1

Profound employer engagement in education:What it is and options for scaling it upA report for the Board of Trustees of the Edge Foundation by Dr AnthonyMann and Baljinder Virk, Education and Employers Taskforce

Trustees of the Edge Foundation are committedto ensuring that the charity is responsible forlasting change to British education. They aim tosee all young people have access to highquality technical and practical education duringtheir schooling within an educational systemwhich has become more responsive tostrategic skills demand.

Edge has observed the strength of employerengagement in University Technical Colleges(UTCs) and Studio Schools and wishes toexplore ways of replicating this on a largerscale across both a potential new wave of non-specialist Career Colleges and more broadlyacross English secondary schools and colleges.Distinctive to the UTC mode of operation is thatemployers are involved across the breadth ofthe school experience, including curriculumdesign, the delivery of teaching and learning,careers support, professional development andgovernance. This is done in a spirit of genuinepartnership with teaching staff.

Edge’s trustees are consequently interested inhow such profound engagements might bemost efficiently and effectively extended to thebroader English educational experience.

This report aims to provide a critical review ofresearch and public policy literatureconcerned with the characteristics ofengagement between employers and schools,focusing on school provision for the age group

11-18: it does not examine provision in FurtherEducation Colleges or Apprenticeships.

Most of the literature reviewed for this reportconcerns employer engagement in activitieswhich support pupil progression (eg careersinformation and preparation for work). Theseactivities are more common than employerengagement in teaching and learning orinstitutional operation. They also tend to be‘superficial’: episodic, non-iterative and limitedto narrow aims and purposes. The review findsevidence that such activities can conferbenefits. The impact of deeper forms ofengagement is less well researched, but theearly experience of UTCs and Studio Schoolssuggests that ‘profound’ engagement mayhave significant benefits in terms of studentmotivation, achievement and progression.There is also important evidence from CareerAcademies in the USA which points to improvedlabour market outcomes for participants.

The paper begins by exploring in detail what‘profound’ engagement looks like, what it canbe expected to provide to young people andtheir institutions, and barriers to scaling upcomparable levels of engagement across otherparts of the English education system. Thepaper includes descriptions of a number ofcurrent approaches to employer engagementand ends with a brief overview of options forachieving profound engagement in schoolsother than UTCs and Studio Schools.

2

University Technical Colleges (UTCs)represent a new and distinctive institutionalform of educational delivery aimed at youngpeople aged 14 to 18. That said, theirapproaches to institutional governance andadministration, teaching and learning, andsupport for young people’sprogression draw on elementsof practice already established inthe UK and overseas. Central tothe UTC approach is a strongfocus on work-related learningand employer engagementacross school life.

The typical range of activitiesfound in UTCs can be clusteredacross three broad but coherentareas of school life: teachingand learning, pupil progressionand institutional operation (seethe table, right: adapted fromSheffield UTC).

The pattern of employerengagement found in UTCs is –

● – stretchingacross a wide range ofactivities and involvingboth staff and pupils

● – engagingindividual employers inmultiple activitiesrelevant to young peoplethrough their schoolcareers

● – anaccepted part of the UTC culture,regularly encountered by students andstaff alike.

In the context of English education, this canbe described as ‘profound’ engagement. Itstands in contrast to the relatively ‘superficial’levels of employer engagement encounteredin most English secondary schools.

Profound engagement is further identifiablethrough three distinguishing characteristics:

● Staff and pupils within atypical UTC would be expected toengage with employers on

than peers across widersecondary education.

● Staff and pupilswithin a typical UTC would be expectedto engage with employer across a

thanpeers across wider secondaryeducation.

● Employerengagement within a UTC would beexpected to sit firmly within coherentapproaches to teaching and learningand pupil progression. It is part of the

of the organisation.

Section 1: ‘Profound’ employer engagement in education

Teaching and learning

Employers are involved insupporting learning across all keystages and a wide range of subjectareas, through:● Curriculum design and review

● Project design and delivery

● Work-related learning resources

● Classroom presentations byemployees

● Business mentoring

Pupil progression

Employers are actively supportingprovision across all key stagesenabling effective careerexploration, employability skilldevelopment and access toexperience of value to post-schoolprogression:● Work experience/Job

shadowing/managed PTemployment

● Workplace visits

● Careers activities

● Enterprise activities

Institutional operation

Employers support school opera-tion through active participation in:● Governance

● Staff development

3

Profound engagement can be seen as a through a structured arrangement,

an individual employer or small number ofemployers provide pupils and staff with accessto multiple contacts relevant to specificobjectives. However, it is also an end in itself; itis itself an of the school’s culture.

The first UTC – the JCB Academy inStaffordshire – opened in 2010; the second,the Black Country UTC, opened a year later.So far, therefore, these are the only two toreport examination results. Early resultssuggest that students achieve well in theirchosen specialist subjects and are able toprogress to further learning, Apprenticeshipsor work. There are indications, too, that atleast some UTC students achieve betterresults in core subjects – particularly Englishand maths – than predicted by their previousschools.

In addition, the first report of a longitudinalstudy (Malpass and Limmer, 2013) suggeststhat UTC students welcome their strong andfrequent links with employers:

Students felt that their experience ofstudying engineering was greatlyenhanced by the involvement ofindustrial sponsors. Students valuedthe involvement of employers andwere impressed by the authenticity ofindustrial engagement:

Looked at from an institutional perspective,the historic engagement of English schoolswith employers in general can be seen as

– not uncommon, but low volumeand largely focused on ‘pupil progression’ –that is, introducing pupils to the world of work.Only a minority of schools have routinelyengaged employers in supporting teachingdirectly or through providing teachingmaterials or support to senior managers(Mann & Percy 2013; Edcoms 2007).

Over the last decade, almost all Englishsecondary schools engaged employers tosupport work experience. Other commonactivities include workplace visits andenterprise competitions – activities which canbe described as episodic, short duration andrarely integrated into curriculum delivery.

This is reflected in a 2011 YouGov survey ofyoung adults aged 19 to 24 for the Educationand Employers Taskforce, which showed, forexample, that just 15% had engaged withemployers on three or more occasionsthrough such activities as work experience,workplace visits, career events, enterpriseeducation or business mentoring whilst theywere at school (Mann & Percy 2013).

By extension, teaching staff (including seniorleaders) rarely encounter employers and donot see them as natural partners in eitherteaching and learning or institutionaloperation. Employers do not sit alongsideteachers as they design the curriculum; theyare not regularly involved in deliveringcurriculum projects; and they are notautomatically included on governing bodies.

Compared with profound engagement,therefore, superficial engagement is typically:

● episodic

● non-iterative

● limited to narrow aims and purposes

● ‘bolted on’ rather than ‘embedded’: itis not part of the school’s culture

4

Since the 2010 general election, schools havebeen experiencing a period of dynamicchange. Department for Educationrequirements regarding careers provision andwork-related learning have changedsignificantly: requirements at key stage 4 havereduced while and 16+ expectations (keystage 5) have increased. National fundingenabling low cost access to employers hasalso changed radically. In such a period offlux, it is difficult to establish full data oncurrent practice. However, considerableinformation is available on recent and historicpractice in schools and it is possible to drawconclusions and inferences relevant to futurepractice.

Initial conclusion: UTCs are unusualTaking account of schools’ engagementacross a breadth of activities and volumes ofemployer contacts, the UTC experience canbe seen as exceptional. Relatively few otherinstitutions approach the same level ofengagement with employers. Those which doinclude former specialist Business andEnterprise schools, Studio Schools and highperforming independent schools (Huddlestonet al 2012).

