Annex D: Proposed Format of Report on MoD Engagement …
[pic]
Ministry of Defence
Engagement with
UK Schools
Survey by DGMC
December 2007
(School Year Sept 06 – July 07)
REPORT FOR USofS - MOD ENGAGEMENT WITH SCHOOLS
CONTENTS
1. Introduction: Background
a) General background p.4
b) Directives p.5
c) Remit p.5
d) Assumptions p.5
e) Overall aims p.5
2. Objectives: Methods of survey
a) Approaches to gain information p.6
b) Time frame for survey p.6
c) Veracity / reliability of data p.7
d) Quality of information sources p.7
e) Sampling and bias p.7
f) Period of sample p.8
g) Limitations p.8
h) External constraints p.8
3. Database:
a) Principal school activities p.8
b) Principal MOD stakeholders p.10
c) Range of school types p.11
4. Transformation of data: p.11
5. Discussion of results:
Comments on Survey Questions p.14
6. Analysis:
SWOT analysis p.23
7. Implications:
a) Sustainability of activities with schools p.25
b) Development of school activities p.25
c) Prioritising p.25
d) Costs p.25
e) Dynamics of the activities p.25
f) Influences on future performance p.25
8. Conclusions:
a) Related to aims p.26
b) Supporting policy and strategy development p.26
c) Degree of management by MOD at Centre p.26
d) Overall value to MoD / Armed Forces p.26
e) Need for Cadet and Youth council to re-focus p.26
9. Recommendations:
a) Co-operation p.27
b) Co-ordination p.27
c) Accountability p.28
d) Governance p.28
e) Recording activities p.28
f) Sharing best practice p.28
g) Policies compatible with MOD Youth Policies p.29
h) Clear budgeting for youth programme p.29
i) Long term planning p.29
j) Regular review p.30
k) Standardisation of feedback p.30
l) Survey in schools to identify consumer needs p.30
m) Regular / annual evaluation of achievement p.31
n) Identify the value of school work for recruiting and reputation p.31
o) Establish clear responsibility for youth programme p.32
p) Branding, imagery, PR – to positivise public perceptions p.32
q) Dedicated website – Engagement newsletter p.32
r) All activities to show common communication objectives p.32
s) Links with OGDs p.32
10. Annexes:
1) Paper presented to Youth and Cadet Council – May 2007 p.34
2) Actions from Cadet and Youth Council Meeting – May 2007 p.41
3) Remit - Tasking letter from USofS p.45
4) Responses to questionnaire p.46
5) Summary version of this report – presented to USofS Jan 08 p.77
6) Cadet and Youth Council Management Structures p.83
Survey completed and compiled by:
Martin Hine
AD DGMC-Defence PR (Schools)
MB 85639
martin.hine143@mod.uk
December 2007
1. INTRODUCTION: Background
a) General background
i. Our overall rationale for engaging with schools is to encourage good citizenship, provide an environment which raises awareness of the MOD and Armed Forces among young people, provide positive information to influence future opinion formers, and to enable recruiters to access the school environments. In addition, our engagement demonstrates active support for Government Youth Policies and also provides skill development for young people in schools.
ii. The impact of not engaging with schools is not easy to measure but would certainly result in reduced awareness and understanding of the work of the MOD and Armed Forces, with a negative long term impact on reputation and, potentially, for recruitment. There would also be wider negative implications relating to cross-Government policies by reducing communications with students from ethnic minority groups.
iii. MOD and Armed Forces have engaged with young people (aged 6-22 years) over many years and in many ways. Since 2002 the very significant involvement with young people outside of the Cadet Forces, especially in schools, has been recognised by the Cadet and Youth Council. DRFC developed a Policy in 2004 (agreed by Youth and Cadet Council in 2006) to recognise three pillars supporting Defence non-recruiting Youth Activity – Cadets, Partnership Youth work, and Curriculum activities (mostly within schools). Awareness of the large numbers involved in the latter two pillars has increased as better internal communication and sharing of information has developed. All three pillars support teachers in schools alongside a considerable Service recruiting presence. Engagements occur both on site and outside school premises – e.g. as visits to MOD sponsored museums, agencies and Single Service establishments.
iv. The focus of engagement with schools for many years has been on cadets, enhanced from 2002 by Defence School Presentation Teams, “We Were There” exhibition and lately the Defence Dynamics education programme. In addition the recruiting organisations have created a huge variety of opportunities for teachers to adopt quality skill-developing activities for their students.
v. A short review of Defence engagement with schools was carried out in 2006. The potential for making fuller and more effective use of curriculum resources and activities within schools was recognised. What was clear, pragmatically, was that whilst much was going on there appeared to be insufficient co-ordination (of inputs and outputs) and little overall (i.e. MOD-wide) management and prioritising of those activities. Also there appeared to be a need to distance “recruiting” from other “youth and curriculum” activities since the former appeared to be alienating some teachers and preventing Defence messages reaching some students. It was felt that much more could be achieved in raising awareness of the work of MOD and Armed Forces, enhancing the professional reputation of personnel and raising the bar for recruiters if a broader view could be taken of the range of activities being provided. Thus Director Defence PR raised a paper for the Cadet and Youth Council Meeting in May 2007. In this paper (see Annexe 1) the key issues were raised, and a recommendation made that the range of MOD School Engagements be surveyed to inform USofS Defence of the status of this work. This report derives from the paper’s recommendation.
b) Directives
i. The Actions from the Cadet and Youth Council Meeting in May 2007 give directive to the Report (see Annexe 2). In summary these were:
• DGMC to lead review of MoD engagement in Schools to inform a future MoD Curricular Policy.
• The review to provide an opportunity to standardise activities and form a joined up approach with OGDs.
• To deliver clear direction for more effective engagement with schools and the youth sector.
• To identify where best to give financial and personnel support for maximum effect in the future.
• To give reassurance that there is sufficient co-ordination between the activities and sponsors and that the focus is correct.
c) Remit
i. USofS Defence tasked DGMC to organise a survey of engagement with schools. Director Defence PR instructed AD Defence PR (Schools) to carry out the survey and produce a Report by end-December 2007.
ii. The remit was to collect information across MOD, Armed Forces, MOD Agencies and Museums, OGDs, client Schools / Colleges, Cadets and other key stakeholders. (See Annexe 3). Tasking note copied to all three Services.
d) Assumptions
A number of assumptions were made about the nature of the survey and the nature of organisation of the School Engagement Activities:
i. That information would be readily available from all providers
ii. That information would be provided in a reportable format
iii. That information would be supplied by mid November
iv. That large organisations would know what and how their constituent parts contributed to the overall school engagement
v. That it would be difficult to obtain information from the smallest providers (including some Regimental Museums)
vi. That Recruiters might be reluctant to reveal to other Services how their engagement programme operated
vii. That all providers would be aware of current educational initiatives
viii. That quasi-independent MOD Agencies might be reluctant to contribute to the survey because of commercial (non-MOD) educational links
ix. That activity providers would be wary of the idea of more co-ordination
x. That little or no extra funding would be available for future school engagement Activities.
e) Overall aims
The overall aims of the survey in Schools / Colleges were to:
i. Provide accurate information on the range of MOD school engagement
ii. Assess the degree of co-ordination between activity providers
iii. Assess whether the focus of activities is correct
iv. Recommend a future MOD Curricular Policy -
o Give direction for more effective engagement
o Indicate how better to standardise activities
o Suggest how links with OGDs can be improved
o Suggest where best to give financial and personnel support
2. OBJECTIVES: Methods of survey
a) Approaches to gain information
i. In order to inform the review, providers and schools were surveyed to establish the extent of contact and value they derived. The stakeholders at the core of the survey were those known to AD Schools DGMC and AD Youth DRFC and thus they were the cohort contacted to complete the questionnaire survey. There were thirty two principal questions in the survey with up to 10 sub-sections per question (176 sub-sections in total).
ii. Data was returned by 47 organisations which showed total current contact with about 804,000 school students, mostly aged 8 – 19 years, in Schools and Colleges. An estimated additional 75,000 students were engaged by other known MOD stakeholders (no detailed returns supplied to survey) giving a gross total of around 880,000 students. If community cadets and other young people of school age working on Prince’s Trust and Skill Force programmes are added, the total rises to over 900,000 (equivalent to about 15% of the age cohort). A wider range of activities than expected was identified. They were found across the whole range of types of schools and colleges. The principal providers of school activities, in order of volume (year 06-07) were Single Service teams (mostly recruiters), Cadet organisations (CCF, ACF principally), Defence Schools Presentation Team, MOD Agencies and Museums and PUS’s FE Outreach programme. A summary of the detailed results is given below.
iii. Feedback from teachers and activity providers identified a number of key elements which could allow MOD to achieve the aims at para 1. These include provision of topical curriculum materials reflecting current activities, well-trained and motivated personnel to work in school environment who can communicate Defence messages and act as good role models, good publicity, advertising and marketing materials with a clear MOD educational brand, a central MOD information facility to advise schools on resources available, and also feedback and sharing of “best practise” among MOD providers. Schools desire longer term programmes and links. Greater co-ordination of activity across MOD, Agencies, Museums and Armed Forces with clearer policies and working strategies was also suggested.
b) Time frame for survey
i. Activity providers were given 2 months to supply information
Proposed time lines for DGMC Review of MOD Engagement in Schools
|Ser. |End Date |Activity |Notes |
|1 |15 May 07 |Cadet & Youth Council Mtg. Action statement to |USofS proposed DGMC lead review on MoD |
| | |give DGMC tasking for Report |engagement in schools. Report by December |
| | | |2007 |
|11 |19 Dec 07 |Outline Report sent to USofS | |
|13 |21 Jan 08 |Finished Report sent to USofS |Hard copy and electronic copy sent |
|15 |29 Feb 08 |Draft Policy and Strategy documents produced |Work with DRFC to prepare Policy and Strategy|
| | |from Report |documents for submission at Cadet & Youth |
| | | |Council Mtg for approval in May 2008 |
|17 |13 May 08 |Cadet & Youth Council Mtg |Policy and Strategy documents for Schools |
| | | |engagement raised for discussion |
c) Veracity / reliability of data
i. The reliability of data appeared to vary from source to source. There were clearly those stakeholders who held very precise and comprehensive records at one end of the spectrum and those who had an incomplete idea of the number of school students engaged over a broad sweep of activities at the other end. In general this reflected a difference between the smallest providers (precision of local Regimental Museums for example), and some of the largest providers (e.g. less certain statistics from those providing resources to schools via websites). The quality of this survey depended on the quality of returns from those providers. After the survey was completed and summary report circulated, several more existing activities were revealed by providers.
d) Quality of information sources
i. Most information was of good quality. Some data, based on interpretation of the work outcomes, including the evaluation of benefit to students on the MOD six point scale, was not regarded as being so reliable. Unfamiliarity with this scale and how to interpret the scale may have led to some inaccuracy. This evaluation technique had been presented at the previous MOD Youth Conference. However, broad comparisons were still possible. It is not known if any answers were completely false because as a first survey there is no base-line comparison available. It was clear, however, that the three Single Services put much effort into providing accurate data – especially laudable since this was the first survey set against a huge range of productive activity.
e) Sampling and bias
i. One objective of the survey was to confirm which parts of MOD and Armed Forces might be engaged with young people in schools. A 100% survey of stakeholders was proposed. No sub-sampling was anticipated. As the survey progressed evidence of previously unacknowledged activities came to light. Some of these could be measured in the survey whilst others could not be investigated in the time frame. Thus the survey recognises that it rests on “hunch” sampling and the bias of the reporter. It recognised that the real 100% was unknown and the survey hoped that it would have covered at least 80% of all MOD activities. Conclusions drawn are thus likely to be based on an incomplete and biased sample with a reliability factor of c.75%+ and estimates of total young people engaged. Future surveys will be more accurate since a baseline has now been established.
f) Period for sample data
i. Stakeholders were asked to produce information based on a one year period, the school academic year (August 06 to July 07) but some used the financial year (April 06 to March 07). Organisations with incomplete information during the last year made an annual estimate for the last year based on reliable figures from previous years. Two smaller Museums used the last calendar year (January 06 to December 06).
g) Limitations
i. The survey was limited by the time available and the prior knowledge of the range of activities and activity providers. The questionnaire survey was very comprehensive and may not have had enough focus on fewer key issues to get sufficient detail. Lack of a common time period from which to derive data and lack of experience of obtaining a uniform feedback from a wide range of contributors may have affected accuracy of the analysis.
h) External constraints delaying delivery of data
External constraints take a number of forms:
i. Suspicion by activity provider that information might be used by MOD / Y+C Council to produce negative long term effect on the activity.
ii. One Single Service provider appeared to delay delivery of information in case the other Services might gain a recruiting benefit from the knowledge of their activities.
iii. Frequent turnover of military staff made it difficult to re-establish initial contacts with some groups.
iv. Lack of urgency in completing the survey slowed down delivery of information – plus insufficient top-down information to task informants following the USofS tasking letter.
v. Lack of staff in smaller organisations led to some delay in getting information returned.
vi. A couple of smaller organisations had limited IT facility – which slowed information flow.
vii. Lack of clarity in instructions in filling in the forms.
viii. Limited time available to surveyor to complete the survey.
ix. Reduction in staff in DefPR Schools section, post July 2007, reduced contact time with activity providers and delayed production of report.
3. DATABASE:
a) Principal school activities
i. In terms of types of engagement by individual organisations with schools the activities are were broadly as follows, in descending order of significance:
- Presentations (37 out of the 48 organisations)
- Visits to site (36/38)
- Curricular (29/48)
- Careers, Motivational (22/48)
- Interactive (20/48)
- Sports (18/48)
- Work experience (12/48)
- Cadets, role play, website (10/48)
- Other (7/48)
- Mentoring (6/48)
[pic]
[pic]
ii. The main activities for the various organisations were as follows:
- Army Regimental Museums – Visits
- Agencies – Careers
- Defence Schools Presentation Teams – Presentations
- CCF & ACF – Presentations/Interactive
- PUS FE Outreach – Presentations
- Army (42 Regt, DART, Presentation Teams) – Presentations
- RAF Recruiting - Presentations
- RN recruiting - Presentations
- Army Recruiting - Curricular, Presentations and Careers
iii. Inconsistencies in relation to gathering of information on number of students – some providers appeared to have an inconsistent system of recording numbers e.g. DARA, Royal Engineers Museum, RAF Careers
b) Principal MOD stakeholders – showing no. of students engaged
Stakeholder Organisations returning information for survey
|Ser |Organisation |No. of School Students engaged |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |
|2 |DARA |NR (Est.: 500) |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |
|4 |Army Recruiting |403,884 |
|5 |Army DART |500 |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Museum |1900 |
|7 |Royal Welsh Museum |2400 |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers Museum |1125 |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers Museum |1000 |
|11 |REME Museum of Technology |1687 |
|12 |Gurkha Museum |1500 |
|13 |Black Watch Museum |750 |
|14 |National Army Museum |12,000 |
|15 |Military Intelligence Museum |100 |
|16 |Essex Regt Museum |1500 |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For Museum |1112 |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Museum |3400 |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Museum |2200 |
|21 |Royal Engineers Museum |NR (Est.: 4,000) |
|22 |CCF and ACF Cadets |43,000 |
|23 |Defence Schools Presentation Teams 2006/7 |30,000 |
|24 |RAF Careers visits |NR (Est.: 10,000) |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W England |36,500 |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 |
|35 |RN Museum |5000 |
|36 |RM Museum |3000 |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Schools Rugby competition |45,000 |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Museum |6621 |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colleges |400 |
|40 |Princes Trust |NR (Est.: 200) |
|41 |Skillforce |NR (Est.: 500) |
|42 |Other Agencies |NR (Est.: 20,000) |
|43 |Other Regimental Museums |NR (Est.: 40,000) |
|44 |Civilian Mentors in schools |NR (Est.: 100) |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website (est. 07-08) |60,000 |
|46 |Winchester Mil Museum |846 |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 |
| |Total school students engaged: |803,571 (+Est. 75,300=c. 878,871) |
(NR = Not Recorded by organisation)
c) Range of school types covered in the survey
i. All types of schools were covered in this survey including, Primary, Secondary, Sixth Form, and FE Colleges. Data also covered single sex, special needs and independent schools.
4. TRANSFORMATION OF DATA:
a) Summary Analysis of Returns
i. The total number of individual students engaged by MOD was 803,571, not including the estimated figures, (at 17-12-07) broken down amongst the main groups as shown below:
a. Army Regimental Museums engage 4% (29674)
b. Agencies is less than 1% (3551)
c. DSPT 4% (30,000)
d. CCF &ACF 6% (43000)
e. PUS FE Outreach less than 1% (1500)
f. RN is 16% (116456)
g. Army is 63% (461884)
h. RAF is 7% (48711)
[pic]
ii. Detail by type of organisation
1) Army Regimental Museums (14)
a. 29674 students ranging from 100 to 12000 per annum – average of 2120 based upon 14 museums
b. The main types of activity were as follows;
- Visits to the museums (13/14)
- Presentations ( 8/14)
- Interactive (8/14)
- Curricular (8/14)
- Websites (7/14)
- Work Experience (4/14)
- Other (4/14)
- Motivational(3/14)
- Cadets ( 3/14)
- Role play (3/14)
- Mentoring (2/14)
- Careers (2/14)
2) MOD Agencies
a. Returns from DSTL, DARA and DES
b. 3551 students ranging from 51 to 3500 per annum– average of 1184 based on these three agencies
c. Main types of activity:
Careers (2/3) Work Experience (2/3) Visits to site (2/3)
d. DSTL by far the most active in terms of engagement and involved in most types of activity.
3) Defence Schools Presentation Teams 2006/7 (MOD awareness visits)
30,000 students – main areas of activity were presentations, role play and curricular
4) CCF &ACF (School based – own students only)
43,000 young people based in schools – presentations/interactive work
5) PUS FE Outreach (Permanent Under Secretary’s Further Education College initiative)
1500 students – main areas activity were presentations, motivational, work experience, mentoring , visits to site, website, role play, curricular
6) Army
a. 42 Eng Regt (Geographic) is to provide field deployable geographic support to defence – specially trained staff and teams based in major Army headquarters and operations
- 3000 students - main areas of activity were presentations, Interactive, Sports, Work Experience, Cadets, Careers, Visit to Site, Role Play, Curricular
b. DART (Diversity Action Recruiting Teams)
- 5000 students – main activity was presentations – little/no reference to careers
c. Army Presentation Team – 50,000 students per annum – main activity areas were presentations, cadets and curricular
7) RAF Recruiting
a. 48,711 students contacted per annum ranging from 150 to 20,000 with an average of 8119 per RAF recruiting organisation.
b. Main areas of activity:
- Presentations (5/5)
- Interactive (3/5)
- Visits to site (3/5)
- Motivational, Mentoring, curricular (2/5)
- Sports, cadets, careers, Role play (1/5)
c. RAF careers covered the broadest range of activities – but did not appear to have recorded figures
8) RN Recruiting (information from 9 recruiting units)
a. 116,456 students per annum ranging from 2,000 to 45,000 with an average of 12,940 per RN unit.
b. Main areas of activity:
a. Presentations, Interactive, Visit to site (7/9)
b. Sports, Motivational, Careers, Curricular (6/9)
c. Work experience, role play (4/9)
d. Cadets, website (3/9)
e. Other (2/9)
9) Army Recruiting (information from 10 regional sources)
a. 403,884 students seen ranging from 15,339 to 77084 per region with an average of 40,388
b. Total of 403,884 students from 7334 activities gave an average of 55.07 students per activity
c. Main areas of activity were:
a. Curriculum support (3400 activities x 55.07 students = 187,238 students)
b. Personal development Activity (2787 activities x 55.07 = 153480 students)
c. Look at Life (1164 activities x 55.07 = 64101 students)
d. Army preparation course (278 activities x 55.07 = 15309)
e. Army careers exhibition (75 activities x 55.07 = 4130 students)
Items “b-e” were within the returns activity area of careers,
presentations, visits to sites, motivational, sports.
