Sue Southwood reflects on the findings of a consultation looking into what employers want from reformed functional skills.

Employers tell us again and again that their main concern — and the biggest threat to economic growth — is a lack of workforce skills.

These concerns were highlighted once again during our consultation with over 500 employers, of all sizes, all sectors, and from across the country, as part of the functional skills reform programme.

This programme, which we have been leading on behalf of both the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and Department for Education (DfE), is still very much in progress.

We have already heard from more than 1,000 representatives of employers and providers about what they think must be done to improve the qualifications, which, despite being relatively new, have already had a positive impact on many people’s lives.

However, research clearly shows that more must be done to improve their relevance, content, recognition and credibility — particularly with employers.

What is most striking from what employers have told us is that most of their workforce — and in particular junior and new members of staff, many of whom will be undertaking apprenticeships or traineeships — fear maths, and some feel the same about English, particularly grammar and spelling.

When employers provide training, workers are often reluctant to take part because of their experiences at school.

It is no wonder that employers cite the lack of skills as a priority.

How can people — especially those starting apprenticeships and traineeships — feel confident and get on in their careers without feeling confident in speaking, reading and writing as well as using numbers, which they need to apply and use in their roles?

Workers need to feel that they can thrive throughout their careers — not just hope to survive in their current role.

What really stood out though was employers overwhelmingly telling us that they need employees who can speak and write confidently and clearly.

Workers need to understand questions and give relevant, logical and coherent answers in language that is appropriate to the audience — customer or colleague — recognising the difference between formal and informal language.

They also want staff with basic applied and practical skills that would allow them to use mental arithmetic to calculate VAT or materials needed for a specific job, break down a problem into smaller parts, and then work through it systematically.

Workers must also have the confidence to persevere by trying different approaches if the right answer is not achieved straightaway.

Apprenticeships and traineeships in particular should be a perfect scenario for people to learn to apply their knowledge when in work.

All of these skills, that are such a necessity for employers, are what functional skills will provide learners with.

We are about to publish new draft versions of the proposed revised standards for maths and English. We urge you to consider these and feedback your comments to us.

It is essential the new standards will be used by qualification bodies and training providers to ensure great outcomes for learners, and your involvement is particularly important.

This reform programme is our opportunity to work together to get skills for work right.

We know how significant AELP members are in delivering apprenticeships, and appreciate the need to be flexible about how these skills are assessed.

Fundamentally, it is imperative that employers have staff — particularly in new or junior roles — who are confident to apply what they have learnt.

Equally, we must give people opportunities to thrive in work and in life through learning qualifications that relate, and can be applied, to real-work and real-life situations.

We are hugely grateful to the more than 1,000 individuals, organisations and businesses who have given us their view on the future of functional skills.

And we will continue to support teachers and trainers to teach the new qualifications effectively with a comprehensive CPD plan operated through the maths and English pipeline.

Ayub Khan looks at what lessons can be learned from a new collection of essays imagining different futures for the sector.

Area reviews and skills devolution will mean fundamental changes to the structure and organisation of FE and skills in England.

Structure and organisation are important, of course. But without strong, intelligent leadership the best structures and organisations can fail.

That is what FETL was set up to support.

Over the past two years, we have given leaders time and resources to think widely and imaginatively, through our programmes of grants and fellowships.

The creation of a FETL professorship in FE and skills at University College London’s Institute of Education is another, wholly unique, opportunity to help the sector build the intellectual muscle it needs.

We now want to take our work a step further, using what we have learned to commission creative and collaborative spaces for thinking.

The first fruit of this new approach is Possibility Thinking, a collection of essays imagining different futures for the sector, published jointly with the RSA.

A number of themes emerge from this fascinating and far-sighted collection of new thinking.

The first concerns the need to develop a clear mission for FE and skills that can be readily understood, by students, staff, employers, policymakers and communities.

As Philippa Cordingley and Paul Crisp of the Centre for the Use of Research and Evidence in Education argue in their contribution, the sector should be forthright in describing its strengths, but also honest about its weaknesses.

It needs to think imaginatively about how to get better at what it does well, and develop a clear sense of purpose and place around those things.

If we cannot be clear about what it is we are best at, potential partners and funders are unlikely to be either.

The second main theme is that leaders in the sector must be bold and engage purposefully with new agendas and new partners.

They must become, in the words of the RSA’s Anthony Painter, ‘agitators for change’.

The influx of public money into the sector has been welcome, but it has come with conditions.

Sector leaders have little time or space to think about anything other than the latest inspection, policy demand or change to the funding rules. In many cases, they also lack the inclination to do so.

That must change. Sector leaders can no longer afford to keep their heads down, preoccupied by changes required by ministers or using the threat of inspection to enforce a bruising top-down management culture on staff.