Looked at more closely, UTCs reflect notablyintense engagement in two areas: teachingand learning, and institutional operation. Thecase of teaching and learning is especiallystriking with UTCs demonstrating outlyingpractice in their systematic approaches toengaging employers in bringing classroomlearning to life through presentations,workplace visits and use of learning resourcestied to curriculum delivery. This is seen, inparticular, in project design and delivery,where employers set projects or ‘challenges’based on real-life examples, support studentsas they find ways to tackle the challenges, andtake part in assessing outcomes.

If UTC practice is to influence otherinstitutions, therefore, the area whichdemands the greatest attention is integratingemployers into classroom teaching.

5

Section 2: Does employer engagement make adifference to young people?Employer engagement in education has beenactively promoted for many decades, both inEngland and elsewhere. As a subject,however, it is surprisingly poorly researched.

In 2008, the then Department for Children,Schools and Families commissioned andpublished a review of UK and US literature intoevidence of impacts on young people, mostspecifically in terms of academic attainment.The review, conducted by researchconsultancy AIR UK, highlighted the paucity ofreliable studies:

There is no shortage of literature onemployers and/or businessinvolvement in education. Much of thisliterature, however, was excluded fromthe scope of this review, mainlybecause it is largely anecdotal …, ornot evaluated to even modest scientificstandards. There is a particularshortage of studies of employers’ linkswith education that have used robustresearch designs … that can providerobust evidence of an impact. Manystudies are descriptive and/or arebased on single group before and afterdesigns without a true comparator….Another weakness of the studies in thisarea is that they have small samplesizes with low statistical power. This canlead to either inconclusive findings orto erroneous conclusions. (AIR UK,2008)

The review finally identified 15 UK and USdifferent studies linked to 10 differentprogrammes which provided sufficientevidence for judgements to be made on theeffectiveness of employer engagementapproaches in creating measurable andmeaningful positive benefits for youngpeople. All these studies were found toinclude evidence of benefits to young peoplein terms of either attainment or employment-related outcomes, but to a generallyunquantified extent.

Since 2008, a number of important studiesusing reliable methodologies havedemonstrated impacts relating to labour

market outcomes, attainment and attitudinalchange (Kemple 2008; Mann & Percy 2013;Percy & Mann, forthcoming; Miller 2011;Athayde 2012).

While the subject remains poorly understood,a small pool of resources does now exist,allowing reasonable judgements to be madeabout the characteristics, impacts and deliveryof employer engagement in education. Inaddition, a small number of serious researchstudies have looked at the impact of employerengagement in supporting institutionaloperation (governors and staff development).A critical mass of evidence is still lackinghowever. For a summary of literature in thearea see Mann with Stanley and Lopez (2010).

Employer engagement ineducation: the benefitsOver recent years, many governments andinfluential commentators have movedtowards a consensus that contact with theworking world should be an essential, coreelement of secondary education provision.Internationally, the approach has beenchampioned by the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Developmentand an influential team at Harvard University(OECD 2010; Symonds et al 2011). In England,from September 2013, it became arequirement of 16-18 provision (particularlyvocational and vocationally-relatedprogrammes of study) that pupils undertake aperiod of work experience. The LabourOpposition seems to be moving towards asimilar policy, albeit starting at 14-16 (SkillsTaskforce 2013).

Such policy developments have drawn upon agrowing body of research which has pointedto wide ranging benefits accruing to youngpeople. Research has focused around twoimportant outcome areas: enhancing pupiltransitions from full-time education intosustained employment; and improvingacademic attainment. While we must acceptlimitations on the availability and reliability ofdata, this body of research permits us to ask

6

whether employer engagements which canbe described as profound – high volume,varied in character, strategically integrated –make a meaningful difference to theoutcomes observed.

There is strong evidence that on average,teenagers who have direct experiences of thelabour market, whether through their socialnetworks and/or directly through part-timeemployment, go on to achieve

as young adults.Analysis commissioned by the Department forEducation, drawing on evidence fromlongitudinal databases, shows, for example,that young people who combine full-timeeducation with part-time work at the age of16/17 are more likely to be in some kind ofwork at the age of 18/19 than those who juststudied full-time (Crawford et al, 2011). Theformer group, moreover, have a lowerprobability of becoming NEET up to five yearslater, compared to those who just study full-time.

These findings are in line with evidence fromthe US which found that those working parttime in combination with full-time study insenior grade (aged 17/18) go on to betterfuture earnings and occupational successthan comparable peers (Ruhm, 1997). Suchanalysis has led the OECD (2012) and the UKCommission for Employment and Skills(UKCES 2012) to endorse the value of teenagepart-time employment as a means ofsupporting better school to work transitionsfor young people.

While teenage part-time employment islinked with better ultimate outcomes, itcannot be relied on to fully prepare youngpeople for their working lives, especially asaccess to work varies considerably bygeography and strength of individual socialnetworks. As UKCES (2012) made clear in itsdescription of the ‘death of the Saturday job’,teenage access to part-time employment hasdeclined rapidly in recent years. While a

generation ago, half or more of teenagerscombined part-time working with theirschooling, the proportion has more recentlyfallen to a quarter (Hodgson & Spours 2001;Dustman & van Soest 2007; Hobbs &McKechnie 1998). The decline promptsheightened interest in whether schools andcolleges are able to provide alternative meansto secure experiences of comparable, or evengreater, value to teenagers within theeducation system.

Intuitively, the later employment benefitsderived from teenage part-time work may beexplained in terms of accumulation oftechnical or employability skills through directlabour market experience. However,evidence also suggests that young peoplecommonly gain access to valuableinformation about the jobs market and theirpotential participation within it throughmeeting working people. Jokisaari’s 2007study of the early employment experiences ofyoung Finnish workers found that those whoincluded employees with supervisoryresponsibilities within their informal advicenetworks in the last years of schooling didbetter in their first years in work thancomparable peers.

Considered from a US perspective,MacDonald et al (2007) found that teenagerswith wide social networks to adults outside ofschool and family, including employers, weresignificantly more likely to do well in work asyoung adults than their comparable peers. Inboth cases, the researchers argue that whatyoung people gain from their contacts in theworking world is not simply work experienceor skill development, but access to new oradditional (and reliable) sources ofinformation about the world of work, theopportunities it has to offer and their potentialplaces within it. [In sociological terms,employer networks are seen by researchersas extending the social capital of youngpeople.]

This suggests that school-mediated employerengagement might enable teenage exposureto the labour market on a more systematic

7

basis, challenging individual, geographic andsocial inequality in access to local labourmarkets. The 2008 review by AIR UK(mentioned earlier) found that whereevaluated programmes did not contribute toincreases in attainment, enhancements werefound “in terms of preparedness for work,developing job and work skills, improvingwork-based competencies, attitudes andbehaviours, enhanced employability andhigher initial wage rates” (AIR UK 2008: 6).

Recent research by Mann and Percy (2013)has looked for the first time for evidence oflabour market benefits being linked toemployer contacts facilitated by schools.Young adults aged 19 and 24 were askedabout their current positions in the jobmarket. Current employment status andearnings were then matched to participants’experiences of school-mediated employerengagement. The researchers were able tocontrol for the potentially distorting effects ofage, gender, social background and highestlevel of attainment. The analysis showed thatyoung adults with higher levels of school-ageemployer contacts were, on average, up to20% less likely to be NEET at the time of thesurvey and, if in full-time employment, to beearning 18% more than comparable peerswho had less exposure while at school (Mann& Percy, 2013; Percy & Mann, 2014). The studysuggests very strongly that a higher level ofemployer contacts, as is characteristic ofprofound engagement, does – on average –give young people advantages in earlyadulthood.