5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS:
a) Gross findings
A summary of responses to questions asked in the survey appears below:
COMMENTS ON SURVEY QUESTIONS
i.
|Number of staff involved? (Q4) |
|Great range in the numbers of staff from organisation to organisation (as there is in the amount of pay staff receive and |
|their level of commitment). Dstl have a large number of people engaged who may only be committed for a couple of days each per|
|year and the company pays their costs, smaller museums (e.g. Gordon Highlanders museum) will have few staff who are likely to |
|be working on a volunteer rota. At the other end of the scale are the full time recruiters working in each of the three Armed |
|Services. |
|There is a need to keep and increase the number of volunteers. More needs to be done centrally to train workers in schools (on|
|educational knowledge and presentation skills) to “sell” the MOD’s messages through raising awareness of the work of the MOD, |
|striving to enhance its reputation and providing enough information to school students to enable them to consider MOD / Armed |
|Forces as a career possibility. Everyone in contact with schools should work to common messages and imagery / branding to give|
|mutual support to the organisation. Some of the school contacts are contracted staff (e.g. for the RAF Maths and Science |
|projects) where the staff may not fully communicate the ethos of their employers without proper induction. Where possible full|
|time members of the Defence community should make contact with young people and staff in schools because they will best be |
|able to provide young people with information on the four Services and can demonstrate, through their presence, the |
|professionalism and commitment of individuals in the Defence community. |
ii.
|When does the activity occur? (Q9) |
|Mostly during term times but some work experience during school holidays and adventure training during holidays and at |
|weekends (e.g. CCF cadets typically have a week away at camp in the Easter and Summer vacations).Timings of many of these |
|activities is determined by the school – especially visits in term time. There is a tendency for visits and other some other |
|activities to be at the end of the school year (i.e. June-July) to fit with post exam period where often schools have a block |
|of time allocated to external events. More effort could be put into establishing more “hooks” for other times of the year in |
|order to spread the load. |
iii.
|Length of activity? (Q.10) |
|Great range in length of time that young people are exposed to MOD influences. This will normally range from a half hour talk |
|on careers or a presentation by an MOD agency as a local employer to maybe two weeks on a work experience posting or cadet |
|camp. Military Preparation Colleges may look after school students for up to a year, whilst young people in MOD funded |
|schools such as Queen Victoria School, Dunblane or those in Germany may spend up to seven years connected to the MOD. The |
|interaction may be a one-off event or, in the case of cadets, may be a regular two+ hours a week exposure for two or more |
|years. In almost all cases there is great opportunity to enhance the learning experience and convey more information about the|
|work of the MOD. A better design and use of audio-visual resources would help to make fuller use of the engaged time. An |
|example of good practice is RAF school sporting activities where in the short space of a basketball match at an RAF facility, |
|RAF symbolism is clearly displayed and Service personnel are encouraged to talk with the young people. |
iv.
|How many schools are linked to you? (Q.11) |
|The number of schools and young people linked to each organisation is largely related to the size of the organisation. Thus |
|the recruiting activities of the three Armed Services will have great interaction (Army recruiters meet about 400,000 school |
|students per year) whilst the small Black Watch Museum has regular links only with about 12 schools each year (c.750 |
|students). Both small and large organisations have a role to play in educating the public. School links with representatives |
|of the Armed Forces are often strongest, at a personal and emotional level, in the smaller units. Thus the Royal Welsh Museum |
|is seen as part of the local community, whilst the National Army Museum has a more general and detached link with students. |
|The nature of support given to the different organisations from the centre should be modelled according to the needs of the |
|organisations and a strategy established to maximise effective use of the contact time. For example subsidy might be given to |
|organisations in Wales to ensure that all communications material is produced in the Welsh language medium. Many of the |
|organisations could increase numbers of engaged students if more staff were available. At small cost it might be possible to |
|advertise for more local volunteers, say in museums and for cadets or to provide funding for more permanent staff at |
|educational sites such as museums. Many museum collections and educational resources for schools are underutilised because of |
|lack of staff. The more schools that are engaged with MOD the more students and staff will understand the work of the MOD on |
|the international scene. It is important to maintain a balance of activities that include a range of recruiting oriented |
|activities at one end of the spectrum and less-threatening general educational programmes at the other. Interaction of a local|
|military band with a nearby group of schools might engender more positive support for the military than a highly sophisticated|
|careers presentation. Pure numerical contacts with students and schools does not on its own display the quality of that link.|
|Often the perceived quality is higher in the smaller organisations. |
v.
|Reason for engagement? (Q.12) |
|There are many reasons for the existence of engagement with schools. In gross numerical terms the main driver is recruitment. |
|Other reasons include – raising general awareness of the work of MOD / Armed Forces, enhancing reputation, personal career |
|development, informing about the work of a local MOD base, raising professional skills of teachers and study skills for |
|students, raising awareness of veterans through school remembrance activities, and supporting the wider aims of the Government|
|Youth Policy. The Army, particularly has a huge careers liaison programme designed to make contact with as many young people |
|as possible, working closely with schools, who will request their visits. There are many other reasons given for visits but |
|many of these have implicit careers links and any positive image created by an engagement is likely to have a positive effect |
|in the recruiting environment. Indeed a range of different engagements, with ostensibly different purposes, for an individual |
|student will reinforce messages about the MOD / Armed Forces. It is important that all of those messages are positive, |
|mutually supportive and convey the same ideas. More needs to be done to improve awareness of the range of activities and |
|communications vehicles available so that better use can be made of current resources. A resource catalogue could be posted |
|for schools to identify what they might use as an enhancement to their work. It has been suggested that the RFCAs might take |
|some responsibility for disseminating this material at regional level and provide some after-use feedback to se if we are |
|achieving the purpose of our work. Central organisation and evaluation of the feedback is vital – this may be a function for |
|DRFC (working with DGMC on the style of communication and nature of messages we want to convey). Common materials could be |
|provided to all organisations to make schools aware of what MOD can provide through engagement and also to support / promote |
|through audio-visual resources awareness of the work of MOD, raise reputation, show career possibilities. The common materials|
|should have a common brand that is recognised in the educational environment because that increases confidence in the products|
|being marketed. Another important issue is that many schools are uncomfortable about taking in personnel from MOD / Armed |
|Forces because of their links with recruiting and unpopular activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Museums have been |
|particularly concerned with this and will emphasise the educational purpose of their establishments rather than a recruiting |
|link. Thus some recruiters package their work as citizenship programmes rather than pure recruiting. There are a few good |
|examples of educational work which are being accepted by teachers, in addition to that being contributed by museums. This |
|include the Science and Maths Mission packages of the RAF and Defence Dynamics website developed by Defence PR (DGMC). For the|
|latter, particularly there is an increasing demand for the high quality lesson plans. A lot of general awareness is developed|
|through Work Experience visits across all four Service areas. The exact numbers of this are unknown. Until recently it was a |
|widespread activity across most MOD civilian bases and several hundred students a year were involved with some central |
|supervision. This activity is now organised on a TLB and sub-departmental basis – lack of central control means that there are|
|no overall statistics and no coherent mechanisms are in place to raise awareness of the work of MOD and careers within MOD and|
|Armed Forces. It is recommended that responsibility for this activity is identified so that policies can be applied and we get|
|a better return from quite a large investment of personnel time. Schools regard us very positively for supporting their |
|students in this activity. |
vi.
|Where does engagement happen? (Q.13) |
|The engagements happen in a wide variety of venues. Museums host school visits, through their education officers, on site. |
|Staff may also give talks and take artefacts to schools to extend their footprint and encourage use of their resources. |
|Recruiters visit schools for talks, presentations and careers guidance. Individual students will go to Service bases and most |
|MOD buildings, for Work Experience. School (usually class Visits or CCF visits) groups may visit for one day or week long |
|activities. More opportunities should be taken to attract school students on to military bases. Popular visits are to ships in|
|harbour or at sea under the RN affiliation scheme. The positive return to MOD of visits like these should not be |
|underemphasised, especially where the young people have access to several serving personnel for casual conversation and |
|discussion. Increasingly the engagement occurs in cyberspace. Defence Dynamics accesses schools via the internet. The personal|
|communication factor is lost, but if the website is managed creatively then a favourable response for reputation and the |
|awareness factor can be achieved. Each service has an excellent website capable of providing information on the work that thy |
|do and availability of careers. |
vii.
|What age groups? (Q.15) |
|MOD engagements cater for a wide age range of students from 2-25 years old. The modal age group appears to be around 14-16 |
|years old (top of KS3 to KS4). Educational materials produced by the cadet organisations, museums some agencies and Defence |
|Dynamics are very specifically targeted and have to meet stringent syllabus criteria to be used by the school. Over the modal |
|age there is less overall interest in making contact with young people for careers purposes but more for raising general |
|awareness and improving reputation (future politicians and newspaper journalists etc.). One exception to this is the Military |
|Preparation Colleges where post-GCSE students are engaged for a year by the Army to improve on school achievement levels in |
|Maths and English. There is little doubt that more work could be done with students aged 9-12 years as this age cohort is very|
|receptive to new ideas and still relates easily with adults. More work can also be done with the gatekeepers – helping to run |
|INSET courses (especially in teamwork and motivational skills) to encourage teachers to take a more positive attitude into |
|inviting Armed Forces personnel into schools to work with their students. Another good target to facilitate market penetration|
|is teacher training colleges where keen young teachers may, more readily take up many of the offers made available through the|
|broad MOD schools engagement activities. Until recently the three Services tended to communicate and work with broadly |
|different age bands – traditionally the Army 14-15, RN 15-16, RAF 16-18, reflecting the different technical competencies |
|required. In the last year more overlap has occurred and this may mean that more management of the overall scheme for school |
|engagement visits may be required so that a broad footprint of schools is maintained. AFCOs, ACAs and FRCAs already play an |
|important role in minimising conflicts and extending our presence through UK schools. Specialist publications cater for |
|specific age groups. “Camouflage” and “Altitude” produced by the Army and RAF respectively add depth to experiences gained by |
|young people in school (13-14 yr age target). Specific age groups may be selected for specific activities. KS3 level students,|
|for example, are the focus for a national rugby competition, organised largely by RN volunteers for about 45,000 school teams.|
viii.
|What types of school engaged? (Q.16) |
|All types of educational centres are engaged. The bulk of cadet activities occurs in Independent Schools. New Academies have |
|been targeted recently by the Armed Forces and between them have absorbed all of the activities on offer. A couple of |
|Academies have recently set up Cadet units. Primary and Secondary Schools are engaged with MOD / Armed Forces as is a large |
|number of FE Colleges and Sixth Form Colleges. Special schools and Young Offenders’ Institutes have also been clients and |
|these demonstrates the overall commitment of MOD to support less advantaged young people in the community. |
ix.
|Cost of activity? (Q.18) |
|Costs of school engagements have been very difficult to establish. This is partly because not all of the costs are easily |
|accountable (e.g. assistance in kind) and that there has been little incentive in the past to break down the costs as long as,|
|for example, the recruiting target was met. Highest costs are incurred by those quality and memorable activities which involve|
|personnel. Thus Service Presentation Teams are relatively expensive, whilst most websites are not. Cost alone must not |
|determine the choice of activity because reinforcement of ideas and images by different methods is often the best way of |
|promoting MOD / Armed Forces. The Army Presentation Team quotes costs of £6.28p per student per hour per year, RAF |
|Educational programme £18 per student per presentation and RM Museum £!.25 per student per hour per year. Perhaps more use |
|should be made of the permanent bases in Museums (with no T&S costs) by employing more educational officers, to pass on key |
|MOD messages. The MOD Defence Dynamics website, in comparison, might provide individual contact at less than £0.50p per |
|student per hr per yr. More investment in high quality websites could be used to provide more information and general |
|awareness of the work of MOD and Armed Forces, whilst more critical interpersonal interactive work involving military |
|personnel could be used more selectively in specific types of activity (discussion groups and role play activities rather than|
|slide and film shows which do not require the same type of personal exposure). Smaller museums with little income take in few |
|school students. Often these museums are in places where there is, otherwise, no military presence. There could be an argument|
|for allocating funding to some of these smaller museums to increase output of information and activities which are not |
|otherwise covered. Not all of the costs shown are covered by MOD. Some museums raise their own funds from a variety of non-MOD|
|sources. In some cases schools bear all of the costs (there is potential for more of this in larger schools) in others the |
|funding comes from other government departments (e.g. Cardiff’s military Presentation College receives £1m from the Welsh |
|Assembly Government and almost nothing from Army funds). |
x.
|Who covers the costs? (Q.19) |
|For some activities education (DCSF and devolved government) department money is available. Insufficient use has been made of |
|this in the past, but it should be possible for high level policy decisions to be made to encourage more local authorities to |
|support MOD based school engagements (e.g. cadets in state schools, funding for museum education officers). Schools and |
|parents cover the costs of most visits to smaller museums. Agencies like the Met Office have their school website and |
|information pack costs covered from commercial activities, including educational links through the BBC website. The Royal |
|engineers Museum has a small subsidy from industry, whilst Historic Scotland provides a large part of the funding for the |
|Argyll and Sutherland Museum. |
xi.
|Breakdown of costs? (Q.20) |
|The bulk of the costs are for personnel – wages principally. In the case of the travelling presentation teams there are large |
|costs incurred in T&S. Advertising takes a large slice of funds and it might be possible to coordinate more of the advertising|
|centrally through web links and national advertising campaigns (especially for museums) to release funding to cover more staff|
|costs. There is no way of avoiding personnel costs if it is accepted that the best way of conveying our information is through|
|the medium of military and civilian personnel who can add veracity to statements and imagery, and allow the all important |
|discussions with young people. |
xii.
|Effects of activity? – Rank against the six point scale – Healthy, Safe, Enjoy, Contribution, Economic, AF Understanding |
|(Q.24) |
|Most of the organisations surveyed, felt that they had done a good job in conveying awareness of the work of MOD / Armed |
|Forces to young people in schools (Last figure rating of 3 or more). If this can be combined with achieving high values |
|elsewhere (e.g. in “being healthy”) then schools are more likely to want o continue to engage with us. The recruiting |
|organisations have a wide spread of activities between them and will contribute in a major way in schools to the “Every Child |
|Matters” policy. This is another way in which MOD engagement, unlike that of almost every other Government Department, seeks |
|to support wider Government Youth Policy.It is recommended that work be done to reinforce this type of evaluation of activity |
|and be rigorous in surveying future activities, in order to show more clearly the value of the work of MOD for young people. |
xiii.
|What type of feedback? (Q.25) |
|There is diversity in the methods of gaining, processing, evaluating and storing feedback. This is a labour-intensive exercise|
|but needs to be given a higher priority if much of the youth work in schools is to be justified in the future. It is |
|recommended that MOD provides a format for reporting to all those organisations involved with engagement in schools, so that |
|at least a sample of these can be processed centrally and used to help manage future developments. Schools could be encouraged|
|to complete a standardised simplified feedback form that would enable MOD to determine how best to work with clients in order |
|to provide them with what they need, whilst at the same time allowing MOD to achieve its aims. At present there are different |
|styles of feedback forms being used in schools. Too little of the feedback is processed electronically. It is recommended that|
|methods for interactive evaluation be established for at least the major activity providers (e.g. along the lines of that |
|established for the Defence Dynamics programme (email links with teachers and teacher comment forums). There are possible |
|staffing implications here. Ideally staff should be available, centrally to deal with queries fro schools and improve customer|
|PR. By establishing a long term commitment with schools in this way, teacher confidence in working wit the organisation is |
|improved and thus the reputational image of the MOD / Armed Forces is enhanced. |
xiv.
|Future developments planned? (Q.28) |
|Universally, all of those organisation engaging with schools can see the potential for increasing their output. Most |
|organisations not only wanted to sustain their working links with schools but also wanted to build on their work. Many smaller|
|museums want to organise visits to schools, increase links with local cadet units, develop resource packs to distribute and |
|would like to work within wider schemes promoted centrally by MOD. It is recommended that future direction of educational / |
|curriculum resources for use by museums is driven more from the Centre of MOD. Whilst many museums enjoy the freedom to |
|determine the themes that they follow in their school-linked work, there is no doubt that sharing of some resources with other|
|providers would not only raise their credibility I the local community but also allow MOD / Armed Forces to convey more |
|messages to a wider audience in a more coherent way. This would also provide a mechanism for organisations to share each |
|others’ work and encourage good practice in the production of educational materials – again raising “reputational” scores for |
|MOD. Ideally a closer link between MOD and DCSF and the devolved Government education departments might lead to sharing of |
|costs of production of materials, especially through schemes in the regions linked to the “every Child Matters” programme (and|
|similar in the devolved government areas). |
| |
|Larger museums are increasing provision for schools and spreading across more areas of the curriculum (with steady progress |
|away from History and Citizenship and forward into Sciences, Maths, Geography and skill development). Most are severely |
|handicapped by lack of funds and occasionally by insufficient support from their Service sponsors (although links seem to have|
|improved in the last four years since the survey of MOD museum output was completed and its findings were evaluated. More |
|interactive events, including competitions involving external partners are being organised for schools. Engineering themed |
|days at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton, for example draw in apprentices from a number of aerospace companies to give |
|school students experiences that they could not gain at school. MOD does not make enough use of these events for publicity |
|purposes or for putting across its own messages (e.g. at Yeovilton it could be information on the quality of equipment being |
|provided to troops, at Main Building could be on the duty of care shown to personnel, and at Defence Estates there should be |
|messages about conservation and sustainability of resources). It is recommended that future policy for engagement with schools|
|should identify and use opportunities to communicate with schools and young people on key MOD issues. Awareness of what |
|providers and organisers of activities plan to develop should enable DRFC / DGMC to identify ways in which essential ideas and|
|images can be marketed strategically to the benefit of our organisation as a whole and for its component parts (maybe |
|especially the recruiting organisations). |
| |
|Service recruiters providing activities for schools want to increase the range of their activities and extend their geographic|
|footprint. With reductions in manpower and funding this may be difficult. It is recommended that in the short term they |
|develop partnerships with some of the other providers of educational opportunities to schools to share skills and resources, |
|enabling them to transmit essential information more efficiently and more economically. On a wider scale there is a case for |
|more co-ordination of Service activities across the three Services in the future. Many proposed development s are generic – |
|the development of educational materials for websites, for example. Duplication of material is not acceptable when there is a|
|general shortage of funding for all that we wish to achieve with young people in schools. It may be possible to develop core |
|materials for MOD and all three Services and Single Services then focus on specific materials to reflect their specialist |
|skills or special recruiting needs. The Defence Dynamics programme might provide the generic base for all MOD curriculum |
|materials for schools (currently only at 14-16 yrs level, but could be adapted) from which specialist extensions could be |
|linked under a more common branding, which schools might prefer (thus reducing confusion on provenance, in the classroom). |
| |
|Agencies have had freedom to develop their school related programmes and future development may be driven more by their |
|commercial partners rather than the needs of MOD / Armed Forces. Met Office, for example has produced excellent materials for |
|schools in association with BBC. Engineering companies working on projects in museums will publicise their companies (for |
|possible recruiting and reputational enhancement) but we may not be skilled enough to publicise the work of MOD at these |
|events. It is recommended that where MOD organisations are in partnership with other companies, that a mechanism is put in |
|place to raise awareness of our own work (e.g. in the case of engineering show the contribution of DE and S and DSTL to |
|society). |
| |
|An additional finding from the survey is that some of the organisations linked to schools are now receiving requests to |
|support teacher training. This is a very positive reflection of the confidence that some schools have in the professional |
|skills of our personnel. Service teams routinely train school-based cadet staff in leadership and management skills and the |
|Defence Schools Presentation Team was asked to develop “teamwork” training classes for schools where “teamwork” training was |
|required for the students as part of their employability skills units. There is potential for those organisations engaged with|
|schools to work more with the “gatekeepers” to enhance team working and leadership skills. An example would be developing more|
|links with teacher training colleges. This would, probably, lead to more schools, in the future, engaging with our activities,|
|since personal confidence in the skills and “morality” of MOD / Armed Forces will have been improved. It is recommended that |
|the strategy of involvement with gatekeepers be reviewed and guidelines produced for activity providers. This might be |
|monitored at a regional level and could be another task for the regional RFCAs, given small increases in personnel to cover |
|the additional liaison work. |
xv.
