But his confirmation will be left up to whoever forms the next government.
Gillian Keegan
The government chose to appoint a chief regulator on an interim basis for a year after Dr Jo Saxton stepped down to head up the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).
Bauckham, the regulator’s former chair, stepped up to the role in January.
But Bauckham’s pre-appointment hearing with the Parliamentary education committee will not take place until after the election on July 4.
Confirmation won’t come until after election
It leaves a potential incoming Labour government facing the decision on whether to keep the Conservatives’ pick for chief regulator or find their own.
The government said Bauckham had been selected for the role “following an open recruitment competition and assessment process led by a panel, conducted in accordance with the governance code on public appointments”.
Bauckham served on the Ofqual board since 2018 and was its chair from January 2021 to December 2023.
He was also chief executive of the Tenax Schools Academy Trust but stepped down to take the interim Ofqual role in January. He has also chaired the Oak National Academy since 2020.
Bauckham has strong links to the Department for Education and has chaired a number of reviews for Conservative governments, including one on modern foreign languages and another on initial teacher training.
I have an unhealthy relationship with the GCSE resit policy.
I was head of English in a large college in the early years of the Condition of Funding, leading a steep trajectory of improvement. This ultimately led to me helming both the policy and its major workforce programme for the Department for Education. For most of a decade, it has been a mania.
I’ve tried to go cold turkey and I’ve tried resits-free policy cordial. But I can’t help myself. Because the policy is the most important moral and pedagogical battleground in any phase of education.
Resits are the crucible in which we show that great teaching can genuinely make a life-changing difference at a scale of 300,000 young people per year, with externally-assessed exams that at least help to level the playing field a little, and outcomes that quite literally correlate with life expectancy.
The moral case is unassailable.
We know that the disadvantage gap at 16 is an injustice. Outcomes are influenced far too much by privilege, with those achieving below a GCSE grade 4 being disproportionately from economically-disadvantaged backgrounds.
Unless anyone is a subscriber to a nasty form of eugenics, we need to understand that “these students” (as they are too-often termed) have just as much potential as their better-off peers, only less opportunity.
It’s not a distant leap from there to see that whether or not we provide the equity of classroom time, extra tuition and expert training for teachers is a measure of our commitment to social justice.
The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee recently described this safety net as ‘ritual sacrifice’, calling for a future Labour government to end “tormenting so many-16 year-olds” and advocating for a “basic” qualification instead. A reminder; we are talking about a group of young people who are disproportionately likely to have been on free school meals.
These young people simply have more unrealised potential
There is a danger, when the daughter of a literary critic advocates for something not-quite-the-same-as-the-English-and-maths-all-the-middle-class-children-will-be-getting, that it can sound a little bit like class prejudice. Especially when you can’t help imagining the dinner-party conversation that probably spat this idea out, far removed from classrooms of hard-working teachers and their students.
“Can’t they just do Duolingo? That worked wonders for my eco tour of Micronesia.”
Days after Toynbee’s column, the DfE published remarkable data (facts, if you will) which the Guardian has not so far covered, although perhaps nobody is shouting loudly enough about the incredible and inspiring job FE colleges are doing.
Levels of achievement in English and maths by age 19 are the highest they have ever been, with 16-19 progression significantly higher than before the policy.
But more importantly, among those resitting while in 16-19, the proportion of disadvantaged students attaining was higher than for non-disadvantaged.
The same counter-intuitive effect was observed in the randomised controlled trial of mastery teaching conducted as part of the DfE’s Centres for Excellence in Maths (CfEM, and for transparency, I was the project director in its latter years): Students taught with the mastery lessons averaged higher scores in their GCSE mark, but the effect for disadvantaged students was greater.
Professor Geoff Wake at University of Nottingham, DfE’s partner on CfEM, has written on this. He poses the question to himself as to why the disadvantaged students perform better. His answer: “Well, we don’t know.”
But he goes on to speculate about it being the effect of what sounds like ‘discovery’ learning; “without teacher instructions and assistance”. That would seem in tension with the mastery pedagogy I assume the Department thought it was paying for, and doesn’t explain why it would have more impact on disadvantaged students.