Paul Little, principal of City of Glasgow College, describes how a positive attitude to change in college leadership can have a transformative effect on FE’s position in local education ecologies.

This is important. Skills devolution represents an opportunity for FE and skills to play a fuller role in shaping the future prosperity and cohesion of our cities and regions.

But to make the most of these opportunities we must grow the sector’s ability to effect positive change in itself.

The final theme I want to highlight is creativity.

Constant organisational change is a major distraction

As Pauline Tambling, chief executive of Creative and Cultural Skills argues, versatility, curiosity, creativity and a willingness to learn are now essential expectations in the changing world of work, and that applies as much to sector leaders as it does to our students.

This is a challenge, I realise.

Constant organisational change is a major distraction and stringent accountability requirements create a climate of anxiety inimical to creativity.

The government must do more to ensure reform does not get in the way of a thoughtful, creative approach to teaching and learning.

However, as leaders such as Paul Little demonstrate, it is possible to engage in a creative way with the drivers of change, redefining a provider’s role in a changing landscape to deliver better outcomes for students.

We hope Possibility Thinking, which is set to be unveiled on July 5, will inspire and support leaders in becoming creative agents of professional and policy change.

Anthony Bravo reflects on his college’s moves to improve on its blended learning.

Anyone who read my recent expert piece in this publication (Edition 174, May 16) will know that BCoT is grappling with the implications of blended learning, like many other colleges.

I believe achieving truly outstanding teaching, learning and assessment can only be achieved through creativity and innovation and today that includes the development and implementation of digital technologies.

Our strategic vision has been built around three key points: Where do we want to go? What do we need to do? How do we do it?

The first question is easy — we want to go towards outstanding teaching, learning and assessment.

What do we need to do? We need to enable our lecturers to use, produce and adapt engaging, interactive and pedagogically effective materials.

These should be easily accessible to students, on and off site, and use ILT whenever possible to widen participation and enrich the learning experience.

How do we do it? I had three tactics in mind — using digital tools in the classroom, getting staff sourcing and developing content, and an hour a week blended learning.

This evolved into three key approaches: the skills of our staff, the resources available, and engagement with our students.

We understand that every individual’s experience of IT will have started long before they are in college

The digital capability of staff is fundamental; we need to ensure they have the knowledge and skills to deliver our vision.

All the ‘best practice’ ideas come into play: ILT inductions for new staff; mandatory training and development; sharing of good practice; and conducting skills audits to inform our training priorities.

Amongst other things, we’ve also turned our poachers into gamekeepers and have digital media apprentices supporting staff in developing content.

We need to invest in resources, ensuring a robust network that gives us the capacity, infrastructure and equipment to deliver an outstanding ILT experience.

We are moving to Google Apps for Education as a replacement for our existing virtual learning environment, which we feel is easier to use in the classroom.

September will also see a timetabled hour of blended learning, and we’re redesigning some of our existing learning spaces to ensure we have capacity to deliver this.

External software packages, such as iGVS, are also extremely helpful.

Content-sharing platforms not only encourage sharing, but provide an opportunity to capitalise on possible efficiencies too.

Our final ‘how’ strand centres around our students.

We understand that every individual’s experience of IT will have started long before they are in college and will vary dramatically.

It is important to recognise that some may not have the necessary skills to engage with content.

Part of the how, then, is to ensure that our students’ skills are audited and that they are supported to access content appropriately.

We were one of the pilot institutions that took part in the JISC Learner Digital Experience Tracker project earlier this year.

This has given us valuable information about how our students use technology and to benchmark ourselves against other institutions’ data.

One of the outcomes is that we are now developing a student digital induction programme including video and interactive content.

As I read this back, I have to acknowledge our plan sounds deceptively simple, but we all know it will not be without challenges.

For one, how do we ensure pedagogically sound content to ensure blended learning works?

We’re recruiting a blended-learning manager to oversee the quality of learning materials.

Should we provide rigid templates? We think probably not; the precise methods and the balance of the blend will depend on the nature of the curriculum, the course level, students’ access to and ability to use technology, the course structure and the physical location of staff and learning areas.

So not rigid, but a clear framework of expectations, based on Hopwood.

Our Ofsted report (May 2016) stated that “Teachers make particularly innovative and effective use of ILT to engage and motivate learners”. It shows we’re officially ‘on the road’ but we know that there will be many milestones and challenges up ahead.

Shane Chowen looks into the fallout for FE from the Brexit vote.

I wanted to start my column this week with the line ‘now that the post-referendum dust has settled’ but, much like Pompeii in 79 AD, the country will be beset with poor foresight and a somewhat toxic atmosphere for some months to come.