|Information on links with Policy or Mission statement of organisation? (Q.29) |
|Most of the organisations engaged with schools do so with a backing of Policy which supports links with the local community |
|and some have specific educational Policies (especially the Museums). Several of the Policy drivers are concerned with |
|recruiting. In some cases the Policy is linked with national education needs – for example in Northern Ireland the Royal Navy |
|supports the Province’s “Learning for Life and Work” strategy. From the sample of activity providers studied there was no |
|mention of link with an MOD Youth or Education Policy (although more general drivers from the Single Services was mentioned – |
|to promote their aims). It is recommended that a clearer Educational / Curriculum / Communication Policy be established to |
|allow more co-ordination of the high quality work across the country. A common Policy and awareness of some common aims may |
|help to embrue more coherence in what we do and provide a more joined-up appearance to external consumers. |
xvi.
|Argument for maintaining the activity? (Q.30) |
|Some of the fullest answers in the survey came from this question. Clearly most organisations feel strongly that they need to |
|continue and if possible, expand on their activities. Of major import is the need to use the school links to raise awareness |
|about MOD / Armed Forces to assist recruitment. DSTL sees their school programme as being vital in demonstrating that they |
|employ scientists and engineers. PUS’s FE Outreach programme seeks to encourage students to visit Main Building and provides |
|resources for Public Service Courses which again show employment possibilities in the civilian arm of MOD. The three Armed |
|Services and Military Preparation Colleges know that their work with schools draws in the bulk of new recruits as well as |
|informing non-recruits about the work of the MOD. In recent years it has become more difficult to source sufficient recruits |
|of the right quality. Although this may mean that the approach made by recruiters in schools may not have been always the best|
|approach it is more likely that there is a need for a better balance of resources, overall, to reach young people in schools.|
|Service teams have developed new educational projects in the last four years and will be introducing new materials in the |
|coming year. The RAF, for example, has run its Maths and Science Target and Mission schemes successfully and the Army is about|
|to introduce new vocational Diploma resources for teenagers in the coming year. More developments like these are needed. MOD’s|
|Defence Dynamics website will develop a wide range of background information to support awareness and recruitment programmes |
|in schools over the next eight years. Feedback from schools on all three initiatives mentioned has been positive. It is |
|recommended these initiatives also be developed in partnership with other activity providers, such as the Museums, to help |
|them to realise their development potential at little extra cost (if any) to themselves. The RN recommends that more outreach |
|programmes be developed in schools because their advertising budgets have been cut and one Naval contributor has suggested |
|that if we cannot develop in this way and find recruits by such means then there will be “No Service”. The smaller military |
|museums have shown some concern that there might be cuts in local authority funding for them and will look for more support |
|from e.g. the Army Heritage organisation in the future. It is recommended that a secure, imaginative and long-term School |
|Engagement Policy is developed to cover likely future demands from schools and the needs of current activity providers. |
xvii.
|What part of national curriculum does the activity support? (Q.31) |
|Between them the activities cover both a wide range of classroom subjects and the breadth of school Key Stage levels. Many of |
|the organisations show clearly to schools how they can contribute to their education programmes by demonstrating links to |
|examination syllabuses and the school curriculum. More needs to be done in this area to “sell” activities to hard-worked |
|teachers who may not have the time to see the relevance of some of the MOD engagement offers. It is recommended that a |
|pan-Defence “catalogue” of activities be established which is available to schools through all providers to demonstrate what |
|is available and how to connect with the activity. It is not felt that it would be a major task to create the catalogue, |
|especially if it was part of the annual feedback return to DRFC / DGMC / RFCAs. One effect of this would be to demonstrate to |
|our external audience just how much is supported by MOD across a span of key youth involvement areas – more than any other UK |
|Government Department and probably more than any other overseas Government department. It would also demonstrate a longer term|
|commitment to supporting work in schools which would enhance our reputation and make it easier to transmit messages in the |
|future. |
| |
|Subjects covered include Science, Engineering, Careers, English, Environment Studies, PSHE, Citizenship, History, Early |
|Learning Goals, Business Studies, Thinking Skills, Maths, Design and Technology, Learning for Life and Work, Art and Design |
|and Leisure and Tourism. Levels include KS 1-4 in England and Wales, Standard Grade in Scotland and equivalent grade for CCEA |
|in Northern Ireland. |
| |
|Some of the activities are much more focussed on curriculum requirements than others. The Military Preparation Colleges, for |
|example focus on English and Maths skills and personal development to fit the requirements of military recruiters and build on|
|GCSE level school studies. The Defence Dynamics programme relies for its success on fitting information on MOD / Armed Forces |
|precisely into curriculum frameworks for all four provinces of the UK. Some providers are, themselves, educational |
|establishments and are entirely focussed on providing activities within the curriculum. Over 11,000 students, for instance, |
|are taught at Primary and Secondary level in MOD funded schools in UK (e.g. Queen Victoria School, Dunblane and Duke of Kent |
|School, Dover), Germany, Cyprus and several other countries. |
xviii.
|What supporting material is provided to the school and when? (Q.32) |
|Most organisations engaging with schools provide supporting materials. This may be as hard copy or as a downloadable website |
|resource. Some arrange pre-visits (either before the organisation visits the school or before the school visits the |
|organisation). There is great variation in the quality of material delivered and little, if any MOD branding. It is |
|recommended that material which is derived from or is used to support MOD activities is produced to a more universal |
|professional standard. An annual review of achievements by all organisers might include a submission of materials made |
|available to schools and might be an opportunity to suggest common branding to reflect the input from MOD. Often complete |
|teacher packs are produced for teachers. Again there may be more opportunity here to check on quality and branding. Certainly |
|it should be possible to include a common circular to inform schools of the work done by MOD / Armed Forces in schools (and |
|could include the previously proposed “catalogue” of activities). |
| |
|Items produced include leaflets, feedback questionnaires, museum newsletters, activity sheets / worksheets, teacher notes, |
|photographs, DVDs / CD ROMs, artefacts, quiz sheets, lesson plans, careers literature and business contact cards. It is |
|recommended that all materials promoting MOD / Armed Forces bear some form of symbol, strap-line or other form of branding to |
|indicate the origin of the work. In the case of jointly funded activities then joint branding may be applicable. Advice on |
|branding may be obtained from the Strategic Marketing section of Defence PR at DGMC. |
| |
|Materials are provided to schools either before, or during or after visits / events and depends on the type of activity. Each |
|organisation has a preferred delivery system. |
xix.
|Any general comments on engagement? (Q.33) |
|A number of general comments and constructive observations were made on this survey. There was clearly some difficulty in |
|revealing the annual costs for these school-related activities. The survey did not show the other educational work done by |
|some groups in Adult Education, outreach work with other organisations and educational exhibitions (e.g. such as the |
|occasional “We Were There” diversity exhibition). It does not show that many organisations customise their curriculum |
|materials to meet specific needs of school clients (gaining more “Brownie Points” in the process). It does not show the |
|organisational skills, especially in the smaller museums to get best timings for activities to fit with specific time |
|requirements in schools. It gives little mention of the way in which Local Authorities are often the main supporters of |
|regional military museums, and the latter may receive little direct contact from MOD. Mention was made a couple of times of |
|the potential for cadets to be involved in other MOD engagements (especially through Museums and also by using Defence |
|Dynamics materials). The Royal Engineers Museum is hoping to use Heritage Lottery funding to support some of its school |
|education programme. This may be a way forward, along with better use of funding from other Government Departments (especially|
|DCSF) for other MOD promoting organisations. Contributors in Northern Ireland recognise that the time is now ripe in the |
|Province for expanding delivery of MOD engagements in schools. School-based outreach activities, for example, offered by the |
|Royal Navy are just beginning to penetrate Catholic Schools. More can certainly be done in our organisation as a whole to |
|contribute in a major way to the normalisation process. This will be best done through the educational strand and with less |
|emphasis on direct recruiting. Observations from RAF DART teams indicate much the same principle applies to dealings with the |
|Black and Asian ethnic minority population in schools, especially in large urban areas. It is recommended that consideration |
|be given to specific aims and education programmes for school engagements with Ethnic Minority groups and when working in |
|Northern Ireland. A review of recent MOD / Armed Forces consumer surveys might inform those decisions. Thorough evaluation of|
|feedback, following delivery of activities in schools would also assist in modifying existing programmes of activities and |
|suggest new approaches. |
| |
|Comment was also made by larger organisations, such as recruiters, that the information provided for the survey was hastily |
|generalised. It is important for DRFC, in the future, to obtain more detailed information and information that can be used for|
|comparative purposes. The Royal Navy also mentioned the use of longer running projects for schools that crossed a number of |
|organisational boundaries. Examples of these have been the Trafalgar commemorative events, “Sea Your World” project, |
|“Falklands 25”, “Abolition 200” and polar expeditions followed on website, with specific school links; these have connected |
|schools, recruiters, museums, and individual service people in imaginative ways. These have been particularly effective in |
|encouraging participation by primary schools where cross-curriculum projects have been easier to organise. Monitoring the |
|organisation and effects of these might prove more difficult unless there is clear visibility of participants from the outset.|
x.
|Comments on the survey? Q.34) |
|A few observations were made on the work of this survey. It is clear that a common time frame for all entries must be stated; |
|school year 2006-7 seems to be the most appropriate (rather than our financial year). Smaller establishments (i.e. several of |
|the regimental museums) felt that the questionnaire was over-long and found difficulty in staffing the response. A second |
|survey would be simpler, since much of the information on the wider organisation of the respondee is generic and would be |
|unlikely to be repeated in a second year (e.g. mission statements, types of activities). The initiative was welcomed by one |
|organisation as a way to identify wider issues of funding, staffing and staff training to support MOD educational initiatives.|
|A longer period for responding to the questionnaire was requested. One museum also recommended that a more specific |
|questionnaire be produced for museums since their resources were used by a wider audience than say the student recruiting |
|organisations. It is recommended that plenty of advance warning be given for the next survey, that the survey be based on data|
|for the school academic year and that future questionnaires be subdivided with a generic component for all organisations |
|providing engagement opportunities and then specific sub-sections for each of the contributing groups (e.g. museums, |
|recruiters, agencies, partners, etc.). |
6. ANALYSIS:
a) SWOT analysis: Key findings from 2007 School Engagement Survey
The analysis demonstrated clearly some of the issues and problems linked to present MOD School engagements.
i. Strengths
a) Commendably wide range of MOD activities available for schools.
b) Good balance of activities, which have succeeded in raising awareness and increased support for MOD in the schools which have been served.
c) Wide range in providers with different emphases – MOD, Agencies, National Museums, Regimental Museums, Armed Forces, partner organisations.
d) The activities provide an essential and effective base from which recruiters can work.
e) Organisation is strong at tactical level.
f) Highly committed and often altruistic personnel working directly in schools and for schools.
g) Some of the MOD personnel have direct school teaching experience.
h) Single Services provide strong brands for marketing purposes.
i) MOD has many years experience of working with schools (50+ years) – considerable personal and departmental expertise.
j) Geographical footprint of MOD / Armed Forces across the UK is broad with major focus in South and East (matching the highest concentration of UK schools).
k) Some resources are available on-line (e.g. Defence Dynamics) and reflect both the development in delivery of MOD educational resources and the way in which some parts of MOD work with teacher and student clients to satisfy their current needs.
ii. Weaknesses
a) Not all schools can access all activities. Some schools do not (or cannot) access any at all.
b) Some recruiting activities in school engagements may alienate some school staff – which has led to negative reports in the media.
c) Teachers not generally aware of what support is available from MOD.
d) Most schools see the Army as supporting curriculum activities, nationally, but fewer are aware of contribution of RN and RAF. MOD contribution largely unknown.
e) May be too much emphasis on recruiting links to engagements: off-putting to a number of teachers and parents (esp. ethnic minority parents).
f) No clear long term funding for activities. The amount of funding available and reasons for distribution are unclear within the system.
g) Little detailed knowledge of cost of funding school engagements – not all organisations are able to breakdown, accurately, their expenditure.
h) No clear long term planning for activities (linked to c))
i) No MOD Policy for school engagement. No clear strategies. Few shared strategies.
j) The management structure for school engagement at high level in MOD appears not to be applied – thus appears to be a lack of leadership / direction.
k) Current activities only sustainable with inflationary increase in funding or more co-operation to make better use of resources.
l) Lack of co-ordination means that different messages about the MOD / Armed Forces may be broadcast to schools. At least one consistent MOD message should be delivered by all providers.
m) Lack of co-ordination means that economies of scale are not possible and best practice may not be shared.
n) Insufficient professional marketing of products which fails to exploit the investment potential.
o) Little evaluation of client needs and client reaction after school engagements.
p) Little commonalty in approach to and form of evaluation across MOD. Thus drawing conclusions on impact of the work and making comparisons is impossible. Future planning is limited by this.
q) Not making the most of available opportunities.
r) No consistency in delivery and updating of existing resources which have been used previously by schools.
iii. Opportunities
a) High demand for school engagement from teachers.
b) New national curriculum initiatives could enable MOD / Armed Forces to increase their footprint in schools by providing much needed resources.
c) Many providers want to increase provision of activities in schools.
d) Political environment e.g. expansion of Academies, provides new arenas for Government supported curriculum activities, such as CCF cadets.
e) Wider use of the e-environment – websites, blogs, podcasts etc.
f) Stronger lead at Policy level (e.g. PUS) would strengthen the purpose of the school engagement activities and engage a more coherent organisation.
g) More co-ordination and co-operation is possible through annual conferences (e.g. similar to RAF Youth YALO meetings) and at little extra expense.
h) Little external competition in schools to what MOD / Armed Forces provide – distinctive content of activities, global context and interesting personnel.
i) Increased support for cross-government engagement strategies aimed at young people (e.g. PET).
iv. Threats
a) Withdrawal or reduction of funding for activities through Department spending cuts would unbalance activities unless managed well from the centre and lose the goodwill and improved reputation gained in schools.
b) Reduction in number of Civilian and Military staff to engage in / with schools.
c) Increased operational needs reduce commitment to school engagements.
d) Lack of motivation of staff.
e) Lack of overt interest by Ministers, Senior Military personnel and Senior Civil Servants in MOD youth work.
f) Schools rejecting offers of engagement by MOD because of adverse media messages (esp. relating to unpopular operations).
g) Inter-Service rivalry for recruits – less focus on outcome of activities for schools, more on outcome for Services.
h) Withdrawal of partnership agreements.
i) Short-term commitments by MOD not welcomed by teachers.
j) Political environment –unpopular general education policies of the current Government, linked negatively to MOD as a Government Department.
7. IIMPLICATIONS:
a) Sustainability of activities with schools
Schools want to sustain links with MOD. MOD / Armed Forces are unlikely to meet future demands and level of commitment required without internal re-organisation and higher level of co-ordination and co-operation.
b) Development of school activities
There is great scope to develop school engagements. It is becoming a more competitive environment in which to engage. Clearer, robust strategies need to be devised to stay in the market, especially with major financial constraints. More should be possible with greater cross-Government linkage. Most MOD organisations have plans to develop activities for students but require a catalyst (in many cases funding) or more support to inspire them.
c) Prioritising
Prioritising the types of engagement is almost impossible because the requirements of both clients and providers are so diverse. In the short term engagements might be sorted on the basis of cost effectiveness, but even this is difficult because there is no way at present of getting comparative feedback from all of the organisations who are engaged. MOD Youth Policy recommends a five point scale, but this is not used by more than a couple of groups. A more co-ordinated effort is needed to obtain the necessary data to provide a more informed report on outcomes which might permit more appropriate analysis.
d) Costs
Overall there is much going on – some for very little outlay – some entirely voluntary. The goodwill for voluntary activities should be sustained by all means possible. The cheapest engagements for MOD are those based on website resources but these may only be fully effective if backed by related links with military establishments. The most expensive, but probably the most effective engagements with young people, that meet all of our aims, are those organised by Presentation Teams (especially the recently withdrawn Defence Schools Presentation Teams which spent a half day in schools). These are effective because of the interpersonal rapport and trust built between presenters and students.
e) Dynamics of the activities
Because of the demands from teachers and the enthusiasm of students for most types of engagement, the activities tend to have an inherent dynamism. This certainly “fires up” all those personnel who have worked with young people and brings out laudable altruistic responses from our people. Much of our work is creative and raises expectations from schools. No other Government Department (with the exception of DCMS Museums) has as much contact with students and absolutely no Department carries the range of activities and skills which MOD has taken into schools. The MOD leads in showing that the Government cares about the development of the nation’s young people.
f) Influences on future performance
Key drivers here are the personalities leading the individual engagements and the availability of long term funding to give purpose to the work. A higher level of input/encouragement/involvement from within MOD to encourage this work is needed to reinforce esprit and drive greater co-ordination.