I am not a university professor, but I have had hands-on experience raising disadvantaged measures above the national average for non-disadvantaged, so perhaps that’s why it seems obvious to me. These young people simply have more unrealised potential than their advantaged peers.
I hope that, in this election, all political parties will commit to protecting, and continuing to support, a policy that is unpopular at middle-class dinner parties, but which is vital for other people’s children.
More than a third of the money allocated to the government’s flagship Skills Bootcamps programme has gone unspent, despite learner number targets being exceeded.
The figures, published following a Freedom of Information request, suggest high numbers of participants fail to complete their course or gain employment.
Skills Bootcamps are intensive and “flexible” Department for Education-funded training programmes lasting up to three months and ending with a “guaranteed” job interview that aims to improve adults’ careers in areas of national skills priorities.
Despite their significant budget – £584 million up to 2025 – the scheme had received little coverage in the national media until Tuesday, when work and pensions secretary Mel Stride claimed they would be “targeted” at sectors facing staff shortages due to tightened immigration rules.
Unexplained underspend
The government aims to train at least 150,000 people through Skills Bootcamps by next year.
Figures show that for each of the three financial years between 2020 and 2023, starts targets were surpassed. Most recently in 2022-23, enrolments totalled 40,400 against a target of 36,000.
However, just £130 million of a total £206 million allocated over the 2020 to 2023 period was spent. In 2022-23 the government allocated £150 million but only spent £85 million.
Training providers who deliver the majority of bootcamps are paid 40 per cent of the total course fee at the first “milestone” of 15 hours’ guided learning hours, followed by a further 30 per cent when a participant has a job interview that is “guaranteed” as part of the course.
Providers who can show evidence their learners have found a job or moved to a more senior role at the same employer can claim the final 30 per cent payment.
The programme’s underspend suggests providers are unable to claim payments for their learners completing the bootcamp or moving into a new or better job, which account for 60 per cent of the total fee.
No proof to claim of ‘great success’
Former skills minister Robert Halfon told Parliament late last year that bootcamps were a “great success” and resulted in “good” outcomes for many learners.
But the DfE does not publish outcomes data for the programme – officials only release numbers of participants.
The government has published initial research reports about bootcamp participation which included partial data on outcomes for a few thousand learners.
It revealed half didn’t achieve a positive employment outcome.
A follow-up report found participants were being given “inappropriate interviews”, while a separate Ofsted thematic review in 2022 warned of inconsistent training quality and poor oversight from the government.
The Department for Education refused to explain the large underspend figures.
A spokesperson insisted that Skills Bootcamps provide learners with opportunities for “higher-paid, future-proofed careers”.
They added that course completion and outcome data for 2021-22 was “due” to be published this summer, with further evaluation reports expected “later this year”.
Delay in performance data ‘unacceptable’
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, said that while bootcamps are a good idea “in principle”, early evaluations have suggested they do not reach people who “needed the most help” such as those with lower qualification levels.
He added: “The government needs to be much more open and timely about on programme performance; it’s unacceptable that we don’t have timely information on how many people complete bootcamps and find jobs.”
Director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) Simon Ashworth said bootcamps have an “important role” to play in solving the country’s skills shortages.
He added some providers have “struggled to deliver Skills Bootcamps at the agreed funding levels and when funding is realised, and there is a lack of certainty about future investment post-election”.
Sue Pember, policy director of adult education body HOLEX, told FE Week that while her organisation supported the concept of bootcamps, it had long been “concerned” about the quality of training from unproven providers.
She added that many learners who drop out are likely to struggle because they lack level 2 qualifications or English and maths skills when they start.
Warwickshire College Group has hired a new principal and chief executive nearly 12 months after announcing the departure of the last one.
Sara-Jane Watkins will leave South Gloucestershire and Stroud College (SGS) after nine years as college principal and deputy chief executive of SGS Group, which contains an academy trust and a commercial operation.
WCG has been led by interim principal and CEO Peter Husband since January. It was announced last June that then-group CEO Angela Joyce will leave WCG to lead Capital City College Group.