One influential explanation is that youngpeople use first-hand employer contacts togain trustworthy, additional information aboutthe labour market and how it might relate totheir own aspirations (OECD 2010). Incomparison to advice from family and friends(which can be seen as narrow in scope, butreliable in content) or advice from the mediaor internet (broad in scope, unreliable incontent), first-hand employer contacts canoffer access to information that is broad aswell as reliable (see Mann and Caplin 2012;Deloitte 2010). Consequently, schools are

very well placed to help young people accessa broader range of reliable insights across thebreadth of the labour market, compensatingfor social inequalities and enabling access atpoints of strategic importance to youngpeople.

A number of recent longitudinal studies haveexplored the impact of teenage confusionabout the actual educational requirements forentry into preferred jobs. Findings suggestthat the very many young people (andparticularly those from disadvantagedbackgrounds) whose career ambitions aremisaligned with educational expectations aresignificantly more likely to experience periodsof later unemployment and go on to earn lessin adulthood (Staff et al 2010; Yates et al 2011;Sabates et al 2011). While further research isrequired to confirm the link, it would be alogical and intuitive step to hypothesise thatyoung people gain access to valuableinformation from their employer contactsallowing more informed decision-making, andso making better progress, through the longjourney from education into sustainedemployment.

A series of US studies provide validatingevidence and help explore two furthercharacteristics of profound employerengagement: variation in activitiesundertaken and strategic integration intoteaching and learning. Most striking is the2008 review of the US Career Academiesprogramme (Kemple 2008).

Career Academies* are a form of “schoolwithin a school”, supporting high schoolstudents aged 15-18. They offer a project-based style of learning rich in work-relatedlearning and employer engagement. LikeStudio Schools and UTCs in England, theAmerican Career Academies model isessentially a mainstream academicprogramme delivered in the context of areasof vocational interest (eg engineering or IT),rather than a training programme focused ontechnical skill development. The CareerAcademy programme is also reminiscent ofan Advanced Diploma.

8

A 2007 study compared the experiences ofCareer Academy students and peers whostayed on mainstream high schoolprogrammes, and used statistical analysis toidentify distinguishing characteristics. Thestudy found that Career Academy studentswere significantly more likely to engage withemployers across a wide range of activitiesthan their peers and that this was the principaldistinguishing feature of their (atypical)learning programmes (Orr et al 2007)*.

The study is important because it provides ameans to understand the findings of what isthe single most compelling study into the longterm employment outcomes associated withsuch profound employer engagement ineducation. Published in 2008, the studyfollowed a sample of 1400 young people fromschool into early adulthood. In the last yearsof high school, all young people in the samplehad applied to join Career Academies; halfwere admitted by a process of randomassignment, while the other half followedmainstream high school programmes,providing an ideal control group. The twogroups left school with comparable levels ofacademic attainment, but by age 26, formerCareer Academy pupils earned, on average,11% more than their control group peers(Kemple 2008).

This is not an isolated example. Three otherAmerican studies also tracked young peopleinto the early labour market and comparedemployment outcomes for Career Academyalumni to control groups. Each identified wagepremiums averaging 6.5% to 25% amongCareer Academy students (Jobs for theFuture 1998; Applied Research Unit ofMontgomery County Public Schools 2001;MacAullum et al. 2001).

US studies provide limited detail toexplain why such programmes should be

associated with these compelling employmentoutcomes. Studies of some recent Englishlearning programmes do, however, offeruseful insights and some consistent messages(McCoshan & Williams 2002; O’Donnell et al2006; Ofsted 2009; Ofsted 2010; Lynch et al2010).

These studies suggest that young people usetheir school-age contacts with employers togain better insight into the labour market anddevelop understanding, skills and networksrelevant to future employment prospects.Employer engagement supports moreinformed career exploration and providesresources of value to ultimate occupationalentry, a process which can be seen tounderpin a better matching between thedemands of employers and supply of youngrecruits. Where matching – by interest,expertise, attitude – is strong, it can behypothesised that employers gain benefitsincluding improved staff retention andproductivity; such gains are acknowledged inpay premiums.

In a labour market which is widely agreed tohave become significantly more complex overthe last two generations, access to suchresources would allow more informednavigation of the myriad choices open toyoung people as they move througheducation and into the early labour market(OECD 2010; Symonds et al 2010).

Finally, although most studies have looked attransition to employment, there is emergingevidence that work experience plays a part insupporting admission to higher education(Jones 2012) – which implies that it may be asbeneficial to high-achieving pupils as to thoseplanning to enter the world of work soon afterleaving school or college.

9

Young Apprenticeships were introduced by the Labour Government. They weretaught at key stage 4 over 1-2 days a week with 50 days’ workplace experience builtinto delivery. Academic subjects such as English, maths and science, were studiedalongside the chosen vocational subject. Young Apprenticeships were aimed atmiddle and higher ability learners.

Employers saw the programme in a positive light. They considered that it benefitedstudents because they:

● saw relevance in their school studies to the world of work

● sampled various aspects of the industry before committing themselves to full-time employment in it

● understood the progression routes post-16 leading to a career in thevocational area

● gained experience and training in real working environments

● developed an understanding of how the industry works

● gained a detailed insight into the high levels of technical skills required insome vocational areas

● developed skills and attributes which made them more employable, includinga willingness to learn, interpersonal skills through working with adults in thework place, communication skills, teamworking, good timekeeping andattendance.

Employers also identified benefits in the programme for their own organisations. Inyoung apprentices they saw young people who were developing the skills andaptitude to progress in their industry. The young apprentices would join the labourmarket with desirable skills and an understanding of different aspects of thevocational area. These would enable them to make a fuller contribution to anorganisation when they entered full-time employment. Employers in somevocational areas saw the programme as a means of introducing more able studentsto vocational areas which they might not otherwise have considered. Theprogramme opens up a progression route into further education, training andemployment for able students whose strengths lie in their aptitude for high levelpractical work or who have strong interpersonal skills. Some employers also usedthe programme for assessing and recruiting potential employees. Young apprenticeshave gained employment as a result of successful work placements.

(Ofsted 2007, 12-13)

10

Less is known about the relationship betweenemployer engagement in education and

. Studies are fewer and results lessconsistent. However, it is reasonable to expectthat employer engagement improvesattainment for many pupils to a meaningful, ifsmall, extent.

To start on what may seem to be a negativenote, none of the reports considered by AIRUK provided evidence of attainment actually

. This is an important considerationgiven that time involved in undertakingemployer-linked activities could be used fortraditional teaching – the hours associatedwith two weeks’ full-time work experience, forexample, are broadly equivalent to the timeallocated to teaching for one year of a GCSEsubject.

More positively, eight of the reports reviewedby AIR UK provided evidence of attainmentimproving, but to generally an unclear extent.The most tangible evidence can be found inthe work of Andrew Miller (1998), looking atthe effect of business mentoring on the GCSEattainment of randomly assigned borderlinepupils: this study found an average increase inattainment of 4%.

A review of literature suggests that pupilsrespond in differing ways to engagementswith employers. Teacher focus groups andsurveys undertaken by the Education andEmployers Taskforce (Mann 2012) indicate thatpupils best placed to benefit from boosts inattainment following employer engagementactivities tend commonly to be previouslylower and especially borderline achievers.Teacher focus groups tend strongly to theview that attainment benefits relate primarilyto improved motivation: engagementactivities, notably work experience andbusiness mentoring, serve as ‘wake up calls’for a significant proportion of pupils whoreturn from employer interactions with astronger sense of the connection betweenclassroom activities and occupationalambitions.

