they are valid and reliable.”

He explained that spending £1.2 million each year until 2020 on research “represents an increase” compared to recent years – although Ofsted could not provide actual figures for past years as “these aren’t comparable and aren’t readily available”.

“It [researching] is going back to something we used to do a lot more of,” Mr Tryl said.

“Pre-Sir Michael there was a much bigger focus on research and it is something Amanda has brought back.”

He added that FE providers can expects calls asking them to take part in the projects soon.

 

Ofsted’s 20 upcoming ‘major research and evaluation projects’

Hope for ESFA cap on subcontracting management fees ‘kicked into the long grass’

The government’s decision about introducing a cap on subcontracting management fees has been “kicked into the long grass” – delaying any verdict until at least the end of 2018.

An update about the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s approach to top-slicing was published this afternoon after FE Week revealed on Friday it was getting ready to publish its first ever policy on the issue.

It was expected that guidance on management fees would be offered instead of introducing a hard cap, following a review which got underway in April. Any changes in rules from this would have come into effect this month.

The evidence and the arguments have been around for months

However, the ESFA says it hasn’t done enough work on the problem to date and further investigation is needed.

“In the coming months, we will undertake further work to develop our expectations about the services that providers should offer to their subcontractors with the sector,” today’s update said.

“Our key priorities will be to develop an approach which: increases the amount of funding that reaches front line delivery, and increases transparency by ensuring that providers explain in detail the make-up of their fees and charges.

“We plan to publish our final expectations by the end of the year and any changes will come into force in 2019.”

The news will frustrate training providers and sector leaders who’ve been waiting for the ESFA to decide whether to introduce a hard cap on the percentage that can be claimed by a prime provider as a management fee.

“It’s good to see the intention to increase the amount of funding that reaches the front line, but why the kick into the long grass?” said Simon Ashworth, the AELP’s chief policy officer.

“The evidence and the arguments have been around for months which make a strong case for a maximum cap or recommended limit.

“If this is too difficult for the agency, then we hope the select committee will do the job and make the right recommendation to ensure that unjustifiable top-slicing finally comes to an end.”

But Teresa Frith, senior policy manager at the Association of Colleges, said that until the government and FE sector is “clear as to precisely what is and is not included within ‘fees and charges’, a percentage cap makes no real sense”.

“We will continue to work closely with them and others to ensure the English apprenticeship offer continues to develop into the world class offer we aspire to,” she added.

Skills minister Anne Milton previously said she was “hesitant” to introduce a cap, and that the funding agency might be better instead to review each subcontract relationship to decide if further investigation is needed.

Lead providers often claim management fees are needed to cover administrative costs, but many in the sector, including MPs on the education committee led by chair and former skills minister Robert Halfon, believe that too much money is being diverted from frontline learning.

FE Week has exposed many situations where primes levy excessive management fees of up to 40 per cent.

The AELP, Holex, and provider group Collab signed-up in March to new best-practice guidance on relationships between primes and subcontractors – which stated management fees should not be more than 20 per cent of the programme funding.

However, it was quickly undermined when the AoC confirmed it would not commit to any recommended limit.

It claimed it was developing other guidance “properly” with the ESFA and University Vocational Awards Council.

Sector leaders unite against T-level plans that would force students to wait a year for a retake

Sector leaders have urged Ofqual to reconsider its proposal to only allow T-level exams in the summer, as it means students would have to wait a whole year for retakes.

One representative body warned the plan represents a “significant capacity risk for the whole exam system” while also being “overly burdensome” on learners.

Ofqual received the feedback in its consultation about how it will regulate T-levels – which launched on July 10 with just a four-week turnaround.

This represents a significant capacity risk for the whole exam system

Despite the short deadline, over 50 awarding organisations offered formal responses after 100 people attended its consultation events and 40 joined its webinar on the topic.

FE Week has seen a number of the responses, in which the proposed grading system and monetary and capacity issues were high on the list of concerns.

But Ofqual’s plan to only allow assessments to be taken in the summer, thus forcing students who need to re-sit their exams to wait a whole year to do so, was most alarming.

“If a learner fails an assessment at the end of year one they may well need to undertake further learning [in year two] to support the development of their skills and knowledge,” said the Federation of Awarding Bodies, which represents over 125 AOs.

“It is important to consider whether it would be overly burdensome on a learner to undertake this volume of learning, how it might impact on the time the learner needs outside of their studying for wider responsibilities (e.g. part time working).”

The federation added that only having exams in the summer is “not appropriate for the more vocational-style assessment that will be required for the occupational specialisms” and “smaller chunks” of assessments throughout the year would be better.

It also said that the May/June exam period is “already a busy and resource intensive time for providers and we are concerned that on a very practical level, there is not the capacity in the system to support additional assessment”.

Exam halls, invigilators, and examination staff will “already be under immense pressure at that time”.

The FAB added: “If T-levels are intended to scale up then this represents a significant capacity risk for the whole exam system.”

The Association of Colleges backed up the fears expressed by awarding organisations.

“Lessons need to be learnt from the roll out of previous qualifications which have in many cases required additional assessment windows and a safety net approach to grading,” said David Corke, the association’s director of policy.