8. CONCLUSIONS:
a) Related to aims of the survey
Conclusions are related to these overall aims of the survey to
• Provide accurate information on the range of MOD school engagement
• Assess the degree of co-ordination between activity providers
• Assess whether the focus of activities is correct
• Recommend a future MOD Curricular Policy (shown in more detail in Section 9)
o Give direction for more effective engagement
o Indicate how better to standardise activities
o Suggest how links with OGDs can be improved
o Suggest where best to give financial and personnel support
Conclusions based on these aims drive the recommendations laid out below in Section 9.
b) Supporting policy and strategy development
Youth Policy and Strategy are loosely supported but not all providers are aware of how these apply to their work. Some organisations receive no information from the centre and what may be received is not necessarily coherent nor backed by links for further information. There is a strong argument for providing a manager in DRFC to oversee the way in which we interact with over 800,000 young people each year.
c) Degree of management by MOD at Centre
Little central management was detected in the survey. Individual Services had an effective chain of command but overall the survey noted a proliferation of “stovepipes” across all organisations. A clearer communications structure at as high a level as possible is desired to develop a degree of uniformity of approach, or at least promote guidelines for best practise. Some of the smaller organisations would welcome more assistance.
d) Overall value to MoD / Armed Forces
The School Engagements have immense value to MOD. Not to have them would minimise awareness of the work of the MOD and would have severe effects on the recruiting environment. Few young people read newspapers to see and understand what the Armed Forces do and not many more view appropriate, Defence PR backed, TV documentaries. It is difficult to measure the value and goodwill generated by our people when they are in contact with students. That value is, however, very significant.
e) Need for Cadet and Youth council to re-focus
There is a wide range of activities on offer to schools. Several hundreds of thousands of young people are involved. A relatively small, but important, number of these in schools (about 5%) are in the Cadet organisations. Most of the emphasis of Youth Policy and the focus of Cadet and Youth Council is on Cadets. It is felt that a review of representation on Committees and in the organisation and delivery of Youth Policy is required. Structures for doing this were defined by DRFC in 2005 but not implemented (see Annex 6).
9. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The survey has identified a number of things that we should do to improve our effectiveness. The main recommendations are made below:
a) Co-operation
i. Develop a common page on all MOD/AF websites which highlights the levels of school activity offered and lists all the organisations delivering
ii. Integrate within all presentations and make available to all groups organising engagements in schools, a video on the basic structure of MOD (Ministers, CDS, PUS and Chiefs), role of modern day defence and the interrelationship between MOD and the AFs.
iii. Increase the level of mutual support across the organisations.
b) Co-ordination
i. Establish a common reporting/return form to be completed on an annual basis with key information.
ii. Quarterly in-house newsletter on engagement with schools distributed to all relevant organisations
iii. It is recommended that for future surveys clear guidelines are produced that explain how to answer questions in a standard way.
iv. It is recommended that for future surveys several mechanisms should be put in place.
a. Ensure all Departments and Agencies of MOD are aware of the survey and its purpose.
b. Ensure all Departments and Agencies produce a list of contacts and general description of the types of activities that they are sponsoring.
c. Send an annual request to each Department / Agency to produce a summary list of school engagements and numbers of students involved.
d. It is further recommended that dates for submission of information be published well in advance and confirmation obtained from each information provider that they are ready to supply information when needed.
e. Do sampling on a regular basis so that all contributors are familiar with when and how to supply information when needed
f. Provide an appropriate electronic survey form to facilitate the rapid and easy collection, compilation and processing of data
g. Ensure that activity providers should inform a central co-ordinator if new activities are to be introduced and/or old ones to be stopped, so that the annual survey questionnaire can be updated.
h. Future surveys will need to organise stakeholders so that the same period is used by all contributors to allow direct comparisons and observe trends over a period of years.
i. It is recommended that the schools’ academic year be used as the base – August to July. These dates are common to schools in all four countries of the United Kingdom.
j. A report produced from schools could then be discussed in late Autumn, before the end of the financial year, and allow for review of funding support for these activities in the following Spring.
c) Accountability
i. It is recommended that before the next survey, senior MOD school engagement managers are thoroughly briefed and that instructions are passed down though the chain of command to those who have been tasked to do the work by them.
ii. The purpose of the exercise must be clearly stated.
iii. Changes in staff responsible for activities should be notified to a senior p.o.c. in the organisation and / or DRFC survey officer so that communications during the period of the survey are not compromised
d) Governance
(See Annexe 6: DRFC structures – Steering Groups + Working Groups)
i. There was a structure put in place in the 2006 Youth Strategy document for managing school curricular activities. A Youth Policy Steering Group should oversee a Working Group, nominally chaired by AD DefPR Schools who would represent the “Schools Engagement” group through 1* Director DefPR sitting on the Steering Group. This structure has not yet been inaugurated to manage the range of school engagements. It is important to designate a high level champion for all engagement in schools to establish greater coherence and coordination. A suitable champion would be DCDS Pers.
ii. The steering group needs to define the accountability and responsibilities of providers, and to establish better coordination between “awareness” programmes and “recruiting” activities. Direct recruiting activity and recruiting oriented youth engagements should be distinguishable from curricular “awareness” and “altruistic” youth programmes.
e) Recording activities
i. There needs to be a standardisation of methods for recording school engagement activities.
ii. It is recommended that a common form be devised for all organisations to use, so that a simpler evaluation can be effected.
iii. It is suggested that guidance be supplied to assist providers in completing these forms.
f) Sharing best practice
i. It is important that stakeholders in MOD’s schools engagement activities meet regularly. This will be to raise awareness of their individual contribution to the whole, to review developments for the future and to agree on standards and common ground.
ii. This may be best done at the annual MOD Youth Conference, but should also be done less formally at two or more Working Group meetings per year held at MOD Main Building (suggested in September and March to inform Youth and Cadet Council).
iii. There is a structure in place in the Youth Strategy document which sits under a Youth Policy Steering Group. The Working Group is nominally chaired by AD DefPR Schools who would represent the “Schools Engagement” group through 1* Director DefPR sitting on the Steering Group.
iv. Establish a “good practises” guide in relation to engagement with schools – based upon those organisations with the highest levels of engagement.
v. Any such good practises guide to be specific in relation to certain areas e.g. army regimental museums
vi. A yearly seminar to be organised at which heads of organisations which manage school engagements review their activities and present findings to interested parties
g) Policies compatible with MOD Youth Policies
i. At all times the work in / with schools must lie within the aims and objectives of the MOD Youth Policy. These must support the overarching Government Youth Policy.
ii. DRFC, as owner of the Youth Policy must ensure that the MOD Engagement with Schools conforms with the Policy and should recommend change or re-balance of activities as need arises.
iii. DRFC should be more pro-active in monitoring and managing the range of activities and may do this effectively through regional RFCAs.
iv. Advice on communications matters will be expected from DGMC (aspects of awareness and reputation and common messages) and Recruiters (changing demographics and geographics may change foci of some work).
v. There is a need to clarify and translate both Government and MOD key messages to ensure that they are communicated to young people effectively.
h) Clear budgeting for youth programme
i. Part of the feedback information from the standard annual return sheet should include detail on the costs of providing activities to schools.
ii. It is recommended that all providers be expected to break down their costs and publish these in the feedback sheets so that the Youth Steering Group can determine value for money of the activities and help to plan long term support for the many fruitful engagement activities. It might then be easier to demonstrate need for support to them through TLBs.
i) Long term planning
i. Long term planning must be a priority. Investment in work with young people and their gatekeepers is largely about developing confidence and good communications between MOD personnel and school staff. Schools plan work programmes to last several years. They see a holistic view of the education of young people over the duration of their stay in a school / college. Too often in the past, initiatives from MOD have lasted only for a short period and cannot be incorporated into the longer term plan of a school. Teachers, for example, who adopt a curriculum package, careers support or promise of motivational training, will expect it to be there in the following year in their teaching scheme.
ii. Negative publicity follows from abrupt cancellation of support (e.g. withdrawal of defence Schools Presentation Teams). A key to the longer term planning and development of MOD Schools Engagement resources and activities will be one of sustainability and evolution of those activities to meet changing demands in schools and the MOD.
iii. A longer term view will help to prepare the system for changes.
iv. Good links with DCSF and DIUS in England and with education departments in the three devolved Education Departments in the UK will allow MOD to understand future curriculum requirements and to plan their activities accordingly.
v. It is recommended that the Youth Steering Group should focus on defining long term aims and objectives to help guide and manage the many organisations engaged with schools.
j) Regular review
i. It is important to review the overall scheme of activities in schools to ensure that the focus continues to remain sharp.
ii. An annual data collection is recommended with analysis for effect on awareness, reputation and recruiting.
iii. An annual meeting (e.g. Youth and Cadet Council) can then review the findings. Clear notice of the timing of the survey is required.
iv. It is recommended that for future surveys clear guidelines are produced that give timings for feedback, review and implementation of recommendations from the Youth Steering Group .
k) Standardisation of feedback
i. A common method of evaluation of amount and effects of school engagement is vital.
ii. It is recommended that a data-base is maintained to inform the providers of MOD based activities in schools and also the principal points of contact in schools.
iii. This data-base could also be made available to schools to allow them to select activities and providers.
iv. It is recommended that activity providers keep a constant record of type of work and numbers of students engaged in a format decided by DRFC, so that it is readily available for the annual survey.
v. It is further suggested that where estimates have to be made then the range of likely values should be given as well. An important part of the survey will be to identify the effects of engagement on young people by using the MOD six point scale pioneered by DRFC.
vi. A better format for the questionnaire is needed – preferably an electronic version with drop down boxes and one which is established to give direct data recovery to spreadsheets and graphical output and is quicker to complete.
vii. Decisions on changes to activities (funding and personnel) should be made on the basis of feedback from this survey and discussion with stakeholders.
viii. Feedback should go to DRFC (for youth strategy) with copy to DGMC (for awareness and reputation) and DRC (for impacts on recruiting).
ix. Recommendations and instructions on changes from a review in April each year should be passed to the Youth and Cadet Council and implemented by early June to translate into changes in school activities by the beginning of the new school year (September).
l) Survey in schools to identify consumer needs
i. In general, the work done in schools / colleges by MOD personnel reflects the perceived needs of MOD.
ii. Usually these have been accepted by schools but a growing number of schools (most recently in Scotland and Wales) are growing wary of our expectations because of the background politics of operational activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and want to set their own agenda.
iii. It is recommended that questionnaires are sent out to a large sample of schools across the UK each year to assess the impact of our work.
iv. We need to get views directly from teachers and ensure that we understand what they want to get out of the relationship.
v. Carry out research with schools to establish which of the activity areas is most in demand (e.g. motivational) so that development work can be focused on these areas
vi. This may mean that we ill have to review the style of our work or accept that some of our assumptions may be wrong (maybe cutting out some forms of engagement if they are no longer fit for purpose).
vii. A different and more robust approach to schools is important if we are to be agile in adapting to the demands of a changing society (for example current school curriculum developments are about reinforcing employability skills and, in Wales, Welsh language skills).
viii. Recent polling work for Defence Dynamics has shown the difficulty of communicating with schools but should allow us to develop a model that might be adopted.
m) Regular / annual evaluation of achievement
i. Statements of achievement during the year and plans for development should form part of the annual Cadet and Youth Council meeting.
ii. Membership of the Council should be modified to give more weight to non-cadet activities. Only when this happens will recognition be given to the part played by engagement with schools and the concomitant effect will be to give more confidence through added responsibility to those engaged in schools. The three pillars of MOD Youth activities will then appear to be more “joined up” and Senior members of MOD and Armed Forces on the Council will be more aware of what is being done in their name.
iii. It is further recommended that a report on the survey forms part of the MOD Annual Youth Conference and that as many information providers as possible be invited to the event to discuss other issues arising from the survey conclusions.
n) How to identify the value of the work for recruiting and reputation
i. A sound method of evaluating all work done in schools / colleges is vital if there is to be a proper and informed debate on priorities and management across the school engagement spectrum.
ii. It is urgent that all groups accept common methods of evaluation. One method is the six point evaluation devised by DRFC in 2006 and presented to Youth and Cadet Council which allows some expression of outcome. This is not used universally (even though it is largely based on a recommended DCSF model).
iii. The evaluation must be more than simply the numbers of students engaged. This aspect of the work has vexed many organisers of school engagements for several years but it is important that time and effort are put into this to ensure that we can judge how effective our work really is. At present judgements are based on informed hunches and this is not really satisfactory.
iv. We might look at industrial / commercial models.
v. It is recommended that a dedicated member of MOD staff be given the task to review current evaluation systems and using best practise within and outside of our organisation suggest a way forward that will give us a better quality of information on which to base decisions on future development.
o) Establish clear responsibility for schools engagement survey
i. It is recommended that the survey to be carried out by DRFC as part of their management strategy for applying Youth Policy and recording youth activities.
p) Branding, imagery, PR – to positivise public perceptions
ii. Standardisation of some imagery is important so that clients understand who is responsible for the youth activity in which they are involved.
iii. Where there is engagement with a school / college it is recommended that the communications should include appropriate MOD branding and imagery as instructed by DGMC branding policy.
iv. It is important to demonstrate the corporate identity of the service (i.e. school engagement activity) provider.
v. It is recommended that there is a more visible presence of MOD at education shows and other major youth events. A large mobile stand and marketing material showcasing all the various MOD organisations involved in engagement with schools would be an excellent way to publicise the Department’s work with young people.
vi.
q) Dedicated website – Engagement newsletter
i. It is recommended that specific pages be allocated on the MOD website, accessed via the Youth Portal, to show the range of activities available to schools.
ii. This should give contact points in MOD / Armed Forces / Agencies / Museums / Cadets / etc. and be kept up to date.
iii. This should be publicised to schools / colleges and youth groups and an annual email sent to all schools / colleges in the form of a Newsletter (email and postal mail) to demonstrate key activities, promote new events and encourage feedback from clients.
iv. The same material should be promoted within MOD. It is also a way to help engage the internal MOD audience to support and develop further youth activities.
r) All activities to show common communication objectives
i. There is a great opportunity to deliver common messages about MOD and Armed Forces to a broad audience of young people and their gatekeepers in schools.
ii. At present there is no universal message relayed to young people because of the fissiparistic nature of the youth programmes.
iii. It is recommended that greater conformity must be encouraged across all contributors. At very least all providers of school activities should provide statements and images of the core mission of MOD and Armed Forces.
iv. DGMC should be responsible for producing an annual statement of common Communication Policy for informing young people and this should be relayed to all providers in verbal format, and using audio-visual imagery to promote the reputation of the Department.
s) Links with OGDs
i. Overall, it has been difficult to establish good productive working links between MOD and OGDs on matters relating to youth engagement.
ii. Good relationships have developed with the Home Office and Youth Justice Board, but links with DCSF (formerly DfES) have been poor and no full links developed with Education and Youth Departments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales (except recently through Defence Dynamics).
iii. It is recommended that MOD Ministers, PUS, Chiefs of Staff do more at Ministerial and Senior level to raise awareness of the work of MOD, as a Government Department, and its major contribution to youth activities in schools (greatest range of activities and second only numerically to DCMS – based on numbers of student visits to DCMS Museums).
iv. Specific links need to be established and regular cross-government timetabled meetings held to inform on current activities, proposed new programmes and strategies (e.g. communication programme for young disaffected Muslim students) so that MOD can mould its Youth Strategies to incorporate some of their demands. Then MOD will be seen, clearly, to be supporting the wider government initiatives in education and youth activities.
v. Key players should be identified in OGDs. They should be invited to an annual presentation on the MOD’s Youth and Schools work and invited to discussions on proposed developments.
vi. Whilst DCFS and Home Office are important, links with FCO, Cabinet Office, DLGR, DfID, DCMS, Health and DWP should not be ignored. The reluctance for those Departments to send delegates to meetings must be overcome (and when they do come they may need encouragement to participate).
vii. There has been a feeling in the past that they have been wary of involvement because of implication by negative association with MOD’s operational work and also perhaps because of a sense of awe at the amount of youth work that MOD supports and a feeling that they may be expected to contribute their resources to the MOD programme.
viii. OGDs may also be wary because they may be expected, by MOD, to contribute more towards the MOD’s national Engagement programme.
ix. Other links should be encouraged with foreign OGDs, especially those from NATO and Commonwealth countries. There are similar youth activities abroad but not on the same scale as those delivered by MOD / UK Armed Forces.
x. Lack of staff time and funding have discouraged the development of more links. Where links have been established they have been encouraging (e.g. recent liaison with Gibraltar cadets and the Defence 2020 education project in Australia).
xi. Eastern European countries have shown an interest in adopting some UK educational schemes (e.g. DSPT Role play exercise in Romania). This type of link can enhance the work of international Defence Diplomacy.
10. ANNEXES:
Annexe 1: Paper presented to Youth and Cadet Council – May 2007
D/DRFC/5/1/1
27 April 2007
MoD Youth Council Members
ITEM 5: MOD CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES: REVIEW OF MOD’S INVOLVEMENT WITH SCHOOLS AND NEW “ACADEMIES”
ISSUE
1. There is currently no separate Policy to cover MoD curricular work with schools. MoD Youth Policy does not recognise the full input of present work, much of which is done on an ad hoc basis, is largely unreliable for clients and does not give MoD /Armed Forces sufficient return for investment. This situation needs to be reviewed and managed more effectively.
RECOMMENDATION
The MoD Youth and Cadets Council is invited to:
• Endorse the development of a separate Youth Policy for curricular work with schools to support long term strategies for recruiting, and for wider reputational and PR needs.
• Endorse the Defence Dynamics educational programme as the core Defence brand for all curricular work in schools.
TIMING
This paper will be presented for the Council’s consideration at the MoD Youth and Cadet Council on 15 May 2007.
BACKGROUND
In the last year there has been substantial publicity in the media and within the MOD on a number of aspects of the MOD’s involvement with young people in schools.
The main exposure has been that of CCFs in schools. In the last year there have been several suggestions that CCF units should be established in more schools because of the quality of their contribution to the development of young people. This has been promoted by Schools Minister Lord Adonis, Chancellor Gordon Brown and re-iterated by USofS Defence Derek Twigg.
Further to this there have been suggestions that expansion of CCFs should be linked to the expansion of new Academies as centres of excellence for the development of young people.
Additionally the Defence Schools Presentation Team in DGMC has drawn negative public attention in the media because of the disestablishment of its services by SofS at the end of July 2007. This has been subject to a number of PQs and MCs along with its successor, the Defence Dynamics programme, which have both stirred debate in the press and Parliament.
The MOD Youth Conference in 2006 and Youth Conferences organised recently by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force have highlighted the importance of developing a professional and well organised connection between young people in schools and the MOD and Armed Forces.
CATALYSTS FOR EXPANSION OF MOD ACTIVITIES IN SCHOOLS
There have been several causes for increased demand for MOD involvement within school curricula.
a) Increasing need to raise awareness, for promoting support for MOD activities and to provide a more secure recruiting base (especially to respond to the changing demographic characteristics of the nation). Plus a perceived need, for example, to increase efforts within the ethnic minority communities, which support an increasing proportion of young people within the UK, and mainly within areas away from main zones of activity of the MOD and Armed Forces (e.g. large urban areas).
b) MD and Armed Forces have a good reputation for providing quality support for young people. This is driven by the altruism, skills and enthusiasm of many individuals, especially in the Armed Forces. Because of this there has been an increased demand on people and infrastructure by schools to use MoD facilities and to arrange regular links for a range of activities.
c) Government Youth Policy expects that all Departments will support its aims. MOD / Armed Forces are in a better position than many to provide the physical support. There has been an expectation that we will deliver quality products within the school system. Usually this has to be done with no additional external resources supplied.
d) There is little information available to young people in the teaching curriculum about the work of MOD and Armed Forces. This is because there is no incentive for teachers to cover material that is not directly examined and is reflected in the summary figures for School League Tables. The long term effect of this may be a reinforcement of ignorance and a tendency to negativity of attitude amongst young people since much information they see is negative treatment of our global work in the media. Thus there is need for long term strategic work within schools to introduce positive and stimulating information about MOD / Armed Forces and reinforce it in as many ways as possible.
OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL DEMANDS
The activities in Annex (1a) have mostly developed on an ad hoc basis, have been poorly funded or are supported by the goodwill of individuals or by their departments. Few could be developed further without greater input of funding. More centralised guidance may be needed (e.g. CRB clearance, photography of individuals, H&S / risk assessments – which are referred to in the Paper at Item 4, regulating youth activities).
Work by Defence and Single Service Presentation Teams in schools has been limited by funding. Redirection of funds towards other operational purposes has led to the planned disestablishment of all five Defence Schools Presentation Teams in July 2007. RN and RAF teams have faced cuts. Cost of salaries and competing needs of the Services for operational staff are expected to lead to further reductions.
CCF units have limited funds and Service personnel support at present. There should be a consolidation of current cadet activities rather than attempts to expand, because of likely stresses on the infrastructure. Cadet Training Teams (and their equivalents) are probably stretched to reach their current targets. Fewer assets (e.g. reduced flying and station visits for CCF RAF cadets) will reduce the interest that school students take in CCF activities. Expansion of CCF activities into more schools does not appear to be a practical option in the long term.
Proposals to establish CCF units in new Academies would be difficult to meet for the reasons outlined above. Specific problems which need to be resolved are:
• decreased funding 3 years after Academy “start-up” (MOD might then face large bills for CCF units after that date),
• no guarantee that Academy staff would provide adult volunteers,
• Sponsor individuals / companies have not always met their financial commitments (again concern over any long term finances),
• bias in location of Academies to large urban areas (especially in London) restricts the communication of its messages countrywide,
• some Academies are seen as undesirable by other schools in their area because of their special status and weak academic results
• MOD must avoid negative feed-back through association; (this may be especially true of the political implications of linking in with a scheme politically endorsed by the Prime Minister).
MOD Museums have some capacity to increase their contact with young people and enhance reputational and PR scores. More education officers, better marketing and more co-working with other MOD youth strands would be an advantage (e.g. working with Presentation Teams and Defence Dynamics educational programme). More of the excellent MOD Museum material could be incorporated into school curricula.
Educational input to schools through curriculum material can be expanded at little extra cost per year. The Defence Dynamics website will provide reputational and PR material. It is flexible enough to adapt to changing demands and to support other youth activities (e.g. it will have strong links with Museums, MOD Agencies and Cadets). It lacks the presence of MOD / Service personnel in schools to sell, fully, the professionalism and commitment shown by personnel in the MOD / Armed Forces. A more integrated curriculum policy for schools would identify ways in which we can reinforce our educational messages. It is free and topical. The advantages to MOD are that it gives immediate access to all schools, increases the MOD/Armed Forces footprint considerably and hangs a positive PR message that MOD is supporting the community.
CONCLUSIONS
A wide range of activities sponsored by MOD and Armed Forces can be found in schools across the UK. Most are of high quality and have been selected by the schools themselves because of the value added, in curriculum terms, to the education of their pupils. It would be difficult to withdraw any of these. There is a strong argument for rationalising much of the work by co-ordinating some of the efforts (quad Service) to provide more cost-effective outcomes.
There appears to be little in the way of MOD School Curriculum Policy that drives any of these initiatives (apart from the long-established and well respected strategy for the CCF organisation). As a corollary there has been little holistic review of initiatives to evaluate their relative and overall merits. The annual MOD Youth Conference provides a forum for this.
Financial constraints cause many concerns. Not the least effect of this is that whilst teachers desire long-term commitment in their relationship with MOD to ensure continuity of effort and best-fit into their working curriculum, MOD and Armed Forces appear to be in a constant state of flux, with no visible long term view. Lack of funding also impairs development of new approaches to working with young people in schools and has led to lost opportunities.
Most focus in schools has been through recruiting links over the years. The reality, today, is that we need to recruit fewer people into the MOD and Armed Forces, but we need more popular support for our operational activities both at home and abroad. With declining numbers of personnel and a shrinking footprint fewer people come into contact with military personnel and are thus less aware of what they do and why. A broader and more subtle approach to schools is needed. Quality of involvement is of vital. All activities which add value to the reputation of the work of MOD need to be recognised. Programmes such as the Defence Dynamics educational work will be accessible, for example, at no cost to schools and at little cost to MOD, across the country. All of the many activities in schools, when operated and marketed sensibly have the capacity to be used as recruiting aids.
Most of the work that MOD / Armed Forces do in schools is carried out in isolation from other Government Departments. There is merit in looking at the possibility of more cross-Government links for advising on and funding work in schools. Education Departments (DfES, ACCAC, CCEA, LTS) could provide support as well as Home Office FCO and DfID.
It is important to maintain a strict quality control on all that we do; not the least to ensure that all of the many organisations working on behalf of MOD in schools are passing forward the same messages to young people. Feedback from and review of all of our activities is important if we are to fulfil the needs of clients and the recruiting and reputational needs of the MOD. There is no proper feedback mechanism for any of these activities and no way of measuring comparative effect. Without this it is very difficult to establish the significant results that MOD achieves in schools.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Council to recognise and note amount of MOD Youth work in schools.
Council to recognise and note importance of CCF cadets in schools and resist demands to expand the organisation until more support is available.
Council to recognise and support the central role of 10 year Defence Dynamics Curriculum programme in schools.
Council to direct DMCS to review MOD’s engagement with schools. This review could then direct the writing of a separate Curricular Policy.
Leading on from point 23, Council to endorse development of clear long term MOD Curriculum Policy to include:
• Identification of strategic responsibilities for work in schools
• Establish “ownership” for discrete parts of the work
• Recommendation for balance of activities across the school system (awareness presentations, recruiting visits, cadets, curriculum work)
• PR / Awareness programme across all schools – for delivery by existing Defence and Single Service Student Presentation Teams.
• Common branding to coordinate and market academic / curriculum activities across different age groups e.g. Defence Dynamics
• Mechanisms to support existing CCF units in schools and evaluate potential for developing CCF in more schools.
• Establishment of communications and marketing structures
• Incorporation of MOD Museums and MOD Agencies into Policy.
• Incorporation of realistic review and appraisal schemes to assess the success of MOD Schools work and value for money given.
BENEFITS
Formulation of a Youth Policy for Schools will enable us to justify the allocation of resources to those areas where most need is determined.
Duplication of effort and confliction between activities provided by different agencies would be reduced.
Teachers and students would receive a more coherent and customer-focused approach in our provision of support to the local community.
We can establish the longer term links with the educational sectors that teachers seek (too much of our work at present is ephemoral).
Would allow the limited MOD funding to be allocated more effectively.
Clearer responsibilities for specific production of resources can be identified.
Clearer reputational and PR messages can be delivered if there is more centralised control and common branding and imaging.
Higher quality of investment in schools will clarify our messages and get more positive response from future politicians and media managers.
A better managed delivery system will produce major benefits for recruiters who will work with a more informed market.
SUMMARY OF PAPER
The work of MOD and Armed Forces in schools within the UK has been reviewed. This paper finds that the MOD has a wide-reaching connection with schools already, which has developed to the limit that many of its departments and Agencies have found the capacity with which to interact. A cut in funding and staffing in the last year has meant that much of this activity is under review and some has ceased. Thus, there is limited, if any, capacity to expand youth activities without the addition of further resources. There is limited capacity to take on new initiatives. A change in balance of activities may be needed to achieve the aims of MOD Youth Policy. Hence the benefit of urgent review and for decisions to be made on the long term Policy and strategies for interactions with UK schools.
(ANNEXE 1a)
Current situation in Schools and Academies
This list gives an overview of most of the current regular engagements with all schools across the UK:
1) Mentoring and E-Mentoring (especially in English and Science) of students by individual MOD staff – in schools and out of school hours via internet
2) Visits to schools by Service Teams and MOD units to provide information on careers and training in interview skills
3) Provision of curriculum based teaching packs in schools (and some websites) by RN (Science and Fitness), Army (Citizenship and vocational skills), RAF (Maths, Science, Sports), and MOD Agencies (e.g. Met Office and DSTL Science)
4) Half day or day school visits to give specific subject talks (DPA-Maths, DSTL-Science, RAF-Science)
5) Single Service motivational teams – usually day visits to schools to develop teamwork skills
6) MOD (half day) and Single Service (one hour) Presentation Teams’ visits to schools to raise awareness of the work of the organisations. MOD Team has interactive role-play crisis exercise.
7) CCF units operating in schools (253 schools and 40,000 cadets)
8) Defence Dynamics Education Programme for GCSE students in schools. By 2010 is planned to reach 5000 schools and about 750,000 different students per year. (see Annex 2 for more details)
9) Work experience programmes run by MOD and Single Services provide school students with opportunities for one day to two week engagements. MOD staff work closely with Careers teachers. Large numbers of students are involved nationally (e.g. MOD Main Building hosts about 300 students per year)
10) Military Preparation Schools (currently 5 operating) receive support and encouragement from Single Services. These privately funded / state subsidised schools provide basic preparation for potential recruits into the Armed Forces. There is minimal financial input for us but large PR output from these schools.
11) The travelling Defence “We Were There” exhibition hosts primary and secondary school pupils on regional visits. One hour presentations are given on the contribution of ethnic minority communities to Britain’s defence over the last 250 years.
12) Young Engineers projects / competitions and those from similar professional organisations organise school groups to solve practical problems. MOD, MOD agencies and Single Service Teams work with groups of young people and their Technology and Science teachers in schools across the country. The aim is to encourage skills that are “useful” to the Armed Forces. Most work is done within schools.
13) Large national events enable MOD and Armed Forces to work closely with schools and pass on recruiting and PR messages. For examples, specific schools are hosted for National Veterans Day and on the youth day at RIAT.
14) Seven MOD sponsored Museums provide teaching materials for schools across all age ranges. Some of their staff make visits to schools and host school visits within the Museums. Their work is concerned with awareness of past work of MOD / Armed Forces and all museums provide access to careers information for school students and their teachers. There is a wide range of curriculum material provided.
15) Local sporting links with schools. Mostly Armed Forces personnel; either assisting at the school or hosting visits by schools to sports facilities (pitches and sports halls – e.g. RAF Cosford hosts basketball competitions)
Annexe 2: Actions from Cadet and Youth Council Meeting – May 2007
| |Reference: |D/DRFC/4/1/1 |
|See Distribution | | |
| | | |
| |Date: |16th May 2007 |
| | | |
|Youth Policy, DRFC |
|MINISTRY OF DEFENCE |
|Floor 1 – Zone D, St George’s Court, 2 – 12 Bloomsbury Way |
|LONDON, WC1A 2SH |
| |Telephone |Direct dial |020 7305 4656 |
| | |Military |96305 4656 |
| | |Switchboard |020 7218 9000 |
| | |Fax |020 7305 3288 |
| | |Email: Anneka.tait478@mod.uk |
[pic]
RECORD OF DECISIONS MADE AT THE MOD CADET AND YOUTH COUNCIL MEETING, HELD AT MOD MAIN BUILDING, ON 15th MAY 2007
|Present |Mr Derek Twigg MP |US of S |Chairman |
| |AM David Pocock |DCDS (Pers) | |
| |Maj Gen Simon Lalor |ACDS(R&C) | |
| |Cdre Alistair Halliday |D Def PR (representing DGMC) | |
| |Brig David Shaw |COS RF (representing ACGS) | |
| |Air Cdre Mike Lloyd |DRFC | |
| |Air Cdre Gordon Moulds |Cmdt ACO (representing AOC T) | |
| |V Adm (Retd) Sir Tom Blackburn |Chairman, MS&SCC | |
| |AVM (Retd) Paul Luker |CE, Council of RFCAs | |
| |Brig (Retd) Mike Wharmby |Secretary, ACFA/CCFA (representing | |
| | |Chairman, ACFA/CCFA) | |
| |Capt Nick Davies RN |FOTR Director Y&C (representing FOTR) | |
| | |Ministry of Justice, Youth Justice and Children Unit | |
| |Ms Gillian Houslin |DRFC, Youth Policy | |
| | | | |
| |Miss Anneka Tait | |Secretary |
|In Attendance |Cdr Alex Burton |MA/US of S | |
| |Mr Stuart Nash |DRFC, DD Youth & Cadets | |
| |Cdr Philip Russell |DRFC, Cadet Policy | |
| |Mr Martin Hine |DGMC, AD Def PR (Schools) | |
|Apologies |Gen Sir Timothy Granville-Chapman |VCDS | |
| |R Adm Richard Ibbotson |FOTR | |
| |Maj Gen Simon Mayall |ACGS | |
| |AVM John Ponsonby |AOC T & Rep of Air Cadet Council | |
| |Maj Gen (Retd) Murray Wildman |Chairman, CCFA | |
| |Maj Gen (Retd) Peter Grant Peterkin |Chairman, ACFA | |
| |Brig (Retd) Michael Browne |Chairman, Council of RFCAs | |
| |Ms Felicity Winter |DfES, Youth Policy Div | |
|Agenda Item |Discussion & Decisions |Action |
|1. Opening Remarks |1. US of S opened the third Council meeting by stating how impressed he was by the quality of | |
| |MoD’s youth activities and thanked all those involved in delivery. He stressed the importance of | |
| |the youth agenda and reiterated the Council’s main aims, as follows: | |
| | | |
| |To act as MOD’s most senior decision-making body for the Government’s youth agenda. | |
| | | |
| |To discharge its key responsibilities of providing guidance and direction for strategic | |
| |decision-making to enable effective implementation and delivery of MOD’s Youth Policy. | |
| | | |
| |2. The record of decisions[1] from last year’s Council meeting was approved by the Council. | |
|2. MoD Youth |1. DRFC outlined the paper[2] which recommends the current MoD Youth Policy remains extant and a | |
|Policy/Strategy Review |revision of the MoD Youth Strategy to include the prioritisation of guiding principles and a new | |
| |approach to partnerships. | |
| | | |
| |2. The Council agreed the MoD Youth Policy remains extant. | |
| | | |
| |3. The Council endorsed a revision to MoD Youth Strategy to include: | |
| | | |
| |A general administration update to reflect current organisational structures and business | |
| |processes; | |
| | | |
| |A new approach to MoD partnerships acknowledging the role of DRFC as an introductory agent. | |
| | | |
| |4. The Council recommended a revision of the wording for the underpinning principles within the | |
| |Strategy to recognise MoD’s social and moral responsibilities as well as the benefits to both | |
| |recruiting and retention. |DRFC |
| | | |
|3. The Future Status of|1. DRFC summarised options stated in the paper[3] for the future status of CFAVs and invited the | |
|Cadet Forces Adult |Council to endorse the proposed approach to investigate the development of the Cadet Forces as a | |
|Volunteers |separate entity. | |
| | | |
| |2. The Council endorsed DRFC’s proposal to conduct a scoping study of developing the Cadet Forces | |
| |as a single entity. | |
| | | |
| |3. It was agreed the scoping study should involve SP(Pol) and DGMC. |DRFC |
| | | |
| |4. It was agreed that the main priority was to obtain permanent exclusion from National Minimum |DRFC |
| |Wage legislation. Discussions continue and members will be kept informed as the situation | |
| |develops. | |
|4. MoD Youth Activity |1. DRFC invited the Council to endorse proposals stated in the paper[4] to produce a Youth | |
|Regulation |Activity Guide and Youth Activity Register and Evaluation tool. | |
| | | |
| |2. The Council endorsed the production of a Youth Activity Guide so long as it is flexible to use | |
| |and not prescriptive. Once this is produced, the Council suggested the need for a trial. |DRFC |
| | | |
| |3. US of S directed DRFC to investigate the possibility of involving an independent third party to| |
| |audit/endorse all MoD Youth Activity. | |
| |4. The Council endorsed revision of the Youth Activity Register as an Evaluation tool subject to |DRFC |
| |revised guidance on its scale and scope. | |
| | |DRFC |
|5. Review of MoD |1. D Def PR outlined his proposal[5] to the Council, explaining the need for a DGMC led review of | |
|Involvement with School|MoD engagement in schools to inform a future MoD Curricular Policy. | |
| | | |
| |2. The Council agreed a review was an opportunity to standardise activities and form a joined-up | |
| |approach with OGDs. |D Def PR |
| | | |
| |3. US of S stated that he was keen to see more independent CCF schools working with local state | |
| |schools and local military units as he had witnessed with the RAF Benson/Oratory School |DRFC |
| |partnership. | |
| | | |
| |4. CE, Council of RFCAs requested that the RFCAs be informed throughout the review. | |
| | | |
| |5. The single-Services expressed concern over the need to preserve single-Service branding. | |
| | | |
| |6. US of S asked to be presented with a work plan of the review within a month. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |D Def PR |
|6. Youth Funding |1. DRFC outlined the paper[6] that proposed the single-Services declare costs of their youth | |
| |activities. | |
| | | |
| |2. The Council agreed that there is a need for this data to be gathered but requested parameters |DRFC |
| |and an outline of what will be done with the data. US of S stated a ‘common sense’ approach must | |
| |be adopted but recognised guidance should be given on how much data is required. | |
| | | |
| |3. It was agreed that on receipt of the guidance at para 2, the single-Services will provide the | |
| |data accordingly. |FOTR, CRF, AOC |
| | |T |
| |4. DRFC announced that the report on the value of Reserves was due in September 2007 which may | |
| |provide interesting results and assist this exercise. | |
| | | |
| |5. US of S requested to be informed of any proposed savings measures that could impact on the | |
| |delivery of MoD youth programmes. |All to note |
|8. AOB |1. Brig Mike Wharmby informed the Council of the tri-service plans to commemorate the 150th |All to note |
| |anniversary of the founding of the Cadet movement. | |
| | | |
| |2. The Council agreed to receive updates at each Council meeting leading up to the celebrations. | |
| | | |
| |3. US of S suggested exploiting experiences gained from the Falklands 25 and other Veterans | |
| |events. | |
|9. Date of Next Meeting|1. The Council agreed to meet again in 12 months time. | |
Anneka Tait
Secretary, MOD Cadet and Youth Council
DRFC, Youth Policy
Distribution:
Action:
DRFC
D Def PR
Information:
US of S
MA/US of S
VCDS
DCDS(Pers)
ACDS(R&C)
DGMC
FOTR
FOTR DNR
ACGS
COS(RF)
AOC T
Cmdt ACO
Chief Executive, Council of RFCAs
Chairman, Council of RFCAs
Chairman, Marine Society and Sea Cadets
Chairman, Army Cadet Force Association
Chairman, Combined Cadet Force Association
Dept of Education and Skills (Mr A Hughes)
Home Office (Ms G Houslin)
Secretary, ACFA/CCFA
DRFC, DD Youth & Cadets
DRFC, SO1 Cadets Policy
DGMC, Hd of Schools Presentation Team
Annexe 3: Remit - Tasking letter from USofS
ANNEX A: TO
DGMC/DDefPR
D/MSU/10/7/2/sb
20 June 2007
DGMC
Copy to:
|PS/SofS, DfES |MA/CINC PERS |
|PS/PUS |DCDS Pers |
|PS/2nd PUS/VCDS |DGMO |
|PSO/CDS |DRFC |
|EA/2SL | |
|MA/AG | |
SURVEY OF MOD ENGAGEMENT IN SCHOOLS BY DGMC
At the annual meeting of the Cadet and Youth Council on 15 May 2007 the engagement of MOD and Armed Forces in school-related activities was discussed. The Minister was impressed with the wide range of those activities and the enthusiasm with which they are pursued but seeks reassurance that there is sufficient coordination between the activities and sponsors and that the focus is correct.