At the time of writing, Jeremy Corbyn’s parliamentary Labour Party has turned against him, David Cameron has passed responsibility for leading Brexit negotiations to his successor, and social media timelines are full of commentary on a divided country.

Above all that though, and far more worryingly, are reports indicating a significant rise in racially-motivated hate crime since the referendum.

Right here in Leicester, where the Learning and Work Institute’s head office is based, disgusting racist abuse has been hurled at kids in the same streets where all communities came together to celebrate the Premiership win, only last month.

I can’t be the only one from the world of FE feeling like our national values are being put to the test right now.

In a previous column, I wrote about how the government’s upcoming Life Chances Strategy provided the FE and skills sector with an opportunity to make its case and showcase our success.

In particular, in providing people, often facing multiple disadvantages, with routes to success they would otherwise not be afforded, particularly students with health conditions and disabilities and those from the most deprived postcodes in our country.

There are now reports that the Life Chances Strategy, announced in the Queen’s Speech earlier this year, has been shelved.

So before we have a new Prime Minister to begin the process of our departure from the European Union (or not) and/or potentially repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 to seek a fresh new mandate through a general election, where should our focus be?

Your students still want high quality teaching and learning and your local economy still has skills needs

All signals from the government so far certainly indicate business as usual.

The Skills Minister confirmed last week that even though there are delays in publishing new apprenticeship funding rates, the levy is still set to be introduced in nine months-time.

Officials still anticipate the go-ahead to publish the Sainsbury Review of Technical and Professional Education, and indications are that Department for Work and Pensions continue with developing the Work and Health Programme as planned.

FE is fundamentally important in delivering several powerful policy drivers, which I don’t anticipate being rowed back under a new Conservative prime minister.

Key among them is achieving full employment, halving the disability employment gap and achieving three million apprenticeship starts.

Alongside that, your students still want high-quality teaching and learning, your local economy still has skills needs and your governors still expect to see improvement and financial sustainability.

I try not to make these columns too policy-heavy where I can help it.

But I do think the sector will have to up its lobbying activity around European Social Fund replacement funding in the months and years to come — especially in areas of the country like Cornwall and large parts of the north-east, which are some of the most deprived areas in Europe and often overlooked by Westminster.

The morning after the vote, higher education site WonkHE issued a rallying cry to leaders of that sector and lobbyists to ‘get the next train from St Pancras to Brussels’ and seek answers to questions over the future of EU funded research — a massive income stream for many universities.

I am hopeful we can do the same to rally behind our interests.

Finally, returning to the images and videos we’ve seen showing the rise of racism and hatred and fear, we absolutely must make sure our extraordinary, and often extraordinarily diverse, institutions remain safe spaces for all students and staff.

Alun Francis, principal and chief executive of Oldham College, explains what the recently completed Greater Manchester area based review has meant for his institution and for the region overall.

Having just completed the area based review process in Greater Manchester, we believe that for our college and our town, we have an excellent outcome.

We are part of a proposal to merge three colleges to form a new organisation in East Manchester.

The proposal has been formed collaboratively and led by professionals within the sector, but working closely with the  Greater Manchester Combined Authority, local authorities, employer organisations, the FE Commissioner’s team, The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Skills Funding Agency

This approach has for us been universally positive, and has meant that we have balanced local, regional and national priorities with educational, economic and community imperatives.

Although the area review process is primarily about sustainability, it should be about much more than this.

Post-16 education and skills does need an overhaul, and in our region, this is all the more urgent if Greater Manchester is going to meet its ambitions around devolution and the Northern Powerhouse.

This is why we believe that the combined authority was right to insist that the area review be managed under the broader umbrella of the “Stronger Together” strategy of the city region.

Of course, this does mean that the process has not been without its challenges.

The reform of FE is still an unfinished masterpiece, especially in terms of resolving the “dual mandate” of general FE colleges (the tension between second chance provision and high achieving vocational education) and even more so, in terms of the status and structure of “academic” and technical and professional routes.

Furthermore, FE organisations, having developed within a rather confusing and rapidly changing policy landscape, are heterogeneous, and their tendency, in a market driven system, is to defend their territory rather than engage in collaborative system redesign.

This does mean that the area review process can descend into either stasis or opportunism, when what we need is clear vision and strategy.  

However, these obstacles should not prevent us from shaping a new forward facing system.

While it is not perfect, the area based review process is an opportunity to build the foundations of a new organisational infrastructure which can support the trajectory of reform.

By working together, through the partnership structures which Greater Manchester is well known for, we are proposing a new organisation, ready and willing to focus on building stronger technical and professional specialisms, shared across a wider geographical area, and able to deliver these on scale in both classroom and work based settings.