The search for a permanent successor to Joyce closed at the end of February. FE Week understands the college has to date been unable to announce Watkins’ appointment as it was waiting for government approval of her salary. Colleges paying leaders more than £150,000 need Department for Education and Treasury approval before confirming appointments.
The Department for Education did promise to speed up the process after colleges complained it was causing delays in the recruitment of principals.
Watkins said: “I am honoured and excited to be stepping into this role. My dedication to education has always been driven by the belief that every student deserves access to high-quality learning experiences, and I am eager to continue this mission at WCG.”
Her college career began at Hartpury College where she progressed to the role of communications director before joining SGS as director of corporate planning in 2002.
SGS retained its ‘good’ Ofsted inspection outcome in a report published earlier this year.
WCG oversees six colleges; Royal Leamington Spa College, Warwick Trident College, Rugby College, Moreton Morrell College, Pershore College and Evesham New College.
It won a long-running High Court battle last year allowing it to sell a disused college building for non-educational purposes in the face of heavy local opposition, including local MP Harriet Baldwin.
“Collaboration will be key as we work to secure investment and necessary support to provide the best possible resources and opportunities for our learning community. I am eager to contribute to the ongoing success of the college and to make a positive impact on the lives of our students and ensure we remain a vital resource for the communities and businesses we serve,” Watkins said.
Gill Clipson, chair of WCG, said: “We are looking forward to maintaining the high quality of our provision and the strong reputation which we have established as Sara-Jane leads us through the next stage of development for WCG, focused on excellence in all we do and serving the needs of our local communities.”
Micro-credentials are increasingly being recognised as an effective way to meet employers’ skills needs. But they offer much more than that, not least in terms of social value.
The idea that learners can build up sets of industry-relevant specialist skills through accredited ‘bitesize’ modules is pioneering. It provides the flexibility and agility needed in fast-moving sectors where technology is changing all the time and employers need adaptive training models.
But micro-credentials themselves have lots of scope to be adaptable, including in the social impact and enrichment space.
As partners in Good for Me Good for FE, our organisations are committed to generating social value. We know how deeply embedded colleges are in their local communities and the positive impact they have.
Through its social value ‘calculator’, Good for Me Good For FE has encouraged volunteering and fundraising activity at colleges across the country. Crucially, it has also helped demonstrate the monetary as well as social value of the additional support FE provides.
The value of volunteering is clear, not only for the people being supported but for those who give their time and effort. Research shows that helping others is good for mental health and wellbeing; indeed, this was a key driver in the development of Good for Me Good for FE.
But as educationalists, we also know volunteering provides immense value in the development of people’s key skills, behaviours and attitudes. These are all key to ensuring people are prepared for the world of work and successful careers.
The question is how we can better recognise and attach value to the skills developed through such activity so that volunteers can take them forward into the workplace.
We think the answer lies in micro-credentials. A first for the sector, this will involve exploring the creation of a suite of credentials linked to the skills that come from volunteering activity such as teamwork, collaboration and communication.
Formal recognition for volunteering could be hugely valuable
The potential benefits are far-reaching, not least because it could give us something tangible to measure alongside social value. We know that ‘what gets measured gets done’, so additional quantitative indicators strengthen our evidence base as to the impact this work is having.
Enrichment is a fundamental aspect of FE provision. Providing opportunities for students to gain recognition for their contributions and the skills they have developed while undertaking activities to support others is a natural extension of this.
This includes work experience, which we know is hugely beneficial. With high-quality placements so hard to come by, volunteering could play a much greater role – particularly if universally recognised credentials were attached.
For college students (and indeed staff), demonstrating skills beyond academic qualifications is essential in today’s competitive world. For those from disadvantaged backgrounds, this can be difficult to achieve – as so many activities come at a cost.
Gaining formal recognition for volunteering activities could be hugely valuable, reflecting a much wider skill set as well as commitment and passion for a cause.
Together, we are committed to driving the development of microcredentials. This includes a pilot project involving our two organisations, with plans to deliver 1000 accreditations.
But to do this effectively, we need to create a robust and credible framework for these bitesize credentials.
