The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND EFFECTIVE PRACTICE

Introduction

6.1 This chapter pulls together the findings of the evaluation to form conclusions and identify effective practice. Our findings show that to be successful ERP must:

• Have a robust referral process that engages pupils who are most at risk of not making a successful post-school transition
• Have an effective delivery model that is designed to have maximum impact on those with whom it engages
• Be effectively integrated into the school environment.

6.2 We begin by summarising the overarching conclusions from the evaluation and then discuss each of these in turn, drawing out effective practice recommendations.

Overarching conclusions

6.3 The ERP Pilot is viewed positively by the majority of ERP Advisers, senior management in schools, pupils and parents. Senior management staff in the majority of schools believe that having access to the careers guidance skills of the ERP Advisers, combined with their ability to take the time to work in an intensive and flexible way with the most 'at risk' pupils has been invaluable. All schools would like to see the support continued.

6.4 Our research has shown that ERP Advisers can have a significant impact on the pupils they work with. In particular we found evidence that they have:

• Raised the expectations of young people who had previously had no expectations about their future career
• Improved the confidence of the pupils they have worked with
• Helped them to understand the link between working at school and securing a positive destination
• Shown them the importance of securing a positive destination.

6.5 ERP Advisers have helped to improve the employability skills of the ERP pupils and have offered a significant amount of practical support, particularly with the completion of application forms and preparation for interview.

6.6 Despite this, ERP has not achieved its main aim, which was to have a positive impact on the SLDR figures in pilot schools by reducing the numbers moving into negative post-school destinations. We draw this conclusion because the very slight reduction in the proportion of pupils moving into negative destinations was also evident in comparator schools that did not have ERP.

6.7 This lack of impact is primarily because ERP has not been successful in engaging a significant number of those who ultimately moved into a negative post school destination. In year 2 of the pilot 74% (259) of pupils from pilot schools who entered a negative destination did not receive ERP support. If an equivalent to ERP support is to be available in future it is vital that schools take a systematic approach to identifying and referring a greater number of more appropriate referrals. This should be done in partnership with the ERP Adviser.

The referral process

6.8 The knowledge and experience that school staff (pastoral care teachers in particular) have is invaluable in being able to identify pupils most at risk of not making a successful post-school transition, however, ERP would be strengthened by a more systematic identification process. The limited impact on SLDR figures and the high number of pupils in negative destinations who did not receive ERP support suggests that the identification process should be strengthened.

6.9 ERP Advisers and school staff reported that the most effective approach to identifying the pupils to receive ERP support seems to be where a list is drawn up by Pastoral Care staff and the senior management team and used as a basis for a discussion with the ERP Adviser to agree on the most appropriate indicators and to agree the caseload. This practice should be used in all ERP schools.

6.10 Advisers have had limited success in engaging those who are not attending or have been excluded from school. It may be that a school based provision is not the most appropriate form of support for these young people. However, these may be the young people who are most likely to enter a negative post-school destination. If this group makes up a significant proportion of those moving into negative destinations each year then the potential for ERP to impact on SLDR figures will remain limited.

6.11 We recommend that schools and local partnerships work together to better understand the characteristics of those most at risk of moving into a negative destination. In particular if a sizeable proportion of school leavers who entered negative destinations were those who had stopped attending school, then provision delivered out with the school environment should be considered as a means of engaging with this group and impacting positively on their destinations and ultimately SLDR figures.

6.12 The vast majority of referrals are from Pastoral Care teachers, however, where the pilot is most embedded and its existence is best communicated is in schools where referrals can also come from a number of other routes, such as subject teachers, joint assessment teams and learning support teachers. This minimises the risk of pupils "slipping through the net". The referral process would be strengthened through strong links being established with a wide range of referrers so that pupils can be referred through a range of routes.

6.13 Crucial to a successful referral process is the quality of the information provided to the ERP Adviser by the referrer. ERP Advisers must be provided with relevant information on the pupil to enable them to work with them effectively. For example, they need to understand the reason for the referral and about any particular issues at school or home that could impact on the ERP Adviser's ability to work with the pupil. Similarly, the ERP Adviser needs to share information with the referrer on progress and any relevant information about the pupil that would require intervention by the school or other agencies. There must be strong leadership at the local authority level and in the school to ensure that all staff buy into the process and there is good, comprehensive information sharing. There should be overarching guidance, based on best practice, designed to promote consistency of approach.

