Strict performance measures for intensive upskilling courses launched during the pandemic meant some providers only focused on “job ready” candidates, an evaluation of learners has revealed.
This week the Department for Education (DfE) published an evaluation of completions and outcomes from skills bootcamps in the 2021-22 ‘wave 2’ of courses, which ended in March 2022.
More than 18,000 learners started bootcamps in that year, with the majority enrolled on courses covering digital skills such as coding, and heavy goods vehicle (HGV) driving.
The evaluation found that for some, the experimental courses – which last up to sixteen weeks and are supposed to include a “guaranteed” job interview – have been transformative, leading learners to good ‘outcomes’ such as new roles and improved pay.
But others, often from more deprived areas, were less likely to complete the course or see a positive impact on their employment.
Targets set by the DfE and the intensive structure of the course also meant some providers changed their tactics to achieve better outcome targets by recruiting “job-ready” candidates who already had higher-level qualifications.
This indicates that, although the courses enhanced skills for some individuals, the likelihood of benefiting those with fewer opportunities diminished.
The evaluation is based on in depth interviews and 430 surveys with providers, learners and employers. Here’s what you need to know:
Targets ‘unrealistically high’
Some providers—80 percent of whom were independent training providers—felt that the key performance indicators (KPIs) assigned to them were “unrealistic.”
This included a target of a job interview for 100 per cent of participants and strict evidence criteria for showing DfE learners achieved positive outcomes.
Evidencing positive outcomes was a “barrier” due to the time-consuming task of chasing learners after they left the course and the six-month “cut-off” for collating evidence.
The KPIs also failed to measure success differently based on learners’ profiles, such as whether they had been long-term unemployed, ex-offenders, or new entrants to a sector.
Recruitment
Some of the ways providers found to improve their KPIs led to “strategies to reduce non-completion”, such as vetting candidates to prioritise the “job ready”.
One provider told researchers they changed their approach after initially prioritising “hitting recruitment targets” over recruiting the right learners.
Another said they later began favouring participants whose employer co-funded the course or who were “job-ready and able to complete their course and achieve a successful outcome.”
One company reduced its contracted learners to cut its drop out rate, improve its reputation with employers and concentrate on “high-quality delivery and wraparound support for learners”.
Other strategies to improve KPIs through recruitment included asking learners to sign a ‘contract’ promising to keep providers informed about their outcomes. Some also negotiated with the DfE over definitions of a positive outcome and focused some staff on achieving and evidencing outcomes.
Transformative for some
As DfE statistics have already shown, the programme delivered positive outcomes for 6,480 participants, about one-third of those who started the course.
One learner said the course was “genuinely life changing.” It provided training they could not afford, gave them confidence, and supported them through interviews.
However, the data showed that outcome rates were worse for learners from deprived areas, with lower existing qualification levels, who were on universal credit or who had caring responsibilities.
Guaranteed job interviews rare
Only one in four learners received the “guaranteed” job interview, a key selling point of the course.
Some learners felt “disappointment” and felt the course had been “mis-sold” when they found out the interview was not available or in line with their expectations.
But three in five told researchers the course helped them find new employment, either by being included on their CVs or by preparing them for interviews.
Drop out reasons
An analysis of management information suggests that one in six (16 per cent) learners dropped out of their courses before completing them.
One-third of those learners who were surveyed said the course failed to meet their expectations.
Other common reasons included getting a new job during the course and personal commitments such as childcare.
Interviews suggested that some participants felt the course was inappropriate, while others appeared to lack commitment because it was free.
One provider said demands of the intensive course were also too “full-on” for some.
‘Useful feedback’
AELP chief executive Ben Rowland said: “While this report only covers outcomes from the very early stages of the Skills Bootcamps programme, it does contain some useful feedback, particularly on the higher success rates independent training providers deliver and how the demanding KPIs attached to the funding can have unintended consequences.
“That said, this evaluation report relates to 2021-22 financial year when the now well-established programme was in its infancy and should be read in that context”
Your thoughts