The meeting concluded that we needed to better inform our decision making process on how to develop even more effective links with schools. The Minister has directed you to carry out a survey of our current engagement with schools and to produce a full report. Your final report should use the research to deliver clear direction for our engagement with schools and the youth sector and identify where best to give financial and personnel support for maximum effect in the future.
You will need to engage fully with all stakeholders, including: Presentation teams, recruiters, cadets, MoD agencies, MoD Museums, youth partnerships, outreach groups, OGDs, single Service strategy teams and a sample of schools and colleges which receive our support.
The report should be presented by December 2007.
Original signed
Alex Burton
MA/US of S
MB Floor 5, Zone B 87116
1) Feedback information
Annexe 4: Responses to questionnaire
Please note that to save space, only those organisations which commented on a particular question have been left on the tables.
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (4) Number of staff involved
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students |Number of Staff involved in the organisation |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |200 |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |9 |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |16 |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |5 |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |3 |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |6 |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |1 |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |4 |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |5 |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |2 |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |3 |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |1 |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |1 Permanent. 40 MOD Staff who act as mentors |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |2 |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |1 |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |1 |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |6 |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |276 |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |28 |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |Nil – Educational activity provided by contractor , supported ad hoc by AFCO |
| | | |staff |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |3 |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |London – 8 |
| | | |Cosford – 5 |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |4 |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |30 |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |45 |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |4 |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |1 |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |28 – 5 Employees, 2 Contractors, 21 Volunteers |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |12 |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (9) When does activity occur?
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |During school term |
|2 |DARA |NR |During school term |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |Throughout the year |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |During School Term |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |Schools in term time. Cadets in Holidays |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |During school term |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |During school term |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |As requested by schools. |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |Schools visit in term time. |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |During School Term |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |As requested by schools at the rate of around 1 per month |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |During school term |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 | |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |Various |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |All year |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |During in school term |
| | | |One activity runs for 2 weeks in Feb or March |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |As requested. During School Term |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |During School Term |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |During school term |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |Monthly |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |During school term |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |During school term |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |National Curriculum activities offered during term time, other activities |
| | | |throughout the year. |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |During school term |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |During school term |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |During school term |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 |During school term |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |Throughout the Year |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |During School Term Time |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |Throughout the Year |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |During School Term |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (10) Length of activity
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |30mins, 1 hour, half day, whole day |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |1 hour, half day, other |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |2 hours, 2.5 hours |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |30 mins to whole day, depending on user requirments. |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |Other – not specified |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |1 Hour |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |Other – Tailored to each visit |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |Half Day, Whole Day |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |Half Day, Whole Day |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |90 mins average |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |Half Day |
| | | |A gifted & talented history club was held weekly Jan – Apr 06 |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |1 Hour, Half Day |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |Various |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |Half day, Whole day |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |2 hours, Half Day, Whole Day |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |1 hour. Half Day. Whole Day |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |Half Day, Whole Day |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |30 mins, half day, whole day |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |1 week |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |Half day |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |40 mins |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |Educational activity approx 1 hour, visits for whole day |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |Half day, whole day |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |1 Hour, half day, whole day, 1 week |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |1 Hour, half day, Whole Day |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |Dependent of type of activity/workshop |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |Half Day |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |Between 1 Hour and whole day |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |Half Day, Whole Day, |
| | | |Other – 2 week work placements |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (11) How many schools are linked to you
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |30 |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |30 |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |75 |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |32 schools |
| | | |26 other educational groups |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |1 |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |540 |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |2 |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 | |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |8 |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |12 |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |3 |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |20 |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |12 |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |20 |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 | |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |65 |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |Our ‘Outreach’ programme has just started with acquisition of loans boxes. |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR | |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |10 |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |120 |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |100 |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |London – 10 |
| | | |Cosford – 12 |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |99 |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |200 |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |1098 |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 |445 |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 | |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |38 |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |188 |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |22 |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (12) Reason for engagement (ranked if possible)
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |Awareness of MOD/AF, Reputation, Careers, Educational, Personal Initiatives – |
| | | |Career Development, Raise awareness of local site |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |Awareness of MOD/AF, Careers, Awareness of local MOD Site |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |Awareness of MOD/AF, Reputation, Educational |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |Educational, 2. Other – Contribution to Community, 3. Raise awareness of local |
| | | |MOD Site. |
| | | |Also Awareness of MOD/AF, Reputation, Careers, Professional Skills, Personal |
| | | |initiatives |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |Educational |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |1. Educational, 2. Awareness of MOD/AF |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |Educational, Personal Initiatives |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |Educational |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |Educational, Personal initiatives |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |Reputation, Educational, Professional Skills |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 |Awareness of MOD/Af, Educational, Professional Skills, Personal Initiatives, |
| | | |Raise awareness of MOD site, Other – Development of resource pack with local |
| | | |upper school and professional development curator. |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 | |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |Educational, Other – Remembrance |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |Awareness of MOD/AF, Reputation, Careers, Educational, Personal Initiatives |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |Educational, Professional Skills, Personal initiatives |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |Educational |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |Awareness of MOD/AF, Reputation, Educational, Professional Skills, Personal |
| | | |Initiatives |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |Reputation, Careers – Our interest in promoting RE Corps, Educational – School |
| | | |Motivation |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |Awareness of MOD/AF, Careers, Other – Industry Days/Interview Techniques |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |Awareness of MOD/AF, Educational |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |Awareness of MOD/AF, Educational |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |Awareness of MOD/AF, Reputation, Educational |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |Educational |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |Awareness of MOD/AF, Careers, Educational, Personal Initiatives |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |1. Educational, 2, Careers, 3. Awareness of MOD/AF |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |1. Careers, 2. Awareness of MOD/AF 3. Educational, 4. Personal initiatives |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |1. Educational. Professional Skills (Teachers). Special Projects |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |Educational |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |Awareness of MOD/AF, Reputation, Careers, Educational |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |1. Educational, 2. Personal initiatives, 3. Professional Skills, 4. Reputation,|
| | | |5. Careers, 6. Awareness of MOD/AF |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (13) Where does engagement happen?
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |Schools visit site |
|2 |DARA |NR |Students visit site. |
| | | |Employees visit careers fairs |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |Team visits schools |
| | | |Schools visit military base – Chatham, Minley, Sandhurst |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |Schools visit museum |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |Schools visit museum |
| | | |Some outreach to schools in 40 mile radius |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |Schools visit museum |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |Team visits schools |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |Schools visit museum |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |Schools visit museum |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |Schools visit museum |
| | | |Some outreach to schools in 35 mile radius |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |Schools visit museum |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |Schools visit museum |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |Schools visit museum |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |Staff visit schools |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |Schools visit museum |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |Schools visit museum |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |Schools visit museum. Exhibition has been staged at Nottingham University |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |Schools visit museum |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |Team visits schools |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |MOD Est – Grantown/Crickhowell/Fairbourne |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |Team visits schools |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |Team visits schools |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |Majority of schools visit museum. Some off site visits to schools undertaken |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |Team visits school. |
| | | |Students visit Palace Barracks |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |Teams visit schools, |
| | | |Students visit Military base and ships |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |Team visits school |
| | | |Students visit RMR Tyne and HMS Calliope |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 |Teams visit school |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |Schools visit museum |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |Schools visit museum |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |95% of engagement schools visiting museum. Other outreach visits. |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |Schools visit museum |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (15) What age groups – priorities ranked
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |5 - 25 |
|2 |DARA |NR |14 - 19 |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |14 - 22 |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 |Yr 9 - 13 |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |9 – 11, 13 - 15 |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |2 to adult |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |KS1, 2 & 3 |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |14 - 16 |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |11 - 16 |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |KS1, 2 & 3 |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 | |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |Mainly P6/7 and S3/4 but also whole school |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |9 & 13 |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |Core KS2, Some KS3 |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |Years 10 - 13 |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 | |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |All |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |11 – 18 |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |5 - 19 |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |14+ |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |14+ |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |14+ |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |16+ |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |Pre-school to adult |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |15 - 18 |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |7 - 25 |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |14 - 20 |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |All |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |All |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |All |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |6 - 16 |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (16) What types of school engaged?
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |Primary, Middle, Secondary, Maintained, Academy, Independent, Special, 6th, FE |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |Secondary, Academy, 6th, FE |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |Primary, Secondary, Academy, Independent |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |71% Primary, 27% Secondary, 2% Prep – also listed as: |
| | | |87% Maintained, 13% Independent |
| | | |Also special schools and Military Prep College |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |Primary, Secondary |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |Secondary, Maintained, Independent, 6th |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |Primary, Secondary, Independent, Special |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |Primary, Middle, Independent, Other – Pre School |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |Primary, Middle, Secondary, Maintained, Independent, FE |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |Primary, Secondary, Independent |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |Primary & Secondary |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |Primary, Middle, Secondary, Maintained, Independent, Special, Other – Pre |
| | | |School Learning Alliance |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |Secondary, Academy, 6th, FE |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |Primary, Middle, Secondary, Special, 6th, FE |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |Primary, Secondary, Special, FE |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |Primary, Middle, Secondary, Maintained, Independent |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |Primary, Middle, Secondary, Maintained, Academy, Independent, Special, 6th, FE |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |Secondary, Maintained, Academy, Independent, Special, 6th, FE |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |Secondary, Maintained, Academy, Independent |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |Secondary, Maintained, Academy, Independent |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |Secondary, Maintained, Academy, Independent, 6th, FE |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |London – Primary 75%, Secondary 15%, Academy 2%, Special 5%, FE 3% |
| | | |Cosford – Primary 75%, Secondary, 15%, Independent 2%, 6th 2%, Other 4% |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |Middle, Secondary, 6th, FE, Other - Grammar |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |Primary, Secondary, Independent, FE |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |Primary, Middle, Secondary, Maintained, 6th, FE, University |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 |Primary, Secondary, 6th, FE, University |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |Primary, Middle, Secondary, Maintained, Academy, Independent, Special School, |
| | | |6th Form, FE, Young Offenders |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |Primary, Middle, Secondary, Maintained, Independent, Special School, 6th Form, |
| | | |FE |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |Primary, Middle, Secondary, Maintained, Academy, Independent, Special, 6th |
| | | |Form, FE, School Cadet Forces, Exclusion & Behavioural Units, HE |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |Primary, Secondary, Independent, Special, 6th, FE |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (18) Cost of activity
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 | |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |£27k |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |£12 or £12.50 |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |£4970 pa (realistically c£12000) |
| | | |£1 (estimate based on 2 hrs per student per year) (or more realistically £2.50)|
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |Much of start up costs were paid for by various grants. |
| |Mus | |£10 for KS3 Teachers pack |
| | | |£5 charge per week for load of a handling box. |
| | | |Schools visit the museum for free – donations are requested. |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |£314k |
| | | |£6.28 per student per hour per year |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |£500 pa |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |£3.50 per pupil |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |£250 pa |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |Nil |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 | |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 | |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 | |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 | |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |£6500 – Education officer wages |
| | | |£2.00 per pupil for one of the activities, which is charged by Historic |
| | | |Scotland for Actors fees |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 | |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |£35,000pa |
| | | |£5.50 per hour |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR | |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |Approx £72k (estimate based on comparative civilian costs) |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |£216.4k |
| | | |£18 per student per presentation |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 | |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 | |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 | |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 | |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 | |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 | |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |£3000 (Not including Officers Salary) |
| | | |£1.25 per student, per hour, per year |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |£57000 PA |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 | |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (19) Who covers the costs?
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |Other Govt Dept - DSTL |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |Single Service |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |School - £1.50 per pupil |
| | | |Local Authority - £1.25 per pupil – primary students |
| | | |Other – Absorbed in the education budget |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |MOD – Accommodation & Utilities only |
| | | |Other Sponsor – Regimental Resources £1,030 |
| | | |School – Donations Invited £660 |
| | | |Local Authority - £2400 |
| | | |Other – Museum Trust £880 |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |School |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |Army |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |MOD, School, Parents |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |School |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |School – Pay a nominal charge |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |School |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |MOD – Staffing Costs |
| | | |Other Sponsor – Funding under MLA East Learning Links Projects from DCSF |
| | | |School |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |Other – Chelmsford Borough Council |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |MOD |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |School |
| |Mus | |Local Authority – 1 part time post and budget of £2000 |
| | | |Other – Museum – approx £200 plus volunteer time |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |Other Govt Dept – Historic Scotland |
| | | |Other - Museum |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |School, Museum |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |MOD – 10% of attendants time |
| | | |Single Service – 3% Industrial Sponsorship |
| | | |School – Concessionary fees recover about £2k |
| | | |Students – Concessionary fees recover about £0-5k |
| | | |Local Authority – via Schools |
| | | |Other – Museum – Museum Charity 87% |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |RAF |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |RAF |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |RAF |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |DACOS Media & Comms – Air Cmd TLB |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |MOD – GIA |
| | | |School – Each workshop/activity incurs a small charge. The total cost of each |
| | | |school visit is the responsibility of the school |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |Single Service – RN (DNR) |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |Single Service |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |Single Service |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |Museum |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |Museum |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |RN, AimHigher, Setpoint, Links to Learning, Paid Visits |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |MOD – Staff time of museum personnel |
| | | |Other Sponsor – Grants to cover education officer |
| | | |School - £3 per pupil |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (20) Breakdown of costs?
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |80% Personnel, 10% Equipment, 10% T&S |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |+/-50% Equipment, +/-50% Advertising. |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |70% Personnel, 15% Equipment, 15% Advertising |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |£4370 Personnel |
| | | |£300 Equipment |
| | | |£270 T&S |
| | | |£30 Advertising |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |Advertising |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |86% Personnel |
| | | |1% Equipment |
| | | |10% T&S |
| | | |3% Other – TAFMIS, Car Hire, Fuel |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |T&S, Other – buying of uniforms/artefacts |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |Personnel, Equipment, Advertising |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |20% Personnel, 5% Equipment, 75% T&S |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 | |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 | |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 | |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 | |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 | |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 | |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |20% Personnel, 15% Equipment, 65% T&S |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |£32,000 Personnel |
| | | |£1,000 Equipment |
| | | |T&S Marginal |
| | | |£2,000 Advertising |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR | |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 | |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 | |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |£185k Personnel |
| | | |£2.5k Equipment |
| | | |£17.1k T&S |
| | | |£7.4k Vehicles |
| | | |£400 Corporate Clothes |
| | | |£4k Gizzets |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 | |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 | |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 | |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 | |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |80% Personnel (est). 10% Equipment. 10% Advertising |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |90% Equipment |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |87% Personnel, 9.4% Equipment, 3.5% Advertising |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |72% Personnel, 1.5% Equipment, 2.7% Advertising, 2.9% Other |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (24) Effects of activity – Rank against the six point scale – Healthy, Safe, Enjoy, Contribution, Economic, AF Understanding
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |1 1 4 4 4 4 |
|2 |DARA |NR |5 5 5 5 5 5 |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 | |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |1 1 5 5 1 3 |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |1 1 5 1 1 2 |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |2 1 4 3 1 4 |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |3 2 4 5 4 5 |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |1 1 1 1 1 4 |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |4 4 5 4 ? 5 |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 | |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 | |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |1 1 3 3 1 4 |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 | |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |1 1 5 5 1 5 |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 | |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |5 5 5 5 1 3 |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |1 1 1 5 1 5 |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |3 3 5 5 3 4 |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |1 1 3 4 1 5 |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |5 3 5 5 1 3 |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |1 1 5 3 4 4 |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |1 1 5 5 1 5 |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |1 5 5 3 1 4 |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |3 1 5 5 3 5 |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |5 5 5 5 5 5 |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |1 1 3 1 1 5 |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |1 1 5 4 1 3 |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |3 2 5 4 3 5 |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |1 5 5 5 3 4 |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |1 1 4 3 1 3 |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (25) What type of feedback?