Volunteering activities are extremely varied. They comprise a broad range of learning outcomes, and ensuring consistency and validity will be a key challenge.
We want to work in partnership with colleges to help us build an innovative framework. This must accurately assess and demonstrate achievement in relation to essential skills like teamwork and communication, which are at the heart of volunteering.
We are excited about this work, which is the next step in our Good for Me Good for FE journey. It will harness the social impact and value that is already being generated in communities while strengthening the skills and qualifications of the people working hard to support others.
If your college is interested in contributing to the development work, we would love to hear from you.
You don’t need me to tell you that AI represents a watershed moment, a pivotal point in education, or a revolution on a par with the last one. And it genuinely is, by the way. AI has made designing lesson resources, pitching for jobs, authoring drafts of technical documents, and, well, anything that you’ve put off, quicker, easier, and more possible. Just make sure you check its output first.
Teachers are, of course, the real creatives when it comes to finding the use cases for our digital friends of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and the others. A mystery in English, done. A business marketing strategy, bam. A case study of your choice, well there it is.
While there is some debate on how to get the best out of these bots, the core teaching skills of defining objectives, precise instructions on what you are looking for, and giving it feedback and asking for improvements are conveniently essential to it.
In its advice on ‘prompt crafting’ in Copilot, Microsoft even use the acronym of GCSE, this time meaning Goal, Context, Source and Expectation. A goal giving it precise instructions on what you want (an essay plan), the context of who will be using it (for A Level Sociology students), a source such as material to include (on crime and deviance), and then giving clear expectations (500 words, include headings) will help ensure the bot keeps on track.
But just as we need practice to develop our ‘AI literacy’, talking about what works with chatbots and AI with students is a conversation that needs to keep happening.
AI, as it currently stands, is very good at developing frameworks, models and providing feedback. Used to refine ideas and suggest a plan of action, it can be an excellent guide for students to start to structure their work. However, pasting student text into the bot will mean it’s swallowed for its training data in most cases. So don’t do it.
But it often falls into an ‘uncanny valley’ where it is used to write an assignment, especially when used by those looking to solve the problem of a pressing deadline. It looks close to the ‘real’ thing but fails to hit the mark. This is changing by the day as the technology grows and even now no one can pinpoint AI-generated text with certainty all the time. Not you, not me, not any of the AI detectors.
Reforming our assessment strategies is becoming essential
This is where AI literacy, clear guidelines for student use and reforming our formative and summative assessment strategies are becoming essential.
For continuously assessed courses, that might mean presentations or research tasks that are more focused and require a level of practicality. For written exam-based subjects, seeing what it generates and improving upon them or critiquing them can be convenient source of ‘synthetic’ examples. And as far as maths goes, there are better tools out there to answer questions with, but generating long-form functional questions is something AI tackles with enthusiasm.
Teachers are already moving in these directions, but if you haven’t asked one of the bots a question from your course, try it. As first step in assessing your assessments, it can be quite a sobering moment seeing words flow with fury from the page.
The most popular chatbot currently defaults to a list style and an over-use of ‘furthermores’, ‘moreovers’, and ‘in conclusions’ if asked to write an essay, but those markers will change as it adapts to what its users want.
Combining theoretical assignments with the skills we want students to develop for their professions has always been the mission of further education. This will make it more so.
These assessment reforms will need not only to ensure student work remains authentic, but also start to respond to how AI is being incorporated into the workplace.
This will look different in each vocation. Whether that’s using the bots to develop presentation materials, incorporating these technologies to super-charge office and editing packages, or deploying them image recognition that diagnose problems in engineering, gaining familiarity with what is already happening in our industries and authentically mirroring that in college will be the challenge of the decade.
It’s good we have an apprenticeship levy; many apprenticeships are great and quality has improved. But few would argue it’s working just fine and should stay exactly as it is.
Apprenticeship starts have fallen by one-third since the levy and other reforms were introduced, with even larger drops for young people. Completion rates are low, and higher apprenticeships have the same access issues as other higher education.