“There must be additional assessment opportunities other than just the summer. It is important not to impede learners progressing to employment or further study, it is equally important that these reforms are in line with accountability reporting time frames for providers.”

David Corke

He added that government must also “cost the impact of these changes” in monetary terms, “including exam fees, resit fees, invigilator costs, exam hall hire and extra exam staff salaries”.

In Ofqual’s webinar about the T-level consultation, held on August 1, the watchdog’s regulatory development manager, Steve Hickmott, explained why it only wants exams and retakes to happen in the summer.

“We’ve proposed this because we think this is the most robust approach in terms of maintaining standards and it saves the qualification being broken down,” he said.

“But we do fully appreciate this is likely to have implications with both the centres and students themselves that wish to retake sooner, and for employers who may be looking not just to recruit students each summer.”

He added that Ofqual has “flagged this as one of the key issues” and is “keen to hear what alternatives may be preferred”.

Click here to watch Ofqual’s T-levels consultation

The NCFE suggested that an exams system similar to A-levels, in which assessment periods also take place in January, would be better.

This would “reduce the time lag between assessments, support learners in their achievement and keep them motivated throughout”.

The responses to the consultation also highlighted concerns with the proposed triple grading system.

If a student passes, the regulator wants to give an overall “pass”, followed by the core component of the qualification graded A* to E, while using Pass, Merit and Distinction for occupational specialisms.

Awarding organisations disagreed with this approach and said the grades should all be standardised for “ease of clarity, understanding and aggregation of final pass or fail”.

Mr Corke said the grading structure is “definitely more complex”, but “we do recognise the usefulness of separate grading scales for what are essentially the theory and practical components of the qualification”.

Ofqual is expected to formally respond to its T-level consultation in the next few weeks.

Ensuring young people have the ‘best possible’ careers advice

As the Department for Education announces plans to take action against schools that aren’t complying with the ‘Baker clause’, Anne Milton urges providers to contact her directly with their experiences, and outlines what else the government is doing to ensure young people have the best possible careers advice. 

Last March I wrote in FE Week about how important it is that schools and colleges let students know about all the amazing opportunities in technical education and apprenticeships there are after GCSEs.

It’s not just about higher education, and I’m determined to continue changing that perception. I don’t want one route to a career to be considered better than any other. A levels and full-time academic degrees at our world class universities are right for some people. But for others, T Levels, apprenticeships, or level 4 or 5 qualifications can give them the skills they need to get the jobs they want. 

GCSE and A level results days are just round the corner. Young people across the country are making important choices about their future. The significant role parents, colleges and schools play in those choices is clear. They can really have a big influence on the people looking to them for guidance and support. After all, it is their responsibility too.

I spoke in March about the “Baker clause”, which places a legal duty on schools to invite education and training providers to talk to their pupils about technical education and apprenticeships – so that they know what options are available to them. I’m really keen to hear from any providers that have had difficulties with this, or have been blocked from going into schools.  I can be contacted via my parliamentary or constituency office.

But the Baker clause is just one part of our reforms to careers advice. In December, we published our careers strategy. In February, we published guidance setting out the expectations for colleges, based on the Gatsby Benchmarks. These benchmarks include the curriculum being linked with careers, students having encounters with employers and employees, personal guidance and learning from career and labour market information. And some schools and colleges are doing this brilliantly. In many, the knowledge about future careers is embedded in all that they do, with local employers being an integral part of that learning.

At the end of June, we received the results of 2,880 self-evaluation responses from schools and colleges. The results showed that on average, colleges were hitting 2 of the 8 Gatsby Benchmarks. I’m glad that we are seeing a steady rise in the number of benchmarks that institutions are meeting, but there is clearly a lot more to do. I believe progress will speed up next year as the careers strategy is implemented. Young people across the country should have the excellent careers guidance they deserve and need.

We want to help colleges meet the ambitions we’ve set out in the careers strategy, and work towards meeting all eight Gatsby Benchmarks. This autumn, The Careers & Enterprise Company  will be publishing more detailed analysis of this data, so we can find out about what’s working well now and how we can gets careers advice in schools and colleges to work even better. The Company will also be launching a Compass for Colleges tool to allow colleges to more fully capture the work they are doing on careers provision.

There is already a range of support available to help colleges meet our ambitions. The Careers & Enterprise Company  recently published a guide to careers leadership in colleges, which highlights a number of colleges doing this exceptionally well; for example, Scarborough Sixth Form College, Chichester College Group, Sunderland College and Weymouth College. The Company also has its Enterprise Adviser Network – which is already working with 139 colleges, with an enterprise adviser due to be available to every school and college by 2020.

Bursaries for training for careers leaders in colleges will also be offered by The Careers & Enterprise Company from autumn 2018. And we recently announced 20 new Careers Hubs; these consist of up to 40 local schools and colleges working together with universities, training providers, employers and career professionals to improve careers education for young people in the region.

If you are a college or school leader, I urge you to find out more about the support available to help you provide the best possible careers advice. This is about changing the lives of the young people you work with, giving them the chance of a rewarding and fulfilling life.