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |Written, Verbal Email, Media, Photos |
|2 |DARA |NR |Written |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |Verbal, email |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |Written, Verbal, Media, Photos, Own |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |Written, Verbal, Email, Media, Photos, Own, Other – Textback/Mobile phone |
| | | |feedback |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |Verbal, Media, Own |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |Verbal, Own |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |Verbal, Photos |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |Written, Verbal, Photos, Own |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |Written, Verbal, Email, Media, Photos, Own |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |Written, Verbal, Media, Photos |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |Verbal, Email, Other – Teacher evaluation on project form |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 | |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |Written, Verbal, Email, Media, Photographs |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |Written, Verbal, Email |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |Written, Verbal, Email, Photos, Own |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |Written, Verbal, Email, Media, Photos |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |Written, Verbal, Email, Media, Photos, Own |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |Written, Verbal, Email, Media, Photos |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |Written, Verbal, Email, Photos |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |Written, Verbal, Email, Media, photos |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |Own |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |Written, Verbal, Email, Media, Photos, Own |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |Written, Verbal, Email, Media, Photos |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |Written, Verbal, Email, Media, Photos, Own |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |Written, Verbal, Email, Own |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |Written, Verbal, Media, Photos, Own |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |Written – Letters, Verbal – Anecdotal Evidence, Own Evaluation Form |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |Written, Verbal Email, Media, Photos, Own |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |Written, Verbal, Media, Photos, Own |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (28) Future developments planned
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |To raise awareness of scheme within DSTL and to encourage wider engagement of |
| | | |staff to build on the activities already developed. |
|2 |DARA |NR |Awaiting approval for implementation and running of weekend |
| | | |science/engineering club. |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |Continuation of the same theme |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |Develop an outreach version of the workshops. |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |Continuous development of existing provision. |
| | | |Development with secondary schools for history dept (potentially 5 schools in |
| | | |catchment area) perhaps using Defence Dynamics products. |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |KS2 Home Front in Museum. |
| |Mus | |Continue marketing KS3. |
| | | |KS1 Remembrance Sunday |
| | | |Encourage Cadets |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 | |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |Attempting to obtain further artefacts and uniforms for visits. |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |Sustaining level of use and increasing catchment area. |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |Increase in developing awareness in cultural diversity by use of interactive |
| | | |articles |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |Give the large geographical area we cover, all our efforts will have to be |
| | | |centred on gained maximum geographical coverage. |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |Expand use of the resource pack to all Beds Upper Schools by launch in Oct 07 |
| | | |and publicity on website in 07/08 year, linked to a scheme of work and visits. |
| | | |Encourage Lower schools in local village to use museum resources, initially |
| | | |targeting the nearest school where 70% of pupils (age 4-9) are from Chicksands |
| | | |Base families. |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |Not available – Museum being redeveloped in next 2 years |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |Continually looking to support more students but really working at max as it is|
| | | |only me. |
| | | |Looking to take strands to other part of the UK, and use local MOD staff to |
| | | |deliver them. Good support from PUS for this. |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |None until future of museum support is clarified |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |Primary Schools – New education pack in development. |
| | | |Secondary Schools – Research how we can encourage more to visit. Provide |
| | | |further subjects. Secure funding for new handling box. Develop website |
| | | |Colleges – working on new links with FE. Researching what type of projects |
| | | |suitable. |
| | | | |
| | | |Review CPD after first session and amend |
| | | |Encourage more teachers and introduce more training sessions. |
| | | | |
| | | |Develop existing activities and website. |
| | | | |
| | | |Update general question sheets for all ages. |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |Update Resource Materials. |
| | | |Relate to changing National Curriculum. |
| | | |Respond to customer needs where possible |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |Establish the Outreach and Loans programmes. Develop the new partnership with |
| | | |the County’s MLA funded HUB education programme. |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |Continued improvement |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |Expand number of courses per annum as spare capacity allows. |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |Maintain as is. Cost limited. |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |Through feedback from students/teachers the SAT aim to develop their package to|
| | | |meet the objectives in the RAF Engagement Strategy and the needs of the |
| | | |audience. |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 | |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |Would like a Royal Marine visibility team to be based at RAF Aldergrove for 3 |
| | | |month period to conduct leadership training in schools/cadet units. |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |Contact schools twice a year to offer all services. Ship visits core business |
| | | |when ships available. |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |Increasing the number of schools taking up the offer. |
| | | |Visits will develop to incorporate change and progress of product. |
| | | |Increasing the number of Universities taking up the product. |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |Developing Pre-school, KS3 and University audiences. Continued development of |
| | | |programme in line with Museum Learning Policy |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |Increasing provision for schools. Spreading across further areas of the |
| | | |curriculum. Expanding outreach potential |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |Continue building on the number of post age 14 groups doing science and |
| | | |technology sessions |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |Greater Involvement of Secondary Schools |
| | | |Expansion of subject areas into business marketing |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (29) Information on links with Policy or Mission statement of organisation
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |The Education Outreach programme is detailed under our Corporate Social |
| | | |Responsibility Theme |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |It is not part of the units mission statement, but the unit does endeavour to |
| | | |foster good relationships with all the local schools which encompass a wide |
| | | |range of different age groups and types of schools. |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |The Gordon Highlanders Museum is committed to developing high quality learning |
| | | |opportunities for a broad range of publics. Through the provisions of |
| | | |accessible exhibitions, interpretation material, guided tours, workshops, |
| | | |special events and outreach. The Museum aims to inform, educate and inspire |
| | | |both young and old about the history of the Regiment and its place within the |
| | | |local and national heritage. |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |Yes – Museum Education Policy |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |Education Policy |
| |Mus | |Forward Plan |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |Our mission dictated by DGS – The DGS Management Plan 2007 |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |Our policy is to provide a service for local schools. |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technology |1687 |Curricular Education is a condition for provision of MOD support for MOD |
| | | |museums. It also forms a significant part of our mission statement |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |Part of Access and Learning Policy |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |Yes. The aims of the Museum Education Service are: |
| | | |Provision of a formal education element for school and other Museum visits. |
| | | |Production of support materials for use by schools. |
| | | |Outreach visits to schools led by experienced staff. |
| | | |It displays a practical Life Long Learning by providing speakers for |
| | | |organisations such as Probus an local historical societies. |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |Forward Plan 07/08: “Interpret the collections & archive for a variety of |
| | | |audiences according to the phased Display Brief, Trustees’ priorities and MOD |
| | | |heritage Branch requirements”. |
| | | |Develop and trail a targeted resource for KS3 school students. |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 | |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 | |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |It is included in our Forward Plan under ‘Aims and Aspirations’ |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |Education Policy – |
| | | |Promote the museum and collection |
| | | |Access for everybody |
| | | |Enhance understanding |
| | | |Encourage use by schools, colleges, universities and youth groups. |
| | | | |
| | | |Forward Plan – |
| | | |Develop education packs |
| | | |Develop links with education facilities |
| | | |Maintain develop outreach service |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |The Creation of a comprehensive education service based on the resources and |
| | | |archives of the Regimental Museum and encouraging the principles of life long |
| | | |learning. |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |All school and cadet related activities are delivered within the guidelines and|
| | | |to the specific programme set out in our learning policy and strategy, which |
| | | |ties in with the museum charity’s strategic plan and annual audited report. |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |Inspectorate of Recruiting Strategy |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |RAF Engagement/Youth Strategy |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |Inspectorate of Recruiting Strategy |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |RAF Engagement Strategy – Increase awareness & understanding of the RAF within |
| | | |schools and colleges with activity that is exclusive of, but complimentary to |
| | | |recruitment and youth activity. |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |The Mission statement of the RAF Museum reflects what we aim to achieve. ‘ The |
| | | |Museum exists to educate and inform present and future generations about: The |
| | | |history and traditions of the RAF, Air Power and Defence, Aviation links to the|
| | | |RAF, And to promote the RAF |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |DNR Outreach program. |
| | | |AFCO Belfast – learning for life and work. |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |RN Awareness, Recruiting Awareness, Royal Navy in the Public Eye (RNIPE) |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |Mission statement from CNR. |
| | | |To recruit male and female junior rates of the right calibre for the service. |
| | | |Policy is to recruit and plan for future recruiting to reach area targets as |
| | | |required. |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |Museum Mission and Learning Policy. Audience Development Plan. Learning Mission|
| | | |Statement – The Royal Naval Museum seeks to stimulate and support learning to |
| | | |promote a wider understanding and appreciation of the cultural, historical and |
| | | |social significance of the Royal Navy. |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |Museum Learning Policy |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |Educational – To demonstrate to the general public, students, naval personnel |
| | | |and those of other services, the evolution and development of naval aviation, |
| | | |thereby encouraging interest and study at every level. |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |Winchester Military Museums operate a joint access and learning strategy. |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (30) Argument for maintaining the activity
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |Limited number of handouts |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |Yes, due to undermanning of pinch point trade. |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |Important to teach about WW1 & WW2, to remember the contributions made by the |
| | | |Gordons. |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |Yes, vital for community relations and military museums. |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |Education is at the heart of our museum. We aim to involve education in all |
| |Mus | |parts of the museums work. This will help us to broaden our audience and enable|
| | | |all our visitors and users to enjoy and learn from our collection. |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |The Teams contact with school students is necessary to meet their Citizenship |
| | | |curriculum targets and has the invaluable benefit of raising awareness of the |
| | | |Army and the Forces among an impressionable age group. |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |Yes. We are a valuable resource which raises both the Army’s and the MODs |
| |Mus | |profile. |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |Curricular Education is a condition for provision of MOD support for MOD |
| | | |museums. It also forms a significant part of our mission statement |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |Yes. Increase in developing awareness in cultural diversity by use of |
| | | |interactive articles |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |Yes. This is a core activity. By accepting the CD of Museum Visit Support |
| | | |Materials, promoting it and distributing it to all schools in their areas, as |
| | | |well as using our service, our Local Authorities have shown they regard us as |
| | | |an important local educational resource. It would be unwise therefore to drop |
| | | |this activity. |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |Yes. The limited work we have done in the last few years since paid staff were |
| | | |employed demonstrates the need for maintaining such a service, however, |
| | | |continued support in terms of staffing to run activities would be required once|
| | | |the 07/08 funding for support from Luton Museum service ends, as at present the|
| | | |Curator is the only experienced member of staff (but not education qualified). |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |Yes – will reopen with enhanced educational facility |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |MOD delivers this programme as a responsible employer putting something back |
| | | |into the local community. |
| | | |Awarded ‘Best Practice in the Public Sector’, no other govt dept does anything |
| | | |like this. |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |Both MOD (Service Level Agreement with Museum) and DCES expect museum to |
| |Mus | |provide an education ? |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 | |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |Yes. Raise awareness of Regiment/History/Museum resources |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |Maintaining the learning service of the museum is essential to secure outside |
| | | |funding and to increasing visitor numbers. Education is also mandated in our |
| | | |Royal Charter. |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |Yes – essential to attract/inform within the school careers environment |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |Yes – excellent engagement primarily with EM children out of home environment. |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |Yes – essential engagement with schools in support of National Curriculum. |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |The SAT is one of the key assets of the Public Relations Personnel who assist |
| | | |in reaching the youth audience and the targets stated in the RAF Engagement |
| | | |Strategy. |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |Access & Learning plays a vital role in informing our visitors about the |
| | | |artefacts within our collection. When working with schools we can help them to |
| | | |see the relevance and importance of the museum and why we need to look after |
| | | |the items in our care. The activities we offer are designed to support schools |
| | | |in the delivery of the National Curriculum whilst at the same time offering the|
| | | |learners opportunities that are not available elsewhere. |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |These outreach activities are an essential part of our recruiting campaign. |
| | | |With the budget cuts in advertising, it is paramount that we get the direct |
| | | |access to influence young people in the recruiting age bracket before they make|
| | | |career choices. |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |Offering this facility to schools ensures the widening of the RN Brand, an |
| | | |excellent tool for highlighting the physical and practical requirements of the |
| | | |RN/RM. Also can promote engineering to our target audience and to promote |
| | | |teaching aids to tutors through our main website. |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |Yes – No Recruits – No Service |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |Yes. Learning is a core function of the Royal Naval Museum. |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |Yes. Museums provide culturally enriching education experiences that have a |
| | | |number of advantages over the classroom and can have a lasting impact on young |
| | | |people. |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |Education is core function of the Museum |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |Requirement of the HLF in granting a sum of money to develop the AG Corps |
| | | |Museum |
| | | |School visits require the close co-operation of all the museums concerned. This|
| | | |continues to consolidate links between staff in what was – prior to 2002 – a |
| | | |group of individual museums operating on the same site. |
| | | |Repeat visits. School age children only have a brief look at what the museums |
| | | |have on display. They will often bring their relatives back for a second and |
| | | |longer visit, generating additional income in the form of admission fees and |
| | | |shop sales. |
| | | |Increasing visitor numbers during quiet periods of the tourist year. |
| | | |Positive benefits to veterans involved in educational programme. |
| | | |Raises profile of WMM and role of military in locality through positive press |
| | | |releases. |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (31) What part of national curriculum does the activity support?
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 | |
|2 |DARA |NR |Engineering |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |Career Development |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |English Language, Environmental Studies, Personal and Social Development |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |KS 2 & 3 History – |
| | | |National Curriculum in Wales Common Requirements |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |KS 1, 2 & 3 – History and Citizenship |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |Citizenship |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |Standard Grade History |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |Early Learning Goals – pre schools work shop. |
| | | |KS1 & 2 workshops all tie in with NC and QCA requirements eg Shelter Building |
| | | |workshop for Y6 pupils |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |KS 1 & 2 |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |The National Curriculum is not in force in Scotland. Primary work supports |
| | | |study of the Home Front in WW2. Work with secondary pupils supports Standard |
| | | |Grade history. All activities fit well with Curriculum for Excellence (Learning|
| | | |through Experience Element) and are highly child focussed. |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |Year 4 – WW2 |
| | | |Year 9 – Citizenship, Thinking Skills (research), WW2 Topics, 20th Century |
| | | |Conflict (Terrorism, Independence Struggles, Technology) |
| | | |A Level – History – One Year research projects |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |KS 2 & 3 |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 | |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |KS 1 to 3 |
| |Mus | | |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |Primary P4-7 |
| | | |Secondary Standard Grade Unit II Context B |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |KS 1 to 3. Appropriate sections of exam syllabus |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |KS 1 to 3 – History |
| | | |KS 1 & 2 – English |
| | | |KS 2 & 3 - Science |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR | |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 | |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |GCSE – Maths, Science |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |PSHE & Citizenship |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |KS 1 to 4 – History |
| | | |KS 1 to 3 – Science, Design & Technology |
| | | |KS 4 – OCR Gateway |
| | | |GCSE – Cold War History, Business Studies, Leisure & Tourism |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |CCEA – Learning for Life and Work |
| | | |GCSE - PE |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |Life Skills, Personal Development, Maths, Science |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |Citizenship |
| | | |Employment Assistance |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |Foundation Stage - Knowledge & Understanding of the world, Communication, |
| | | |Language & Literacy, Creative Development |
| | | |KS 1 to 3 -History, Geography, PSHE, Citizenship, Art & Design |
| | | |GCSE – History, Leisure & Tourism |
| | | |AS/A Level – History |
| | | |GNVQ – Leisure, Travel & Tourism |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |KS 1 to 3 - Primarily History, Some Science |
| | | |Citizenship across all key stages |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |90 sessions. Each designed to meet req of NC |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |KS2 – History, Citizenship, Geography |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (32) What supporting material is provided to the school and when?
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 | |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |During |
| | | |Information leaflets and recruiting ‘goodies’ |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |Free pre-visits to all teachers. |
| | | |Some resources can be downloaded. |
| | | |Workshop worksheets for teachers and pupils. |
| | | |Teacher resource pack. |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |Leaflets, information for teachers – information on content of workshops |
| | | |Feedback Questionnaire |
| | | |Guidelines on safety information. |
| | | |Museum produced Education Newsletter. |
| | | | |
| | | |Can be downloaded. Available pre, during and post. |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 |Info re museum. KS1 & 2 activity sheets. |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 | |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |Worksheets |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |During. Worksheets for some activities. Teachers notes etc available on |
| | | |education part of website. |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |Photographs, DVD, Artifacts. Opportunity to meet Gurkha staff |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |Pre, During, Post. CD, which includes materials in support of the following |
| | | |activities: handling artefacts, examining visual evidence, drawing inferences |
| | | |from photographic evidence and recording experiences and visit related language|
| | | |work as well as other differentiated materials. The CD has been approved at |
| | | |Authority Ed/Curric. Development Officer level and distributed by them. |
| | | |All primary schools in our area have been issued with a free CD of materials in|
| | | |support of a Museum visit. All secondary schools have the enhanced version |
| | | |which includes extension materials on WW1 |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |CD Resource Pack – Archive material for 3 research topics from collections. |
| | | |With teachers notes and scheme of work. |
| | | |Loans out with Curator of army uniform and possible intelligence gadgets to |
| | | |lower schools with a talk. |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 | |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 | |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |On request. Materials from museum archives to support national history |
| |Mus | |syllabus. |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |Pre, During, Post |
| | | |Teacher Notes, Question Packs, Activity Packs, Handling Boxes, Follow up |
| | | |activities. |
| | | | |
| | | |Downloadable in the future |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |Teaching notes and current information sheet. Can be downloaded. |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |Pre, During, Post |
| | | |Loans boxes, quiz sheets, activity ideas, lesson plans, information about the |
| | | |museum and RE Corps, background information about the subject being studied. |
| | | |Can be downloaded. |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR |During, Post |
| | | |RAF Careers literature - DVD |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |During, post |
| | | |Briefing material ref FDTCs including course content and conduct. |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |During, post |
| | | |Maths and Science CD ROMS |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 | |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |Pre & During – Worksheets and Resources for Teachers |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |During |
| | | |Careers literature where requested. RN Contact cards with website and data |
| | | |force numbers. |
| | | |Strength Suppleness Strength Speed CD ROM |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |All recruiting and careers literature is available, also Mathematical, |
| | | |scientific and engineering problems, all available on line |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |Recruiting literature |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |Pre, during and post visit materials available – Trails, Activity Sheets, |
| | | |background information, Teacher Guides |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 |Pre-visit is advised |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 |Resource packs |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |Pre, During Post |
| | | |Ideas for projects/classroom work before visit and follow up work |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (33) Any other important information summarised!
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 | |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 | |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 |It was very difficult to estimate and quantify the annual cost of the workshop.|
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 | |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 | |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 | |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 |We are trying to develop our service with schools further |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |For more information refer to the museum website at |
| | | |.uk |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 |This survey does not cover the following: |
| | | |Adult Education (Lectures, Presentations, Visits). |
| | | |Adult Education Group (U3A) |
| | | |Outreach lectures to various Adult ladies (NT, Probus, Royal Geographical |
| | | |Society) |
| | | |Exhibitions – At least one or usually 2 exhibitions a year. |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 |Yes. At present we are conducting Outreach visits to schools in support of |
| | | |Standard Grade History (WW1). As a matter of good practice all materials used |
| | | |during these visits are customised to meet individual class/school needs. |
| | | |During these visits we present to whole school year groups of history pupils as|
| | | |well as special interest groups such as S6 Studies English pupils covering the |
| | | |War Poets. Our system of Ourteach allows schools involved maximum input into |
| | | |their show through close consultation with visits timed for maximum curricular |
| | | |impact and with least possible disruption ot the school time table. This is |
| | | |very cost effective for both the museum and the school. |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |3 Annexes attached with report. |
| | | |A. Information for DFES database of schools participation in museums, as |
| | | |supplied to museums, libaries and archives east for Apr 2006 – March 2007. |
| | | |B. Learning Links 2007/07: Go Further background information |
| | | |C. Learning Links 4 – Go Further, Launch Model |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 | |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 | |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |Our education programme is run in conjunction with the Worcester City Museum |
| |Mus | |Service. Both are run on a very tight budget. I have made no forecast of future|
| | | |activity because the RHQ which has until recently provided support to the |
| | | |museum is closing down in 2009 and has already lost some key members of staff. |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 |The museum’s education programme is relatively new. The first trail |
| | | |packs/question sheets were introduced a couple of years ago and we have been |
| | | |adjusting them and increasing the number of schools visiting since then. |
| | | |We have had some difficulty attracting cadets and secondary schools. |
| | | |Main problems are the costs involved in providing replica objects for the |
| | | |handling boxes as grants can be difficult to obtain and advertising the packs |
| | | |etc |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |Building a network of participating schools demands time, patience and personal|
| | | |contact. |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR |The RE Museum is embarking on a Heritage Lottery funded and RE Corps funded |
| | | |project to relocated and modernize its substantial, university quality library |
| | | |and archives with a view to engaging with the new higher education |
| | | |establishments being built in adjacent sites including Mid Kent College, The |
| | | |University of Greenwich in Medway, and the associated elements of the |
| | | |University of Kent and Canterbury Christ Church university. The museum is |
| | | |negotiating with the Medway LA to partner the adjacent location of their |
| | | |archives to draw in their customer base in what is becoming a higher education |
| | | |hub in Medway, associated with all age groups and life long learning. |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR | |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 | |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 | |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 | |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |The Royal Air Force Museum offers a wide range of activities and resources for |
| | | |our visitors but in particular for the learners in full time education from |
| | | |pre-school to university. Our sessions are linked to the requirements of the |
| | | |National Curriculum and have a subject focus of History, Science or Design & |
| | | |Technology. We also offer resources for Art, Drama and English and can deliver |
| | | |sessions for Business Studies or Leisure & Tourism courses. We can and do |
| | | |accommodate learners with mobility difficulties and those with Special |
| | | |Educational Needs. All our sessions can be tailored to suit the requirements of|
| | | |a particular group. |
| | | |The National Cold War exhibition located at our Cosford site has a dedicated |
| | | |website. This site has the potential to offer on line teaching and the pilot |
| | | |project will take place in the autumn term 2007. |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |With Normalisation in N Ireland we are now trying to break down the traditional|
| | | |barriers that have prevented us getting into Roman Catholic schools. Having the|
| | | |ability to offer outreach activities that relate to the curriculum and are cost|
| | | |negative to the school not only benefit the service but the MOD in general. |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |Engineering events are usually set up regionally and the RN is invited to |
| | | |attend. |
| | | |Careers events are usually set up by outside civilian agencies and careers |
| | | |advisors are requested to attend. |
| | | |Interview technique skills are given in presentation style and one-to-one |
| | | |interviews. |
| | | |Ships visits only available when ships visit and has the time and manpower to |
| | | |spare. |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |This activity applies to our engineering challenge. |
| | | | |
| | | |It is far from a standard issue as many schools vary greatly with information |
| | | |required and responses given. The information is generalised as a mean average.|
| | | |A record of all visits and scheduled visits is co-ordinated, though often |
| | | |response is to short and long notice requests for various activity, |
| | | |presentations or testing. |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |In addition to our regular programme of workshops, the RN Museum has also run |
| | | |a number of special projects with schools and other learning providers. To |
| | | |date, these include: ‘Sea your World’ – funded by Awards for All, focusing on |
| | | |the development of a Pre-School creative play environment exploring themes of |
| | | |the sea, local history and the RN. |
| | | |‘Sea with your own eyes’ – (part of Sea Your History HLF funded project) an |
| | | |arts project with KS3 pupils investigating propaganda, both past and present, |
| | | |and the role of the Navy. |
| | | |‘African Legacy Week’ – Funded by HLF. A KS 1-3 activity focusing on the |
| | | |legacies of the slave trade as well as the humanitarian role of the RN in |
| | | |ending the transatlantic slave trade and combating modern day people |
| | | |trafficking. |
| | | | |
| | | |In addition to this the Informal Learning Programme includes Family Learning |
| | | |events and regular Holiday Activites. |
| | | | |
| | | |Furthermore, the target audiences for Learning also include university |
| | | |students, researchers and adult learners. Provision for these includes the |
| | | |Naval Academy seminar programme, annual lectures and conferences. This year the|
| | | |museum has organised 2 national conferences, ‘Falklands 25: The Naval |
| | | |Experience’, and ‘Chasing Freedom: Abolition 200 Conference’ |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 | |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 | |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 |Provision of Education Officer is invaluable to delivering and developing the |
| | | |range of education activities offered by WMM. Unfortunately post ‘paid for’ by |
| | | |grant aid from different charitable organisations which can lead to uncertainty|
| | | |about future projects and job security from individual concerned. Having a |
| | | |dedicated EO means that the curator of the AGC Museum can focus on managing |
| | | |museum and staff. |
| | | |The curator of the AGC Museum believes that little of the information coming |
| | | |from the MOD to schools is passed to the museums which have to support these |
| | | |initiatives locally. |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
COMMENTS ON SURVEY THEME: (34) Comments on the survey?