The case of work experience is illustrative. In a2012 NFER survey of 700 teachers with first-hand experience of pupils going onplacements at either key stage 4 or 5, 68% ofrespondents believed pupils returned to theclassroom more motivated; just 6% believedthem to be less motivated. Asked whetherincreased motivation might have an impact onthe likelihood of borderline pupils gaining 5GCSEs at grades A*-C, half believed it would(Mann 2012).

Other surveys of teaching staff have revealedsimilar results (eg Mann & Dawkins 2014). Andpupils agree: 90% of 15,025 key stage 4 pupilspolled in 2008 agreed that as a result of theirwork experience they understood better whyit was important to do well in school and 89%agreed that they were prepared to workharder in lessons and on courseworkfollowing their placement (NEBPN survey,2008). In response to both questions, half ofpupil respondents strongly agreed with thestatements. This begs the question of whethersome of the positive benefits of workexperience have been lost, given thattraditionally placements have taken placeright at the end of Year10 – just as studentsare about to start their long holiday.

Returning once more to the AIR UK review, aclutch of reports examined outcomes relatedto the Increased Flexibility Pilots (IFP) for 14-16year olds – a precursor of the Diploma andYoung Apprenticeship programmes, rich inwork-related learning (Golden et al 2004,2005, 2006; O’Donnell et al 2006). Accordingto AIR UK, “having employers as visitingspeakers, and having them on the steeringgroup of the IFP partnerships, contributed tostudents gaining higher qualifications” (AIR UK2008, 3).

While IFP was designed to be of particularbenefit to lower achievers, comparablepedagogic approaches have been found tohave been of benefit to the full range oflearners. The National Foundation forEducational Research/University of Exeter2010 review of Diploma provision, for

11

example, found high teacher and employerregard for a style of learning highlycomparable to that experienced in UTCs:

The employers interviewedcommented on the positive manner inwhich Diploma students hadresponded to their involvement withwork related learning, in some casescontrasting this with the less thanenthusiastic response of studentswhom they had encountered in non-Diploma related work experienceweeks. This was only a small sample ofemployers and they possibly hadresponded because their experiencehad been positive, but it may also havebeen that for the Diploma learners,there was a greater sense of therelevance of their engagement withemployers to the course they weretaking. For the employers therealisation that their involvement hadbeen both useful and enjoyable for thestudents helped to make the wholeexperience worthwhile, and perhapsthe message about the positive effectson both sides of this targetedintervention could be spread morewidely to encourage greater employerinvolvement with Diploma delivery. Itwas also the case that the employersnearly all referred to the twin benefitsto their own organisations of thisengagement: building a relationshipwith the young people who might betheir future work force, and providing avaluable service to their local

community which provided goodpublic relations (Lynch et al 2010, 67).

Given the high likelihood of employers,teachers and pupils self-selecting toparticipate in this style of teaching andlearning, perspectives such as this should betreated with a degree of caution.Nevertheless, pupil polling consistentlyreveals very high levels of desire for heavieremployer engagement in education within acontext of learning more closely related tovocational realities (Osler 2010; Lord & Jones2006; YouGov 2010; Ipsos MORI 2009; City &Guilds 2012; Hopkins 2008).

Research suggests that young people whoexperience a wider range of employerengagement activities are likely to secure awider range of outcomes than peers withnarrower experiences. This is becausedifferent activities are understood by teachersto offer pupils different experiences of value.A 2012 Taskforce/Pearson survey of 390secondary school teachers who had witnesseddifferent forms of work-related learning andemployer engagements interrogatedteachers’ perceptions of the outcomes. Thestudy found a clear perspective that differentcombinations of activities served to supportdifferent objectives. Enterprise competitions,for example, were seen as most likely toenhance problem solving and team workingskills; pupil volunteering in the communityand workplace visits were held to provide thebest opportunities to develop self-management; and work experience enabledunderstanding of the world of work (Mann &Dawkins 2014).

12

Section 3: Barriers to large scale employer engagementin education

Over the last generation, employerengagement in education at some scale hasbecome commonplace within Englisheducation. In 2009/10, some 400,000workplaces offered work experienceplacements to more than half a million youngpeople. Historically, pupils in fewer than 10%of English state secondary schools have notbeen expected to go out on such placements.It should be noted, moreover, thatindependent schools and Further EducationColleges have also chosen to engage withemployers to support pupils (YouGov 2010;Huddleston et al 2012).

In principle, therefore, employer engagementin education has become part of the fabric ofthe English educational experience. However,the apparently high volume of activity is stilllargely ‘superficial’: engagements withemployers are infrequent and largelydisconnected from the core teaching andlearning experience of most pupils and theirteachers. As noted earlier, just 15% of youngadults recall more than two employercontacts of any type while at school.

That should not detract from a legacy ofconsiderable willingness on both sides tocollaborate, should circumstances encourageand allow it. Polling data tells consistentlystrong messages that employers, schools andlearners see collaboration as beneficial andwant to see more of it (YouGov 2010; CBI2013; Edge 2007; CIPD 2012).

From the employer perspective, surveys showa widespread appreciation of the importanceof working with schools and a belief that suchcollaboration will help young people to leaveeducation better prepared for the workplace(CIPD 2012). On the other hand, mostemployers have historically engaged withschools to only a limited extent, whichsuggests that there are barriers to moreprofound levels of engagement.

Levels of engagement vary considerably byemployer size (the largest employers engagethe most, and micro-businesses the least),

sector (public sector employers engage atmuch higher levels than the private sector)and economic area (with lower levels ofengagement found in manufacturing,construction, IT and creative and mediaindustries) (Mann 2012; YouGov 2010; Edge2007).

Survey data commissioned by the CBI, UKCES,the Edge Foundation and Department forChildren, Schools and Families, highlightthree primary barriers preventing moreemployers from engaging with schools.

Surveys of employers reveal that in spite of aninstinctive willingness to help local schools,many feel unsure of what they can or shoulddo, and how to go about it. While someemployers have complained about excessivebureaucracy in working with schools, notablyin terms of health and safety requirementslinked to work experience placements, manyalso call for greater guidance and clarity inunderstanding what their role should be.

Of course, employers could simply contacttheir local schools directly. However, they areunlikely to know who to ask for, what to say orhow they could best support the schools’ ownpriorities.

For thirty years from the early 1980s,successive governments funded a nationalinfrastructure of local Education BusinessPartnerships (EBP). These varied in size, reachand structure: some were based within theirlocal authority while others were stand-alonecharities or unincorporated partnerships.Again, employers – especially those operatingacross many local authority areas – oftenfound it difficult to work out who to contact.More recently, central funding for EBPs hasbeen withdrawn, leading to a patchwork quiltof provision – while some areas still haveEBPs, others do not.

13

Perceptions may also be affected byemployers’ experience of work placements.Work experience placements represent by farthe most common employer engagementwith schools, and are also considered themost demanding call on employers’ time andenergy (a point explored further, below).

Proposals to engage employers, at scale, incurriculum design and delivery need toaddress such anxieties by breaking downengagement into understandable andachievable inputs. In engaging with schools,employers incur costs, mainly in staff time; thishas a bearing on the level of support offeredby small firms, which are least able to absorbthis level of commitment, compared withlarge employers and the public sector whereeconomies of scale and broader conceptionsof public duty help to drive behaviour.

