Report on the CEIAG needs, priorities and challenges for Alternative Provision schools in Local London region

Executive Summary<br />1.1. This report summarises the provision of Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance (CEIAG) in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs)/ Alternative Provision (AP) Schools in the boroughs of the Local London Hub. Nine PRUs participated in this research representing Barking & Dagenham, Bromley, Enfield, Greenwich, Havering, Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest. <br /><br />1.2. To explore the provision of CEIAG in AP/PRU schools in Local London, an explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell, 2018) was adopted. This consisted of unstructured telephone interviews, followed by an online survey and then reinterviewing careers leads in the AP/PRUs.<br /><br />1.3. In the majority of centres designated senior staff had responsibility for career development and transitions, these staff work with students and liaised with providers of further education and training. <br /><br />1.4. Careers learning was both embedded within subject teaching and delivered in discrete sessions, drawing on a range of materials and tools. These included role plays, exercises, workshops and guest speakers. Engaging parents and college open days were also considered very effective. <br /><br />1.5. Of the frameworks and tools available, Gatsby Benchmarks were considered most useful, followed by the Compass tool. The Careers Development Framework (CDI) was considered the least useful. However, centres varied in their familiarity with these tools. Some Career Leaders felt that the Gatsby benchmarks and Compass did not consider some of the barriers to career learning that APs must contend with.<br /><br />1.6. The centres were supportive of professional development for careers work amongst their staff. However, some key practical difficulties prevented full engagement. <br /><br />1.7. Several challenges were identified when managing careers provision. These included insufficient resourcing and prioritisation of the changing nature of students and their needs, particularly around mental health, and coordination and information sharing with providers of post-16 education and training.<br /><br />1.8. Participants also suggested ways to address some of these challenges. These included improving the resourcing of activities and qualification routes, improved links with colleges and employers, which could be part of a community of practice and stronger engagement with parents.<br /><br />1.9. Based on the findings of this review, several recommendations are proposed. <br /><br />i. A community of practice be developed which could include elements of training and continued professional development. <br />ii. In addition to a community of practice or possibly as part of it an employers and college forum be set up to improve communication between AP/PRUs and post 16 provision. Similarly, a parental forum and systems to improve parental engagement be considered. <br />iii. Further research be conducted. The most important of which would involve longitudinal studies, tracking the progression of students through post 16 education, training and employment. This could include elements such as talking to other stakeholders. Additional research projects are also proposed including investigating APs use of frameworks and tools and collating best practice in specialist provision for vulnerable groups such as looked after children and those with SEND. <br />iv. Development of peer mentoring programmes whereby former students could assist those in their final years in AP/PRUs and first years of college. <br />v. Drawing together these recommendations to develop a more consistent approach to support over the period of transition from AP/PRUs to post-16 provision.<br /> <br />