6.14 Data was not available to allow us to analyse the size of caseloads in schools, however, ERP Advisers reported that there was inconsistency in the number of referrals across the schools, meaning the size of caseloads vary significantly. The low level of activity in some schools is cause for concern because it limits the potential impact that the ERP Adviser can have on SLDR figures. There needs to be a balance between supporting enough pupils to be able to have an impact on SLDR figures and not supporting so many that it is impossible to offer the intensity of support that is required. It is therefore important that a strategic approach is taken to determining the size of the caseload in each school and in the pilot there has been no evidence that this is happening. This may in be due to the constraints of the pilot in that a standard level of support was made available to each school (2.5 days per week). Ideally schools should be allocated a level of support that is in line with the level of need.

6.15 The integration of ERP Advisers into existing school structures is vital to the success of the pilot. This is particularly important in schools where there are a number of other initiatives and processes in place aimed at supporting young people in need of more choices and more chances. Where there is a myriad of provision that is not delivered in a co-ordinated way there is potential for duplication and, more worryingly, apathy from school staff towards new initiatives, leading to their under-use.

6.16 Schools see the potential for ERP Advisers to work with pupils earlier in their school career. They believe that intervening earlier can minimise the effects of some of the issues that put pupils at risk of not making a successful transition. The counter argument is that pupils may not be ready to focus on their post-school career until they are due to leave school and the reality of the step they are about to take has become apparent to them.

6.17 Early intervention was not a focus of the pilot therefore evidence on its success or otherwise is limited. However, the study did find a strong desire from school staff for some kind of preventative early intervention with 'at risk' S1 to S3 pupils. In the absence of an alternative, school staff have identified ERP as a potential means of providing this. However, ERP or indeed any other employability intervention offered by Skills Development Scotland would not necessarily be the most appropriate or effective means of delivering early intervention. Schools and local partners should work together to better understand the need for and aims of such an intervention, and then explore potential delivery models should an intervention be considered necessary.

Model of delivery

6.18 The key feature of ERP provision is that the ERP Advisers take a flexible approach, tailored to the needs of the individual pupil. This is the principle strength of the pilot.

6.19 Models of delivery do not vary significantly between schools. All ERP Advisers offer one-to-one support sessions incorporating:

• Career planning support at a pace that is appropriate to the individual and takes account of their barriers
• Mentoring support
• Practical support with application forms, job search skills and interviewing techniques.

6.20 Around half of the ERP Advisers provide regular group sessions to pupils. These are very popular with the pupils. They are used to develop a range of employability skills, such as team working, problem solving, communication and negotiation that cannot be developed in the same way in one-to-one sessions. Working with pupils in groups enables the ERP Advisers to work with significantly more pupils. Some pupils will not be ready or able to participate in group sessions so it is important that ERP Advisers and Pastoral Care teachers are able to identify the pupils that this approach is suitable for. Group work is good practice and should be an integral part of ERP support. The key features of delivering effective group work are:

• ERP Advisers have had the necessary training to enable them to draw on elements from a range of tools such as Breakthrough, Activate and WorkNet
• Sessions must be interactive to secure engagement
• Sessions need to be informal to appeal to pupils
• ERP Advisers possess excellent group work skills as a prerequisite.

6.21 ERP Advisers should continue to have contact with staff who are involved in delivering other initiatives in the school aimed at the ERP target group, for example campus police officers, Princes Trust, and community learning and development staff. Where appropriate there should be joint delivery, cross referral and peer support. This will help avoid duplication, maximises the reach of the ERP Adviser and add value to the support provided through ERP.

6.22 Many pupils in the ERP client group lack the motivation, confidence or self-esteem to be proactive about their future career and so it is important that ERP Advisers have the time to spend helping pupils overcome these issues and to "hand hold".