There is evidence, however, that manyemployers over-estimate the demands ofemployer engagement. Strikingly, employerswhich already work with schools consider theprocess to be much easier than employerswhich have never done so (YouGov 2010 74;DCSF 2010). Where employers work with abroker to engage with schools, moreover,evidence shows that they take part in a widerrange of activities than when working directlywith schools, suggesting that active supportfrom a broker makes it easier to extendparticipation across school life (Edge 2007).Bringing employers into initial contact withschools through small, relativelyundemanding activities can consequentlyprovide foundations for more profoundengagements later.

Comparatively few employers are likely toproactively seek out opportunities to work withschools. Engagement with education is not, asyet, integrated into the core of business life.The employers most likely to reach outproactively are those which rely heavily onrecruiting school leavers, have a vested

interest in working with education – or a well-developed policy on corporate socialresponsibility – and have dedicated in-housestaff to support partnership working.

That is not to say that a majority of employersare reluctant to get involved; rather, theyneed to be asked. While surveys confirm thewidespread willingness of employers to domore to support schools, they also highlightthat very many have simply never beenapproached (UKCES 2013; YouGov 2010; CBI2013). There is clearly an untapped resourceof employer goodwill waiting to be accessed,and direct approaches are required to openup this latent interest.

Significant resource has been expendedhistorically in identifying willing and ableemployers and linking them into individualschools. The fact that over 400,000 employersprovided work experience placements in2009-10 proves that direct approaches dowork. Yet the fundamental challenge remains:how best to reach employers and engagethem in more than a few, largelydisconnected, activities?

A third barrier emerging from surveyevidence is that employers have a relativelyshallow understanding of the potentialbenefits of working with schools. Clearly manyemployers feel that it is a ‘good thing’ to workwith schools, and this may be enough formany. There is also evidence that employeevolunteering with schools brings significantstaff development and recruitment benefits.However, schools engagement has nottraditionally sat at the heart of HR policy: this issomething that the Chartered Institute forPersonnel and Development is working hardto change.

For employers then, information deficits doexist – they can be better informed about thereality of working with schools and theevidenced benefits accruing to themselvesand to young people.

14

English schools work within a dynamic policyenvironment. Government policy haschanged significantly with regard to employerengagement, as has support for drivingeffective practice and access to volunteersand workplaces. The complexity and pace ofchange inevitably limits our understanding ofschools’ behaviour.

Available evidence does, however, suggestthat the volume of employer engagement atKey Stage 4 has declined (though it may haveincreased at Key Stage 5) and that fourprimary, related barriers are encountered bysecondary schools as they decide on levels ofprovision.

Until March 2011, secondary schools inEngland could expect to be offered low cost,often free, access to employers through thenetwork of Education Business Partnership(EBPs) mentioned above. Focused aroundprovision of work experience placements andother forms of work-related learning(including enterprise education), EBPs made iteasier for schools to access employers at littledirect cost. The data quoted above indicatethat work experience became the norm inEnglish secondary education.

Following the 2010 general election, thegovernment repealed the statutoryrequirement to offer work-related learning aspart of the Key Stage 4 curriculum andannulled the ring-fenced budget for EBPactivities. Since 2011, therefore, schools whichhave chosen to maintain programmes(including work experience) have had to meetthe necessary costs from their own budgets.And while EBPs continue to operate in someparts of the country, elsewhere they havefolded, leaving schools to manage all aspectsof employer engagement themselves – whichis typically more expensive because of theloss of economies of scale (Mann 2012).

For schools in 2013, the costs associated withengaging employers can be a barrier. This isaffected by both the finite budgets available to

schools and the staff time needed to createand maintain links with employers. Withincreases in real costs come increases in theneed for better information to help schoolsappreciate what young people are likely to getout of their employer contacts and determinewhether good value will be achieved fromparticular activities. In the absence of localsupport structures, alternative means arerequired to win the confidence andenthusiasm of classroom teachers.

Schools have long been concerned over thedifficulty of accessing the right people andopportunities across the economiccommunity (Edcoms 2007). As they havebecome more active customers in themarketplace for employer engagement, itcould be expected that teaching staff becomemore discerning about the types ofengagement they feel to be of value. Thisbehaviour does appear to be emerging, notleast as teachers question whether employerengagement is necessary or appropriate forall students, or just some.

This points to a dual trend. On the one hand,the total volume of activity might actually godown – for example, fewer schools routinelyarrange work experience for all pupils in KeyStage 4 than was the case three to five yearsago. On the other hand, where teaching andlearning is enriched through employerengagement, the demand for volunteer inputwill grow – as will the demands placed onthose volunteers. Paradoxically, it is easier tofind employers to deliver large volumes ofwork experience placements (because workexperience is well known and easy to explain)than to find a smaller number of people withexactly the right skills and experience tosupport particular aspects of curriculumdelivery.

Work-related learning programmes piloted inthe first decade of this century werecommonly overseen and supported by formalpartnerships. Typically employers wereengaged at a high level in the initial design of

15

work-related learning as well as in its actualdelivery. Such partnerships required – andreceived – resourcing to ensure theireffectiveness. Since 2011, there have beenalmost no ring-fenced budgets for this kind ofactivity, the main exception being for activitiesconnected with science, technology,engineering and maths (STEM subjects).

Many schools have reduced work experienceprovision since 2011. In surveys, schools saythe biggest obstacle is finding the rightplacement. The second most cited issue is thatthe government is believed to have droppedthe requirement for work experience duringKey Stage 4.

In fact, work experience was never a statutoryrequirement – the law required schools tooffer during Key Stage4, of which work experience was just oneexample – albeit the most common by far.

Following publication of the Wolf Report onVocational Education, the statutoryrequirement for work-related learning wasrepealed. At the same time, the governmentmade clear its expectation that post-16students – especially those following full-timevocational study programmes – should beoffered work experience.

Professor Wolf has publicly argued* thatemployer engagement is very valuable topupils at pre-16, but in policy terms, norequirements now exist and only very limitedpublic funding outside of school budgetssupports and enables access to effectivepractice and resources. It is now very muchfor school leaders to decide whether to investtime and resource in employer engagementactivities. In short, levers are no longer pulledin Whitehall, but in 3,500+ secondary schoolsand Further Education colleges. Availableevidence is limited, but points in a clear

direction – that in this new environment, thevolume of employer engagement at 11-16 isfalling (Coiffait 2013; Pearson 2012).

In order to move towards deeper and broaderemployer engagement across key stages 3and 4, it is necessary to address the keyconcerns of school leaders in their newdecision-making positions. The requirementfor becomes muchstronger across the board, in terms of bothultimate pupil labour market prospects, butalso their engagement with school andacademic achievement. For schools,moreover, operating in a new and unfamiliarmarketplace with emerging and rebrandedproviders offering a wide range of potentialengagements, it becomes important that theyare able to navigate the market, drawing ontrusted advice from organisations like theDepartment for Education, Ofsted and theAssociation of School and College Leaders.

Ofsted has criticised the provision of impartialcareers information, advice and guidance inmany schools (Ofsted 2013), and has called forbetter links between schools and employers.In addition, information is now beingpublished on the destinations of pupils oneyear after leaving school. These developmentsmay drive greater levels of schoolengagement with employers, but this can beexpected to concentrate more on the needsof post-16 students and those forms ofemployer engagement historicallyunderstood to enhance careers explorationand progression (work experience, careersfairs, workplace visits). Schools are less likelyto prioritise activities more closely related toteaching and learning or organisationaloperation – the things most associated withprofound employer engagement. Freshapproaches are consequently needed inorder to capture the attention and confidenceof classroom teachers.