|Ser |Organisation |No. of |Comments |
| | |Students | |
|1 |DSTL |3500 | |
|2 |DARA |NR | |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 | |
|4 |Army Recruitng |403,884 | |
|5 |Army DART |500 | |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Mus |1900 | |
|7 |Royal Welsh Mus |2400 |Period given was a vague 2007. It should have been defined FY 2006/07 or school|
| | | |year 2006/07 to ensure consistency of data across returns. We have used |
| | | |financial year 2006/07. |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers |1125 | |
| |Mus | | |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 | |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers |1000 | |
| |Mus | | |
|11 |REME Mus of Technologt |1687 |Questionnaire seemed a bit broad. It isn’t specifically analysing the provision|
| | | |of Education in Museums for schools and hence it was difficult to answer some |
| | | |of the questions. |
|12 |Gurkha Mus |1500 | |
|13 |Black Watch Mus |750 | |
|14 |National Army Mus |12,000 | |
|15 |Military Intelligence Mus |100 |A very welcome initiative but I hope and trust that it will be followed by some|
| | | |real money or staffing to support this type of initiative, as the many demands |
| | | |of managing a developing museum service are such that to continue with Lower |
| | | |schools acivities outreach would be unsustainable in the long term. Suggest you|
| | | |contact the Museums Libaries Archives east, Jenny Duke, Regional learning |
| | | |Officer, jenny.duke@.uk to find out how the Learning Links Money |
| | | |(from DCSF) has been targeted at Museums without an education officer. |
| | | |Generally a good idea to contact the museums libraries and archives council |
| | | |regions learning development people to forge links. Also, some centralised |
| | | |training for curators/assistants on managing schools visits, and some thought |
| | | |to facilities within buildings for larger groups would be welcome. |
|16 |Essex Regt Mus |1500 |Over 19 years I have interacted for the Museum with all ages and abilities from|
| | | |pre-school learning alliance groups, all types of primary and secondary |
| | | |including special needs through to university and U3A level. |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 | |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For |1112 |The information requested is very extensive. Our whole museum is run on a |
| |Mus | |shoestring almost exclusively by volunteers who do not have the resources to |
| | | |record or collate all the information you require. |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Mus |3400 | |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Mus |2200 |Longer notice in order to give adequate response. |
|21 |Royal Engineers Mus |NR | |
|22 |CCF and ACF |43,000 | |
|23 |DSPT 2006/7 |30,000 | |
|24 |RAF Careers |NR | |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 | |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 | |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 | |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 | |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 | |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 | |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 | |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 | |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W |36,500 | |
| |England | | |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 | |
|35 |RN Mus |5000 |The type of learning activities provided by Museums and the way in which they |
| | | |are delivered, differ greatly from, for example, recruiters and presentation |
| | | |teams. Furthermore, Museum based learning does not solely focus on schools but |
| | | |also encompasses family learning, adult learning, university research, |
| | | |cross-generational projects and outreach. Therefore, a questionnaire specific |
| | | |to museums would be advisable for the future to provide a fuller, more accurate|
| | | |picture of what we do. |
|36 |RM Mus |3000 | |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Rugby |45,000 | |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Mus |6621 | |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colls | | |
|40 |Princes Trust | | |
|41 |Skillforce | | |
|42 |Other Agencies | | |
|43 |Other Museums | | |
|44 |Civilian Mentors | | |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website |60,000 | |
| |(est 07-08) | | |
|46 |Winchester Mil Mus |846 | |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 | |
Annexe 5. Summary Report on Schools Engagement Survey to USofS Jan 08
DGMC/DDEFPR/05-08-02
9 April 08
MA/USofS
Copy to:
PS/PUS PS/2ndPUS
EA/CNS MA1 CGS PS/CAS
ACDS(R+C) DRFC PS/DCDS(Pers)
Dir RN MUS Dir NAM Dir RAF MUS
CE DSTL CE Met Office CE DE
MOD ENGAGEMENT WITH SCHOOLS – PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR USofS
Issue
1. The findings of our report into MOD engagement in schools.
Recommendation
2. That USofS:
a. Notes the recommendations for additions to MOD Youth Policy.
b. Agrees that these should be considered for approval by the Youth and Cadet Council in May 08.
Timing
3. Routine.
Background.
4. The MOD and Armed Forces have engaged with young people (aged 6-22 years) over many years and in many ways. Since 2002 the very significant involvement with young people outside of the Cadet Forces, especially in schools, has taken place under the auspices of the MOD Youth and Cadet Council. DRFC’s Youth Policy (2006) recognised three pillars supporting Defence (i.e. MOD and Armed Forces) non-recruiting Youth activity; Cadets, Partnership and youth work, and Curriculum activities. All three pillars engage with schools along side a considerable single Service recruiting presence. Engagements occur on site and outside school premises – e.g. as visits to MOD sponsored Museums and Agencies and Service establishments.
5. A short review of Defence engagement with schools in 2006 indicated that, whilst much was going on, there appeared to be insufficient co-ordination, lack of central management and little prioritising of those activities. Not enough had been done to distance “recruiting” from other “youth and cadet” activities, USofS therefore asked for a further survey to provide accurate information on the range of activity, assess the degree of co-ordination between activity providers, review the focus of the work and suggest future MOD school curricular policy to make best use of resources available.
The Aim of MOD Engagement with Schools
6. Our overall rationale for engaging with schools is to encourage good citizenship, provide an environment which raises awareness of the MOD and Armed Forces among young people, provide positive information to influence future opinion formers, and to enable recruiters to access the school environments. Our engagement demonstrates active support for Government Youth Policies and provides also skill development for young people in schools.
7. The impact of not engaging schools is not easy to measure but would result in reduced awareness and understanding of the work of the MOD and Armed Forces, with a negative long term impact on reputation and – potentially - for recruitment. There would also be wider negative implications relating to cross-Government policies by reducing communications with students in ethnic minority groups.
Survey Process and Results
8. In order to inform the review, schools and providers were surveyed to establish the extent of contact and value they derived. Data was returned by 47 organisations which showed total current contact with about 804,000 school students, mostly aged 8 – 19 years, in Schools and Colleges (detail at Annex A). An estimated additional 75,000 students were engaged by other known MOD stakeholders (no detailed returns to survey) giving a gross total of around 880,000 students. If community cadets and other young people of school age working on Prince’s Trust and Skill Force programmes are added, the total rises to over 900,000 (equivalent to about 15% of the age cohort). A wider range of activities than expected was identified. They were found across the whole range of types of schools and colleges. The principal providers of school activities, in order of volume (year 06-07) were Single Service teams (mostly recruiters), Cadet organisations (CCF, ACF principally), Defence Schools Presentation Team, MOD Agencies and Museums and PUS’s FE Outreach programme. A summary of the detailed results is at Annex B.
9. Feedback from teachers and activity providers identified a number of key elements which could allow MOD to achieve the aims at para 6. These include provision of topical curriculum materials reflecting current activities, well-trained and motivated personnel to work in school environment who can communicate Defence messages and act as good role models, good publicity, advertising and marketing materials with a clear MOD educational brand, a central MOD information facility to advise schools on resources available, and also feedback and sharing of “best practise” among MOD providers. Schools desire longer term programmes and links. Greater co-ordination of activity across MOD, Agencies, Museums and Armed Forces with clearer policies and working strategies was also suggested.
Key Findings from the MOD School Engagement Survey
10. The main points emerging from analysis of these findings are:
a. Strengths. A commendably wide range and good balance of MOD activities was found, delivered by a broad range of providers, each with a different emphasis. They reflect many years of experience in schools; expose highly committed and altruistic personnel to provide an effective base from which recruiters can work.
b. Weaknesses. The great single weakness appeared to be a lack of a n overarching policy for engaging schools through curricular activity. Whilst many schools can access all activities, some do not (or cannot) access any at all, often because teachers are not generally aware of the support available from Defence sources. Occasionally there is too much emphasis on recruiting which alienates some teachers and parents. Awareness (through curriculum work) needs to be separated clearly from recruiting. There are instances of lack of long term planning for activities and insufficient co-ordination in a number of areas (marketing, sharing experiences, communicating key Defence messages and evaluation of feedback).
c. Opportunities. There is significant potential to increase our engagement and effect. Increasing demand for more engagement from teachers and several new national curriculum initiatives could enable us to increase our footprint in schools. Wider use can be made of new media: websites, blogs, podcasts etc. There is little external competition to what the MOD can provide (distinctive content of activities, global context and impressive and interesting personnel) so expansion of the school client base – if resourced - should be relatively easy. Government initiatives would support increased communication with students from ethnic minority backgrounds.
d. Threats. The principal threat to engagement is the further withdrawal or reduction of funding for activities and reduction in number of civilian or military staff to engage in schools. Lack of long-term commitment might also unbalance activities and lose goodwill. Unpopularity of operational activities or political controversy might deter involvement of some schools or commitment by their teaching staff.
Recommendations
11. The school engagement survey has identified a number of areas where we could get more effect from our engagement in schools. These can be incorporated in the revised curricular aspects of youth policy. Key proposals include:
a. Strategic Level
i. Scope feasibility of high level chaEstablish 3* Champion for all youth all engagement in schools to establish greater coherence and coordination. Further develop proposed integrated management structures agreed in 2006. .activities, including recruiting to ensure a more coherent and effective approach to school engagements. Activate all the integrated management structures proposed and agreed in 2006.
ii. Establish clearer MOD–wide governance of MOD school engagements and define the accountability and responsibilities of providers. Establish better co-ordination between “awareness” programmes and “recruiting” activities to achieve a better separation of the two initiatives. Direct recruiting activity and recruiting oriented youth engagements should be distinguishable from curricular “awareness” and “altruistic” youth programmes.
iii. Create and supervise a detailed action plan as the basis from which all providers will take guidance and direction.
iv. Clarify what key messages need to be communicated by all providers.
b. Operational Level
i. Establish greater co-operation and co-ordination between school activity providers.
ii. Standardise the recording of school engagement activities, providing detailed feedback and using the latter to determine best practice which will inform all providers.
iii. Establish longer term vision to enable better planning and budgeting of activities.Plan activity budgets and developments to sustain engagement programmes for longer periods.
iv. Improve and share client (school and student) research and marketing and establishing criteria for evaluation of effect of engagement.
v. Devise strategies for obtaining and allocating staff, staff training and appraisal.
vi. Sharing “best practise” among activity providers and better training for personnel engaging in activities with schools.
vii. Establish more coordinated Display MOD youth branding and imagery for curricular and imaging for resourcess provided
viii. Enhance links with OGDs.
The Next Steps
11. The resource implications of this need further work. They should not be significant.
12. The full report on MOD School Engagement is being finalised and can be provided to USofS shortly, if he wishes. In the meantime DGMC will work closely with DRFC to agree amendments to youth policy management procedures to reflect the above and draw up an action plan to implement recommendations from our findings. This will be raised for discussion at the Youth and Cadet Council meeting in May.
NICK GURR
DGMC
MB 80585
ANNEX A TO
DGMC/DDEFPR/05-08-02
DATED 3 APR 08
MAIN MOD STAKEHOLDERS AND NUMBER OF SCHOOL STUDENTS ENGAGED
|Ser |Organisation |No. of School Students engaged |
|1 |DSTL |3500 |
|2 |DARA |NR (Est.: 500) |
|3 |42 Eng Reg |3000 |
|4 |Army Recruiting |403,884 |
|5 |Army DART |500 |
|6 |Gordon Highlander Museum |1900 |
|7 |Royal Welsh Museum |2400 |
|8 |Royal Regt of Fusiliers Museum |1125 |
|9 |Army Presentation Team |50,000 |
|10 |Royal Highland Fusiliers Museum |1000 |
|11 |REME Museum of Technology |1687 |
|12 |Gurkha Museum |1500 |
|13 |Black Watch Museum |750 |
|14 |National Army Museum |12,000 |
|15 |Military Intelligence Museum |100 |
|16 |Essex Regt Museum |1500 |
|17 |PUS FE Outreach |1500 |
|18 |Worcester an Sherwood For Museum |1112 |
|19 |Argyll and Sutherland Museum |3400 |
|20 |Mercian Regt WFR Museum |2200 |
|21 |Royal Engineers Museum |NR (Est.: 4,000) |
|22 |CCF, ACF and ATC Cadets |43,000 |
|23 |Defence Schools Presentation Teams 2006/7 |30,000 |
|24 |RAF Careers visits |NR (Est.: 10,000) |
|25 |RAF Leadership |150 |
|26 |RAF Educational |10,000 |
|27 |RAF Presentation Team |11,786 |
|28 |RAF Museum |6775 |
|29 |RAF DART |20,000 |
|30 |RN AFCO – NI |3500 |
|31 |RN AFCO – Scotland |9435 |
|32 |RN AFCO – N England |6000 |
|33 |RN AFCO – Wales and W England |36,500 |
|34 |RN AFCO – E England |2400 |
|35 |RN Museum |5000 |
|36 |RM Museum |3000 |
|37 |RN Volunteers – Schools Rugby competition |45,000 |
|38 |Fleet Air Arm Museum |6621 |
|39 |Mil Presentation Colleges |400 |
|40 |Princes Trust |NR (Est.: 200) |
|41 |Skillforce |NR (Est.: 500) |
|42 |Other Agencies |NR (Est.: 20,000) |
|43 |Other Regimental Museums |NR (Est.: 40,000) |
|44 |Civilian Mentors in schools |NR (Est.: 100) |
|45 |Defence Dynamics website (est. 07-08) |60,000 |
|46 |Winchester Mil Museum |846 |
|47 |MOD Schools |11,100 |
| |Total school students engaged: |804,571 (+Est. 74,850=c. 879,421) |
ANNEX B TO
DGMC/DDEFPR/05-08-02
DATED 3 APR 08
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION OF PROVIDERS TO SCHOOL ACTIVITIES
Summary Analysis of Returns
The total number of students engaged p.a. by MOD was 804,571. The providers of activities were divided into 8 main classes. In order of amount of contact with young people these are:
a. Army Recruiters and Army others - 63% (461,884). Widest range of activities provided.
b. RN Recruiters and RN others- 16% (116,456). Main activities - presentations, interactive, visit to sites, sports, motivational, careers, curricular.
c. RAF Recruiters and RAF others - 7% (48,711). Main areas of activity - presentations, interactive, visits to sites.
d. CCF & ACF - 6% (43,000). Diverse activities but main areas are presentations, interactive work, visits and curricular.
e. DSPT - 4% (30,000). Main areas of activity - presentations, role play and curricular.
f. Museums (National and Regimental) - 4% (29,674). Main activities – visits to museums, presentations, interactives, curricular.
g. MOD Agencies - less than 1% (3,551). Main activities – careers promotion, work experience, visits to sites.
h. PUS FE Outreach - less than 1% (1,500). Main areas activity are presentations, motivational, work experience, mentoring, visits to site.
The priorities for school engagement activities for organisations were as follows:
a. Presentations (37 out of 47 organisations).
b. Visits to sites (36/47).
c. Provision of Curricular activities (29/47)
Annexe 6: Cadet and Youth Council Management Structures
-----------------------
[1] D/DRFC/4/1/1 dated 18th May 2006
[2] D/DRFC/4/1/1 Item 2 MoD Youth Policy Review, 9th May 2007
[3] D/DRFC/4/2/13 Item 3 Future Status of CFAVs, 9th May 2007
[4] D/DRFC/4/4/1 Item 4 Regulation of MoD Youth Activities, 9th May 2007
5 DRFC/4/1/1 Item 5 Defence Engagement with Schools, 9th May 2007
[5] DRFC/4/1/1 Item 6 Youth Funding, 9th May 2007
-----------------------
*Under consideration
Supported by appropriate B2 chaired Working Groups
*Curriculum Steering Group
Members: DGTE(Chair), DRFC, DDGMC, Recruiting 1* (later single service 1* reps); MOD vocational/training reps
CCF Committee
Members: DRFC (Chairman), & CCF officials
Single Services:
FOTR, CRF, AOC TG
Councils: Chairmen: Council of the RFCAs, Marine Soc & Sea Cadets Assoc., Army Cadet Force Assoc., Combined Cadet Force Assoc, rep from Air Cadet Council
Youth & Schools Curriculum
DGMC,
Senior Departments Reps from: DfES, Ministry of Justice, CVQO
USofS
VCDS
DCDS(Pers)
ACDS(R&C)
DRFC
DCDS (Pers) (Youth matters)
Cadet Steering Group
Members: DRFC (Chair), Cadet Forces, officials from MOD, others as required
Youth Steering Group
Members: DRFC (Chair), officials from MOD and Other Government Depts, Youth organisations (e.g.: Youth Justice Board, Princes Trust) others as required
MOD Youth Council
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- wintercraft mod 1 7 10 1 7 2
- new zealand youth gangs key findings and
- lotsomobs mod 1 8 1 7 10
- unix batch job system proposal sourceforge
- econometric estimation of volume variability factors for
- annex d proposed format of report on mod engagement
- previews 290 vol
- backpacks mod 1 8 1 7 10 by brad16840 team software inc
- team software inc
Related searches
- fda report on dog food
- unesco report on education 2018
- unesco report on education
- format of report writing
- report on benghazi
- unesco report on education 2005
- consumer report on chevy equinox
- consumer report on chevrolet equinox
- excel format cell based on another cell
- book report on the outsiders
- format cell based on word excel
- excel conditional format row based on cell