6.23 ERP Advisers need to take a holistic approach, considering the range of influences on the pupils' employability, which can include personal circumstances such as family situations or relationships with peers. They need to be approachable, sensitive, empathetic, supportive, understanding and non-judgemental. These softer skills are just as important as the harder, more career focussed ones.

6.24 The involvement of parents in the pilot has been limited, but there is anecdotal evidence of benefits where parents support the pupils towards a positive destination. Parents participating in the evaluation reported that they want to be involved in supporting their child. They want to attend a meeting with the ERP Adviser and their child and they also want to receive a progress report. In future ERP Advisers should contact parents when the child becomes involved in the pilot and keep them involved through meetings and progress reports.

6.25 ERP Advisers have organised a range of activities aimed at raising awareness of and overcoming some of the psychological barriers to entering further education, employment and training. College visits, work experience, GRfW events were highly valued by pupils and these should become a feature of ERP provision in each school.

Integration within the school

6.26 School "buy in" is crucial for ensuring a sufficient number of appropriate referrals and carving out time for pupils to participate in ERP activities. Where ERP Advisers have the full support of the school, in particular the head teacher, designated senior management contact and Pastoral Care staff, they are best placed to work in a meaningful way with pupils. However there is no evidence that "buy in" leads to better SLDR outcomes. There needs to be strong leadership and support at both authority and school level for integration of the ERP approach into the school and alignment with other activity for young people who need more choices and chances.

6.27 As with any new initiative, buy in and the development of working relationships and practices has taken time. However, findings in year 2 show that in most schools, by the beginning of the second academic year, good progress had been made and the pilot was considered to have more or less bedded. The majority of schools valued the provision and there was evidence of significant demand for the continuation of something equivalent to ERP provision beyond the lifetime of the pilot.

6.28 Before provision is made available in schools the senior management team should be asked to demonstrate how they intend to maximise the impact of the support by integrating it into the school's infrastructure. Where schools fail to support this integration there should be a process in place to address this.

6.29 Similarly, schools need to know that ERP Advisers are working in a way that will maximise their potential to impact on negative destinations. At present the key contact in most schools does not have a good understanding of the level or nature of activity that is taking place. ERP Advisers should set out their delivery plan at the start of the year and provide regular reports to the senior management contact. This was something a number of schools asked to be built in to the ERP offer going forward. This would help to ensure that ERP Advisers are engaging in an appropriate level of activity, and secure a greater level of school buy in.

6.30 Where school buy in is greatest, this is usually because the key contact within the senior management team understands its potential to improve young people's outcomes and to improve school leaver destinations, and is therefore highly committed to the pilot and is motivated to work effectively with the ERP Adviser. Head teachers need to select the most appropriate member of the senior management team to be the named contact, for example, the senior manager with strategic responsibility for young people in need of more choices and chances, including Looked After Children.

6.31 Historically, school activity has tended to be strongly focussed on academic achievement and discipline. However, this approach has not worked for many of the ERP pupils and a different approach is required to enable them to have the best chance of a successful post-school career. The introduction of a Curriculum for Excellence, and the requirement to provide learning and support that meets the needs of every young person, will require a more flexible approach for some pupils. It is therefore important that schools move to implement Curriculum for Excellence in full including the recognition that there needs to be different priorities for different pupils. This has already begun to happen to varying degrees in some schools but is not universal. Local authorities and head teachers should take a strategic approach to the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence.

6.32 At present 9 of the 13 pilot schools have at least 3 Careers Advisers: the mainstream Careers Adviser; the Activate Adviser; and the ERP Adviser. Some schools suggested that there may be scope to combine some of the roles of the various Careers Advisers and so deliver a more co-ordinated careers provision. An alternative solution would be to ensure more effective co-ordination of the delivery of services of different careers staff, however schools are keen to keep the actual numbers of careers staff to a minimum.

6.33 The accommodation and I.T. requirements of ERP Advisers were not given sufficient consideration at the outset and in a minority of schools these issues persisted through the duration of the pilot. If the approach is to be rolled out further it is vital for its smooth introduction into schools that ERP Advisers are given appropriate accommodation, a telephone, a computer, and internet access from the outset. Their accommodation should be both accessible and visible to the pupils and pastoral care team.

« Previous | Contents | Next »