16

A further common refrain from schools is thatspace for employer engagement is beingcrowded out of a secondary curriculumfocused around higher levels of GCSEattainment, particularly in the EnglishBaccalaureate subjects. The tightness of thecurriculum also works against the project styleof learning typical within UTCs.

That said, many classroom teachers may stillto be open to using work-related approachesto support classroom learning, if the right caseis made. A survey in 2004 showed that acrossa wide range of subjects (including English,Maths, Science, Design and Technology, ICT,Geography, Art and Design, Citizenship, PSHE,Careers education) majorities of classroomteachers saw the usefulness of such real-world resources. Only in a minority of coresubjects (History, Music, Modern ForeignLanguages, PE and RE) did majorities ofclassroom room teachers fail to see theusefulness and in each case significantproportions did actually make use of suchteaching approaches (QCA 2004, 13).

The barrier, therefore, is to be found inidentifying and enabling new means by which

teaching staff can easily and confidentlyengage employers within learning processesin ways with are readily integrated intodemanding teaching programmes.

In thinking about barriers preventing moreprofound levels of engagement betweenschools and employers it is important todisaggregate the range of different potentialactivities in which the two sides cancollaborate. We must also appreciate that thedemands on, and benefits felt by, schools andemployers do vary.

The Chartered Institute for Personnel andDevelopment (2012) researched theperceptions of 780 HR professionals abouthow demanding different employerengagement activities are on employers. Theresults, set out below, demonstrate a strikingrange of opinions. It is noticeable that theactivity perceived to be most demanding(work experience) is also the one mostcommonly experienced – suggesting thatsome employers may have a distorted view ofthe demands of school engagement.

Staff going into schools to talk about theirorganisations or the jobs they do

2.72

Staff volunteering to be reading or numberpartners (usually at primary schools)

2.84

Staff volunteering to take part in enterprisecompetitions

2.88

Staff volunteering to give mock interviews/CVfeedback

2.93

Staff volunteering to be governors 3

Job shadowing 3.03

Staff volunteering to be mentors 3.06

Workplace visits 3.08

Organising work experience 3.27

17

Equally, when looked at from the perspectiveof young people or employee volunteers,different outcomes are likely to be securedfrom participation in different types of activity(Mann & Dawkins 2014; Corporate Citizenship2010). As a significant study undertaken by theCity of London Corporation has shown,different volunteering activities serve todevelop different professional competenciesand skills in different ways. For example,being a school governor is seen as very usefulby HR officers in developing individualadaptability, communication, leadership andplanning and organisation. Acting as a pupilmentor builds skills more in the areas ofproblem solving and building relationships(Corporate Citizenship 2010). From a teacherperspective, too, forthcoming research to bepublished by CfBT highlights the differingvalues ascribed to different types of employerengagement to support different outcomesfor different types of pupil.

There is widespread willingness across bothemployer and educational communities towork more closely together. However, thereare considerable barriers on both sides.

In the current policy and funding climate,barriers will be overcome only if –

● It is easy and free (or very low cost) toestablish links between schools andemployers

● Business cases (on both sides) aresharp, support wider organisationalobjectives and are widely understood

● Schools ask for help, rather thanwaiting for employers to volunteer.

Change must be driven from the chalkface.Schools are unlikely to suddenly andfundamentally change their teaching styles inthe absence of clear government direction,but they can be expected to respond toincremental increases in employerengagement linked to teaching and learningwhere delivery models are relevant andsupport wider aspirations and concerns.

Where new practice is encouraged, it needsto be presented to schools and employers in amanner that gets through the blizzard of dailybusiness. It must also be trustworthy; foundedon facts, not anecdotes. As we have seen, thebenefits of engagement arerelatively well-known and well-evidenced; thebenefits of engagement need to beequally well-known and well-evidenced.

18

Section 4: Means and models of delivery employerengagement in education

Government policy for engagingemployers in educationThere are many reasons why policymakerspromote employer engagement in educationbut the four primary objectives are:

1. improving pupil general preparationfor the working world

2. addressing labour market skillsshortages

3. enhancing social mobility

4. improving pupil engagement andattainment (Stanley et al, 2014).

Since the 1980s, governments of all politicalpersuasions have publically committed toencouraging, enabling and increasingemployer engagement in education. Duringmost of that period, debates have focused noton whether it is desirable, but on the best wayto achieve it.

The Labour approach to employerengagement in education developed rapidlyover the first decade of the twenty-firstcentury. In 2004, the government legislated torequire the provision of work-related learningduring Key Stage 4. This meant learning

, or work. This could, andvery often did, include work experience.Accountability frameworks for checkingschool compliance were, however, generallyweak.

On top of this general commitment, newlearning programmes were developed, mostnotably Young Apprenticeships and Diplomas,which required systematic employerengagement in curriculum design andteaching. Public funding was put in place tochampion what was seen as effective practiceand to source employers to work with schoolsacross England across multiple objectives: forexample: educational achievement, skillsshortage flow, career exploration, enterpriseculture and social cohesion. Funding of £25mper annum was channelled to local

authorities, which often provided additionalresource, to support a national network ofsome 150 Education Business Partnerships.

The Labour approach was largely discontinuedafter the 2010 election. On the back of theWolf Report, the statutory requirement forwork-related learning in Key Stage 4 wasrepealed and the great majority of nationalfunding was cut and/or devolved to schools,leaving them to make their own decisionsabout employer engagement.

Conversely, the government has made it clearthat work experience should be provided topost-16 students. However, policy objectiveshave narrowed with placements largelyexpected to support transitions into work forthose young people not progressing to highereducation; work experience is seen as a keyelement of programmes of study for studentsfollowing full-time vocational programmes ofstudy. In the case of students on more‘academic’ level 2 and level 3 programmes,including A levels, the guidance is moreequivocal:

Students on ‘standard’ level 2 and level3 programmes, including A levelstudents, may also benefit fromperiods of work experience. This maybe as an integral part of their StudyProgramme or in addition to theirnormal study (for example, duringschool and college holidays).(Department for Education, 2012)

Schools and colleges are also encouraged tosupplement work experience placements witha wide range of related employerengagement activities. Schools and collegesare now ‘expected [to] increase theirengagement with employers’, through suchactivities as workplace visits, enterpriseprojects, mentoring, work shadowing andcareer-focused workshops.

Public funding has continued to support STEMeducation through DBIS’s support forSTEMNET. The School Governors’ One-Stop

19

Shop continues to support the recruitment ofemployee volunteers to act as schoolgovernors.

More widely, the 2013 Ofsted report oncareers information, advice and guidance(IAG) identifies employer engagement as akey part of effective careers provision: thismight be expected to lead to increased focuson employer engagement to support thestatutory requirement to provide access toimpartial IAG at all levels of secondaryeducation. The publication of destinationsdata may also help raise school and collegeinterest in the labour market.

Emerging Labour Party policy has called forthe reinstatement of work experience in KeyStage 4 (Skills Taskforce 2013). Across thepolitical spectrum, however, the emphasiscontinues to be on work readiness and careerprogression, not enriching teaching andlearning across the curriculum.

Will current government policy lead toprofound engagement across secondaryeducation?The current trend, as it is best understood onthe basis of limited evidence, is for declininglevels of employer engagement withinsecondary schools at 11-16. At 16+, higherlevels of engagement can be expected,particularly in subjects and levels of studyseen as being of greatest vocationalrelevance to direct entry to the labour marketat 18. Whether educational interest extendsbeyond the provision of work experience andinto broader areas of teaching and learningand organisational operation remains verymuch to be seen. The above analysis suggestsstrongly that in the absence of strong, fundedgovernment action to drive school practiceand facilitate access to employers, progresstowards profound engagement will be morelimited.