While small is beautiful in educational delivery, especially around the performance management of staff and students and engagement with local stakeholders, big is much better for the strategic engagement of employers and in terms of our capacity to respond to the wider economic opportunities and regeneration challenges of the city.  This is what a restructure can help to achieve, alongside improved efficiency.

We expect to see a debate about who is going to take responsibility for the 20% of school leavers who lack even basic English and maths skills

Structural reorganisation is only the start of the story, and it will need to be supported by a host of further developments, from the professional development of staff, through to the continuing reform of inspection, funding and curriculum content.

We also need a proper debate in this country about the distinctive character of vocational pedagogy. However, the value of the combined authority is that, as the area review is completed, we retain a strategic partnership for addressing these issues.

We are expecting that the skills white paper later in July will provide added impetus for the direction we are moving in.

It is probably helpful that, having been given the opportunity to merge and reorganise with their GFE cousins, sixth form colleges here have opted en masse for academisation.

This invites a more robust debate about our relative roles and our distinct and specialist contributions – issues which we believe the Sainsbury Review is going to help us grapple with.

We expect to see a debate about who is going to take responsibility for the 20 per cent of school leavers who lack even basic English and maths skills, and a debate about the extensive number of “blended” pathways which are neither properly academic or properly vocational.

These are the big issues which we need to resolve and we are pleased that in Greater Manchester, the area review has initiated the process of structural and organisational reorganisation needed to make this happen, and that with the combined authority and employer stakeholders, we have a framework for partnerships working which will ensure that we don’t stop here.

Tanja Kuveljic, chief executive of the charity Believe in Young People, discusses one approach to matching young people with the right options for work and helping employers to make the best use of the apprenticeship levy.

It is less than 12 months until the introduction of the government’s apprenticeship levy, and there are still a great deal of unknowns.

We’d been promised more information this month, but with Brexit, this has been delayed. Employers, including many FE institutions, are still unclear how they can maximise the opportunities it will offer or costs it will incur.

We are all acutely aware that hiring young people can be resource intensive – with inductions, training and investment needed from the start.

I am privileged to work for the charity Believe in Young People (BiYP), which brings together educators and employers to develop and prepare young people for future employment through an integrated curriculum programme.

The programme provides personalised information, advice and guidance (IAG), employer-led workshops, careers talks, mentoring and structured work-experience placements alongside their curricular studies, so that young people leave school with the much needed skills and behaviours to enter the world of work.

A recent Institute of Education evaluation credited BiYP with providing colleges and schools with an alternative model for careers advice which integrates the approaches currently used by different institutions before and after the age of 16. Using our digital platform, employability skills testing and feedback is carried out by teachers, employers and learners so that progress is measured and understood.

This systematically matches the learner with suitable employment opportunities, pinpointing the skills which learners need to be hone the most.

Ultimately, when learners take on entry level jobs or apprenticeships, they’re ready to work and less burdensome for employers. This has been demonstrated by BiYP’s programme so far, which has seen employers achieve up to 80% recruitment cost savings whilst taking on more work-ready youngsters.

Despite the uncertainty many employers currently have, they will have decisions to make about how to spend their levy funds and will undoubtedly be looking to make efficiencies in the process of hiring young talent. Employer needs will have to be increasingly reflected in the way educational institutions implement careers guidance.

When BiYP employer partners use their levy funds to take on apprentices, they will be able to take on more high quality apprentices, and schools and colleges will be key partners in achieving this.

Over the next year, BiYP is leading an innovative pilot, aimed at demonstrating the value of delivering employer-led careers guidance and structured work experience placements at secondary school level so that young people are more prepared for taking on an apprenticeship when they leave.

Employer needs will have to be increasingly reflected in the way educational institutions implement careers guidance.

The pilot brings together large UK employers, schools and colleges and is supported by organisations including the Confederation of British Industry, Association of Employment and Learning Providers, National Union of Students, Association of Teachers and Lecturers and University College London. BiYP will deliver and measure the programme, with UCL leading on a research study which will include a series of employer, educator and young people case studies from the participating partners.

The pilot will measure the transition of young people from the BiYP programme into apprenticeships and their retention and productivity as apprentices.

This in turn will provide a significant insight into the financial feasibility of the levy for employers, and provide a comparison of the economic impact on employers in different UK target regions.

Nick Boles, the minister for skills, recently announced to the House of Commons that ‘apprenticeships are for everyone’.

If this is to be true, the system for how apprentices are employed needs to be more comprehensive, pulling together employers, educators and young people. Only with this collaboration will apprentices be truly valuable to young people and employers and be worthwhile for schools and colleges to recommend as a route to employment.