Amanda Aldercotte
Head of Evaluation and Impact, EngineeringUK
Amanda leads the evaluation team at EngineeringUK to deliver a suite of multi-method, multi-informant impact evaluations. These evaluations have informed continual improvement in the design and delivery of EngineeringUK’s activities. The evaluations also provide the STEM outreach sector with examples of robust, credible and proportionate evaluation.
Amanda leads STEM Journeys, a 5-year programme that supports 15 state-funded secondary schools to develop and deliver a series of coherent and meaningful STEM engagement activities for their students.
Learnings and insights from STEM Journeys
When we launched STEM Journeys a year ago, we had a clear plan for how our first year would go. By the end of it, only 3 of our 15 schools had delivered their STEM careers activities. That wasn’t what we expected. But it has taught us a huge amount about what schools really need, and it’s shaped how we’re approaching year 2.
What is STEM Journeys?
STEM Journeys is a 5-year programme that EngineeringUK is delivering in partnership with City & Guilds Foundation. It offers 15 state-funded secondary schools an annual £2,000 bursary to deliver a bespoke STEM careers programme.
It’s designed to build young people’s capital through meaningful, age-appropriate STEM activities. We built individual careers programmes for each school based on their context, current provision and capacity.
Over the 5 years, STEM Journeys will follow a whole year group of 2,520 students from year 7 in 2025/26 to year 11 in 2029/30.
What did the first year of STEM Journeys look like?
To be honest, it has looked very different to what we originally planned! The overarching aim of the programme has remained the same. But the timelines, the ways we’ve recruited and supported schools, and the evaluation data we’ve collected, have all shifted this year.
Most of these changes have been for the better. For example, we worked with the Careers & Enterprise Company’s local careers hubs to recruit the schools. This allowed us to identify schools that are most likely to benefit from the support. It also meant finding schools that would be able to fulfil the commitments required over the 5 years.
This approach to recruitment also helped us mitigate one of the major risks to the project. That’s because the hubs’ relationships with the schools are less susceptible to staff turnover. Already in the first year, we've seen 5 members of school staff change roles. Having colleagues at the hubs who know the ins and outs of each school has really helped. It’s meant we’ve kept in touch with schools we may otherwise have lost contact with.
Changes to plans are bound to happen with any project, and especially so with a longitudinal one. Despite these changes, we feel we’ve had a very successful first year, particularly in terms of what we’ve learned. We learned so much about the individual schools we’re working with. We interviewed careers leaders, teaching staff, and senior leaders in group-based discovery sessions. We talked through their current provision and what they know works for their students and in their context. We also talked about what stops them from being able to deliver more coordinated STEM careers provision.
And what did we learn from these discovery sessions?
We learned that schools are doing their best – it is not a lack of effort or commitment. It’s that resources are stretched, so when faced with a barrier, it’s very easy for a plan to get derailed.
At the end of 2025/26, only 3 out of 15 schools had managed to deliver their STEM careers activities. We reflected on this as a team. Only 7 schools had explicitly mentioned staff capacity in the discovery sessions. But it was clear to us that it was going to be the biggest barrier for us to overcome.
Lots of things took more time than we originally anticipated. For example, getting the right people in the room for the discovery sessions, or waiting for schools’ feedback on their bespoke plans. In 12 of the 15 schools, the careers leader role was held on top of another job. Staff had to balance multiple responsibilities, leaving limited time for planning and delivering careers content. It was the 3 schools that had a dedicated role for careers leadership that were able to deliver their STEM careers activities in 2025/26.
But staff capacity wasn’t the only barrier, and it didn’t work in isolation. When we talked to schools about what was stopping them, the most common barriers were:
extending work experience to younger year groups. This was mentioned by nearly every school. Most felt confident in their careers provision for key stage 4 but were less sure what to offer students in years 7 and 8 in particular
low parental engagement or knowledge of STEM routes. Home was described as the missing partner by 13 out of 15 schools
staff buy-in and confidence to deliver careers learning in their own subjects
practical challenges of reaching whole year groups. These included space, cost of transport and timetabling
Most schools described at least 3 barriers, some up to 8. And the barriers compounded one another. For example, one school described parents having limited knowledge of STEM routes, as well as limited ties to local employers. They explained that it’s these 2 barriers combined that stop their students from aspiring to STEM.
What have we learned from an evaluation perspective?
Most of the data we’ve collected and collated in year 1 has been to establish a baseline for each school. We’ll need to wait and see what the next 4 years bring. But one thing we’ve learned for sure is that schools are starting from very different places.
We’ve brought together data on their GCSE results, post-16 progression, and key stage 4 subject choices. No one school is doing well across all 3 measures. That’s a big part of why a bespoke approach for each school matters so much.
How are we using these insights for year 2?
Our changes have mostly been practical. For example, we now have regular check-ins with schools to review their plans, answer any questions, and update the activities if needed.
We've also made their plans for 2026/27 more user-friendly. They’re now laid out across the school year with specific instructions on what needs to be done and when. We made the bursaries more flexible as well. Schools that were unable to use the funds in 2025/26 can now run 2 activities in 2026/27 and claim the bursaries for both years.
We’ve also made some changes to the evaluation data we’re collecting. Mostly, this is to make it easier for schools to provide. But it’s also to make sure we capture the experiences of individual students, rather than the year group as a whole.
These are relatively small changes, but together we feel they make the project more likely to succeed. We’re looking forward to seeing where year 2 takes us, and we’ll keep sharing what we learn along the way.