Nevertheless, progress is by no meansunlikely. A number of different organisations,new and old, exist to support different levelsof engagement and a brief analysis, below,highlights opportunities presented to levergreater levels of collaboration.

Employer engagement in education as atransactionIt may be obvious to state, but in essence, toenable greater levels of employerengagement in education, someone in aschool needs to connect with someone in aworkplace and agree upon a course of action.Historically, that ostensibly simple process hasbeen undertaken in a number of differentways with different levels of cost involved. Themeans of connection can be judged in termsof efficiency and effectiveness:

: how much does it cost toenable the school andemployer to complete anactivity of meaning to pupillearning, progression ororganisation operation?

: as a quality judgement, howclosely does theactivity/intervention support theachievement of outcomes forwhich employer engagement ineducation is undertaken?

Clearly, management, monitoring andevaluation costs arise in the process ofsecuring high quality provision. In addition tothe costs of finding and connecting people inschools and workplaces, there are a smallnumber of fixed costs which someone mustpay for – health and safety checks, forexample, where required by work experienceplacements, or CRB/DBS checks for businessmentoring. Economies of scale will oftenreduce such costs.

20

Models through which schools andemployers engageThere are four dominant models currently inuse to help the two sides work together.

For those who have worked in this field forsome time, the brokered model is arecognisable historic form of practice: local ornational intermediary organisations sourceemployers and make them available toschools and colleges to support specificactivities and initiatives – work experienceplacements, enterprise days, STEM clubs etc.Examples of brokers include EducationBusiness Partnerships, STEMNET, YoungEnterprise, the School Governors’ One StopShop, Career Academies UK and YoungChamber. These organisations employ paidstaff to identify, recruit and support employeevolunteers and schools, giving rise to costswhich have to be met either from centralfunds (STEMNET, SGOSS) or through chargespaid by schools and colleges (EBPs, CareerAcademies UK, etc).

While brokers can be very responsive to theneeds of individual schools, much provisioninvolves the delivery of large scaleprogrammes which schools buy in (eg theorganisation of work experience placements),or – in the case of STEMNET, which is fundedby DBIS – make use of. To put it another way,some brokers offer an extensivemenu of options, but they more commonlypresent schools and colleges with a morelimited menu.

The Business Class model, as funded nowlargely by the UK Commission forEmployment and Skills and operated byBusiness in the Community, provides avariation on the brokered relationship. Basedon initial discussions overseen by local paidstaff between a lead local business and asmall consortium of schools, a wide range of

potential engagements are explored acrossthe range of school life. Employer resourcesare sourced to meet the articulated needsand desires of each participating school. Toreturn to the restaurant metaphor, BusinessClass offers schools a bespoke buffet. Unitcosts may be higher than for the standardbrokered model, but the effectiveness ofprovision (meeting the explicit and specificneeds of individual schools) might be greater.

Inspiring the Future offers a new model ofconnecting employers and schools. Ratherthan brokering a relationship on behalf of aschool, a national gateway (a secure website)recruits employers who provide details ofthemselves and the types of support they arewilling to offer (eg careers talks, readingpartners, joining governing bodies). Teachingstaff search the database for people in theirlocality who can offer what they need. Theweb site enables them to contact employersdirectly. Given the reduced need for staff tobroker specific activities, costs are significantlylower than traditional brokerage, and asteaching staff play a more direct role inchoosing volunteers, it can be expected thatprovision may more closely align with schools’immediate objectives.

It is becoming more common for schools andespecially colleges to invest in their own staffresource to find and work with localemployers. Studies suggest that this is typicallya more expensive means of accessingemployer engagement than brokered models(Mann 2012). The cost and time commitmentsare greater than in other models, so while thequality of engagement secured may be high,the net volume of activity may be reduced. Itshould be noted, too, that schools operate invery wide ranging social geographies and thatease of access to employer contacts will vary;consequently, so will costs.

21

ConclusionsOptimal conditions under whichprofound employer engagementmight be best securedTo move towards profound employerengagement, levers need to be pulled whichenable high volumes of varied activity which isstrategically integrated into school provision,enabling close collaboration across teachingand learning, pupil progression andinstitutional operation.

As set out above, barriers need to beaddressed in order to tap into strong latentinterest on both sides. The principal needsrelate to and

on potential activities and theirimpacts.

Recent changes to policy and practice in thefield of employer engagement seem likely tonarrow the focus of employer engagementonto work preparation, including careers IAGand (post-16) work experience.

From Edge’s point of view, the biggest gap –but also the area with the biggest potential totransform employer engagement ineducation – is in the area of teaching andlearning. In the absence of clear governmentrequirements and funding, the question canbe put quite simply:

There is no single answer. Possibilities include:

Both sides are willing to engage, but won’t goout of their way to do so. A single gatewaymight be a good starting point – providedschools and employers know about it and findit easy and reliable. The marketing advantageof having a single national website to whichemployers and schools can be signposted isclear. To operate at volume, schools andindividual teachers need to have access to abroad array of potential partners and

volunteers to secure inputs of directrelevance to pupil learning.

If the style of learning offered by UTCs is tobecome commonplace, it must be made easyand relevant to classroom teachers. Theyneed to see its relevance to the subjects theyteach. Employer support must be tangible,reliable and available at the exact time it isneeded, whether planned a long time inadvance or ‘just in time’. Pressures need to berecognised, including curriculum time andperformance cultures. There must be clearevidence that activities will save time, notwaste it; and will boost results, not be adistraction. Opportunities for engagementmust be flexible and include one-offworkplace visits or classroom talks as well aslonger lasting engagements.

An unregulated market is rapidly emerging inthe provision of careers information, adviceand guidance and employer brokerage.Existing trusted channels of communication,for example the teaching unions and subjectassociations, may well be more acceptable toschools and teachers than glossy newventures.

Money will always be a barrier to connectingthe two sides at scale and costs must beminimised if significantly increased levels ofengagement are to be achieved.

Arguments for change in school andemployer practice still need to be won.

In UTCs – and to some extent, Studio Schools– employers are engaged in organisationaloperation and teaching and learning to agreater extent than anywhere else in theschool sector. While high levels of latentinterest exist elsewhere, it cannot beexpected that fundamental changes inprovision will be undertaken lightly, especiallyat Key Stage 4: the stakes are too high.

Evidence is always the best starting point forpersuading people to change the way they

22

work. As noted already, there is goodevidence that ‘superficial’ forms of employerengagement bring benefits. Evidence of thebenefits of profound engagement also exists,higher volumes of engagement in morecommon areas of activities are associated withbetter outcomes, but is more sparse. UTCsand Studio Schools are a test-bed forprofound employer engagement and couldoffer important insights into the impactemployers can have on teaching andlearning, institutional organisation andstudent progression. Longitudinal research –such as that being conducted by Malpass andLimmer – should be encouraged, supportedand disseminated.

Energy is also required to address thereasonable and predictable concerns ofteachers and school leaders. In addressingreluctance to change, significant scopeemerges for clearer, well evidencedmessages about the benefits stronglyassociated with profound engagement. Goingthrough existing trusted channels will improvethe chances that messages will be heard.

Finally, from the employer perspective it isimportant to increase understanding of therange of opportunities available for workingwith schools – and the likely benefits toschools, young people and employers alike.

ReferencesAIR UK (2008)London: Department for Children Schools and Families.

Applied Research Unit (2001). Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public

Schools.

