Signposting
Of the three main hub activities , signposting was most varied in its interpretation and delivery . Partnerships targeted their signposting activities at different audiences including : teachers , learners , parents and carers in targeted outreach schools / colleges ; hubs ’ ‘ cold spot ’ schools / colleges ; or all schools / colleges in their region . Partnerships also took different approaches to delivery including national signposting , signposting to targeted outreach schools , signposting to ‘ cold spot ’ schools , or a combination of these .
There was also variation in the number and combination of methods used to signpost , both between partnerships and for different audiences . Overall , pro-active signposting was considered more effective , with face-to-face / direct signposting to schools / colleges particularly favoured by some medium and smaller size partnerships .
Signposting strategies were designed based on whether partnerships aimed to become a central point of contact for outreach in their area . Partnerships aiming to become the ‘ signposting ’ hubs for outreach in their region referred to the hubs ’ websites as an opportunity to create a ‘ one-stop-shop ’ for outreach to support schools / colleges . Others pointed to the plethora of information already available and to the importance of existing relationships with schools / colleges and other outreach providers .
All partnerships had a communications strategy , and many spoke about the different campaigns and activities they had planned to promote the hubs and signpost . Most of these were already taking place as part of targeted outreach and tailored to include information on the hubs . However , hub-specific activities were also mentioned , including hub launch events , animations explaining the hubs , the use of social media and communications campaigns using live chat . Once more , promotional efforts differed significantly based on the target audience as well as on partnership size and stage of development ; for example , whether the partnership had an established brand in the region and / or existing relationships with the ‘ cold spot ’ schools .
Whilst some partnerships viewed signposting as central to their hub ’ s strategy and an opportunity to reach more schools / colleges , others were more sceptical . There were mixed views regarding the hubs ’ websites in particular ; all 29 partnership websites were up and running , but views differed on the relative importance and impact of these compared to proactive support and strategic engagement , as well as other signposting methods . This meant that only a minority of partnerships systematically promoted their websites , typically those who had placed signposting relatively central to their overall hub strategy and whose websites enabled the live delivery of outreach activities online . Overall , partnerships ’ websites varied considerably in terms of how comprehensive and up-to-date the information provided was .
Many partnerships did not record monitoring and evaluation data about signposting to the extent or comprehensiveness expected by the OfS and expressed a lack of appetite to do so . This was because they considered requirements to be unclear in what exactly was to be recorded or unfit for purpose , believed the burden of collecting this information outweighed the potential benefits or lacked the ability to collect relevant , accurate data from their websites . The lack of clarity and perceived burden of the monitoring and evaluation requirements for signposting activities contributed to lower buy-in as well as to the relatively low reliability and validity of the monitoring and evaluation returns , which can hinder the OfS ’ s and partnerships ’ learnings and improvement . Overall , there was a belief that meaningful monitoring and evaluation for signposting was difficult to achieve .
12