However, measuring the success and quality of career guidance can be challenging.
The current system, based on the Gatsby Benchmarks, is weighted too heavily towards certain aspects of career guidance, failing to capture the full range of benefits that career guidance can provide, helping learners make more informed decisions about their future and inspire them to achieve new goals.
Are we measuring the right thing?
The Gatsby Benchmarks are a valuable framework for measuring career guidance success and quality.
However, some have argued that the system is not fit for purpose, as it is too weighted towards certain aspects of career guidance, such as the number of encounters with employers and employees.
Which begs the question, is the current Gatsby Benchmarks system fit for purpose?
Delivering an effective careers programme needs to be more than just a box ticking exercise for OFSTED.
The focus on outputs (e.g. the number of encounters with employers) rather than outcomes (e.g. whether the learner goes on to achieve their career goals), leads to a box ticking mentality, where providers focus on meeting the benchmarks rather than providing high-quality career guidance.
As the Department of Education is moving more towards measuring outcomes, does this need to be reflected in measuring the quality and impact of career guidance? The answer, yes.
Until success is measured in a meaningful way, focusing on outdated benchmarks is undermining the potential impact of career guidance.
Improving career guidance measurements
We’ve seen some welcome changes to the ways in which we measure career guidance with the implementation of the Gatsby Benchmarks in late 2017.
However, we are starting to see from the Department of Education that measuring outcomes is an important factor in determining success and quality and there are a number of ways to improve the way we measure career guidance.
A few changes that would deliver a more accurate framework for measuring career guidance success. These are:
First, we need to focus on outcomes rather than outputs. This means measuring whether learners go on to find meaningful employment, progress in their careers, and achieve their career goals.
Second, we need to develop a more comprehensive set of accountability measures that better reflect the role and responsibilities of career guidance counselors or the careers team. This could include asking graduates for feedback on their experiences and using this feedback to improve their career guidance provision.
Additionally, expand the methodology to include wider success measures. In further education though longitudinal outcomes remains underdeveloped as a tool, measuring earnings and other indicators of success such as promotion and progression, would give a fuller picture.
Finally, make the methodology more reflective of the quality of career guidance by removing negative outcomes which are out of the providers control, such as health or family issues.
All of the above is crucial to measure achievement and quality fairly and accurately.
This will lay the foundations for working out where support can be given to learners and where providers need to improve to help increase success rates.
The value of career guidance
The perception of the overall value of career guidance needs to be improved.
The current system for measuring success, particularly based on the Gatsby Benchmarks, is weighted too far towards outputs and fails to capture the full range of benefits that career guidance can provide.
A more inclusive approach should be implemented which recognises the breadth and responsibilities of all stakeholders.
Measuring career guidance in a meaningful way is essential for ensuring that learners receive the support they need to achieve their career goals.
The changes above would modernise the way we measure success and quality within career guidance, giving both learners and staff transparency and a wide range of information.