Athayde, R. (2012) ‘The impact of enterprise education on attitudes to enterprise in young people: an evaluationstudy.’ , 54, 709-726.

CBI (2009)

CBI (2010) .

CBI (2013) .

CIPD (2012) . London: Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development

City & Guilds (2012)

Coiffait, L. (2013) . London: Pearson

Corporate Citizenship (2010). City of London Corporation

Crawford, C., Duckworth, K., Vignoles, A. & Wyness, G. (2011). London: Department for Education

Deloitte (2010) . London: Educationand Employers Taskforce

DSCF (2009) . London: Department for Children, Schools andFamilies

Department for Education (2012), Study Programmes for 16- to 19-year-olds: Government response to consultationand plans for implementation. London: Department for Education

Dustmann, C., & van Soest, A. (2007) “Part-Time Work, School Success and School Leaving” 32:277–299

Edcoms (2007) London: Business in the Community.

Edge Foundation (2007)

Golden, S., Nelson, J., O'Donnell, L. & Rudd, P. (2004).. London: Department for Education and Skills

Golden, S., O’Donnell, L. & Rudd, P. (2006) London: Department for Education and Skills

23

Golden, S., O’Donnell, L., Benton, T. & Rudd, P. (2005). London: Department for Education and Skills

Hendry, E. & Sharpe, T (2013)

Hobbs, S., & McKechnie, J (1998) “Children and Work in the UK: The Evidence” in, ed. Pettitt, B. London: Child Poverty Action Group.

Hodgson, A., & Spours, K (2001) “Part-Time Work and Full-Time Education in the UK: The Emergence of aCurriculum and Policy Issue” 14 (3): 378 – 388

Hopkins, E. A (2008) “Work-related learning: hearing students’ voices” 16(2): 209-219

Huddleston, P. & Laczik, A. (2012) ‘Successes and challenges of employer engagement: the new Diplomaqualification’ 25, 403-421

Huddleston, P., Mann, A., & Dawkins, J (2012), . London:Education and Employers Taskforce

Huddleston, P. & Stanley, J., eds. (2012) . London:Routledge

Ipsos MORI (2009)

Jobs for the Future (1998) . Boston,MA: Jobs for the Future

Jokisaari, M. (2007) “From newcomer to insider? Social networks and socialisation into working life” ineds., Helve, H, & Bynner, J. London: Tufnell Press

Jones, S (2012) London: Sutton Trust

Lynch, S., McCrone, T., Wade, P., Featherstone, G., Evans, K. & Golden, S (2010). London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Kemple, J. with Willner, C. J. (2008). New York: MDRC.

Lord, P. & Jones, M (2006)National Foundation for Educational Research.

MacAullum, K., K. Yoder, K. Scott, & Bozick, R. (2002) Washington, DC: National Institute for Work and Learning.

McDonald, S., Erickson, L. D., Johnson, M. K. & Elder, G. H (2007) “Informal Mentoring and Young AdultEmployment.” 36: 1328–1347.

Malpass, D., & Limmer, H (2013).. Manchester: AQA Centre for Education Research and Policy

Mann, A. (2012) London: Education andEmployers Taskforce

Mann, A. & Caplin, C (2012). London: PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Mann, A. & Dawkins, J (2014) . A report for CfBT

Mann, A & Glover, C (2011) "The point of partnership: the case for employer engagement in education",, 10 (1): 21 – 27

Mann, A., Lopez, D. & Stanley, J (2010). Second Edition. London: Education and Employers Taskforce

Mann, A. & Percy, C (2013) ‘Employer engagement in British secondary education: wage earning outcomesexperienced by young adults’. DOI:10.1080/13639080.2013.769671

McCoshan, A. & Williams, J (2002) . London: Department for Education and Skills

Miller, A (1998) . London: Department for Education andEmployment.

Miller, S., Connolly, P. & Maguire, L (2011). Belfast: Centre for Effective Education, University

of Belfast.

24

NEBPN National Support Group for Work Experience (2008)Department for Children, Schools and Families.

O’Donnell, L., Golden, S., McCrone, T., Rudd, P. & Walker, M (2006). London: Department for Education and Skills

OECD (2010) . Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OECD (2013) . Paris: Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development

Ofsted (2007) . London: Office for Standards inEducation, Children’s Services and Skills

Ofsted (2009) . London: Office forStandards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills

Ofsted (2010) . London: Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills

Ofsted (2010) London: Office forStandards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills

Ofsted (2013) . London: Office forStandards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills

Orr, M. T., T. Bailey, K. L. Hughes, G. S. Kienzl, & Karp, M. M (2007) “The National Academy Foundation’s CareerAcademies: Shaping Secondary Transitions” in , ed. Neumark, D. New York,NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Osler, A (2010) . Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

QCA (2004) London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

Pearson (2012) . Unpublished survey for the Education andEmployers Taskforce

Percy, C. & Mann, A (2014) “School-mediated employer engagement and labour market outcomes for youngadults: wage premia, NEET outcomes and career confidence” in Mann, A., Stanley, J. & Archer, L. eds.,

London: Routledge.

Plymouth Manufacturing Group (2013).

http://www.plymouthmanufacturers.co.uk/file/publications/Employer%20engagement%20with%20education%20-%20final%20report%2002%2013.pdf. Accessed: 10.08.13:16.12.

Ruhm, C (1997) “Is High School Employment Consumption or Investment” , 15 (4): 735-776.

Sabates, R., Harris, A. & Staff, J (2011) "Ambition Gone Awry:  The Long-Term Socioeconomic Consequences ofMisaigned and Uncertain Ambitions in Adolescence" 92(4): 959-977

Skills Taskforce (2013) . London: LabourParty

Staff, J., A. Harris, R. Sabates & Briddell, L (2010) “Uncertainty in Early Occupational Aspirations: Role Exploration orAimlessness?” 89 (2): 1–25

Stanley, J. & Mann, A (2014) “A theoretical framework for employer engagement” in Mann, A., Stanley, J. & Archer,L. eds., . London: Routledge

Stanley, J., Mann A. & Archer, L (2014) “Introduction” in Mann, A., Stanley, J. & Archer, L. eds.,. London: Routledge

Symonds, W. C., Schwartz, R. B. & Ferguson, R. (2011)

. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Graduate School of Education

UKCES (2012) . London: UK Commission for Employment and Skills

Yates, S., A. Harris, R. Sabates & Staff, J (2011) “Early Occupational Aspirations and Fractured Transitions: A Study ofEntry into ‘NEET’ Status in the UK.” 40: 513–534.

YouGov (2010) . London: Edge Foundation.

25

Dr Anthony Mann is Director of Policy and Research at the Education and Employers Taskforceand the author of numerous works on employer engagement in education. He is an AssociateFellow of the University of Warwick and sits on advisory boards of the National Foundation forEducational Research and Institute of Education. He joined the Taskforce in 2009 from theDepartment for Children, Schools and Families.

Dr Baljinder Virk is Senior Researcher at the the Taskforce which she joined in February 2013from the National Audit Office where she was a Senior Analyst.  During her tenure at the NAO,she contributed to the production of numerous education and employment related value formoney studies delivered to the House of Common's Public Accounts Select Committee andmemoranda to the Education Select Committee.

For access to many of the works cited in this report and wide ranging research resources onthe subject of employer engagement in education, please visit:www.educationandemployers.org/research

Published by the Edge Foundation, 4Millbank, London SW1P 3JA, 020 7960 1555

www.edge.co.uk

The Edge Foundation is a registered charityand company limited by guarantee.Registered in England. Charity number:286621.