For many large employers, the levy has become their training budget, skewed to older workers and learning at higher levels. That’s important, but with a fixed pot of money it’s come at the expense of training for young people and at lower levels. This is training which would have huge productivity benefits too and where the UK’s historic underinvestment in skills is starkest.
And yet we have an employer-led system in which employers say they can’t get what they want and where they’re investing £3.5 billion (7 per cent) less in training.
The need for reform is clear. The question is what reform, particularly in a policy area beset by chop and change.
Labour proposes to replace the apprenticeship levy with a skills and growth levy, allowing employers to spend up to half their levy on training outside apprenticeships. A new body, Skills England, would help decide what training should be fundable.
The argument is that apprenticeships aren’t the answer to everything; the current system is like a golfer going out with just a putter. Greater flexibility could allow employers to hit a bigger range of shots.
Some argue this would halve the number of apprenticeships, with large employers spending far more of their levy funds and leaving little for apprenticeships at SMEs. But that’s both vanishingly unlikely and focused on the wrong question.
Improbable choices
First, it would mean some highly improbable employer choices. For apprenticeships to halve, large employers would have to keep spending what they are on apprenticeships and spend the rest of their levy on other training too. This doubling of training investment would be some reversal of the 26 per cent fall in training spend per employee since 2005.
It is far more likely that levy-paying employers would switch some higher apprenticeships to qualification-based training. That would be a good thing if that training better suited the needs of the business.
After all, our research shows some employers are shoehorning training into apprenticeships to use up their levy funds rather than because it’s right for them.
This switch could also reduce the average cost per trainee at higher levels, because many of the alternative training routes would be lower cost than higher apprenticeships. All else being equal, that could free up more funding for apprenticeships in SMEs and for young people.
Step by step
Second, rules for employers and growth in the levy budget can help. Rising employment and earnings mean the levy is projected to raise another £736 million by 2028-29. This will give headroom, even though some will be needed to increase apprenticeship standard rates to reflect rising costs.
And Labour’s policy is ‘up to 50 per cent’ flexibility. It would be wise to start with lower flex and build up over time, perhaps requiring large firms to invest more in young people to unlock that flex.
Step-by-step reform could limit any unintended consequences.
From start to finish
Third, our aim should be getting the right training for people and employers and focus more on apprenticeship completions than starts. The latter is not a particularly useful metric when only around half of starters complete their apprenticeship.
Just increasing the completion rate to the government’s target of 67 per cent would mean an extra 20,000 apprenticeship completions per year from the same number of starts.
Besides, apprenticeships won’t always be the right answer to training needs, as great as they are.
The impact of Labour’s policy depends on the rules it sets. We need to know more about those.
In the meantime, estimates based on simplistic maths that don’t account for likely employer behaviour don’t get us very far. Nor does arguing everything is fine now.
Our ambition must be to increase employer investment in training and reduce the current inequality where graduates are three times more likely to get training than non-graduates.
The apprenticeship levy isn’t working. It’s time to fix it.
Earlier this week we released a report, working with Youth Futures Foundation, calling on the next government to introduce an apprenticeship guarantee for young people up to the age of 24. The guarantee would ensure that a Level 2 or Level 3 apprenticeship place is available for every qualified candidate. This was previously set out in the 2009 Apprenticeship Act but was later repealed.
One of the main barriers to overcome in implementing an apprenticeship guarantee is ensuring the availability of sufficient opportunities for young people. Critics have previously contended that in an employer-led system this would not be possible, unlike in other parts of the education system where government is simply able to just expand places.
Yet, while we recognise this critical delivery barrier, our research suggests that there is both significant employer support for the introduction of such a guarantee and willingness to provide additional youth apprenticeship places under one. Nine in ten employers (89 per cent) would support an apprenticeship guarantee for young people, and 60 per cent of employers would be able to offer an additional apprenticeship opportunity for a young person.
However, it would be unrealistic to rely on the goodwill of employers alone and further action would be required to unlock more apprenticeship opportunities for young people. In particular, to boost the provision of apprenticeship places in small and medium sized businesses, who are much more likely to provide apprenticeships for young people, as well as provide apprenticeship places at lower levels.
Our research has highlighted the concerning drop in SME engagement in apprenticeships since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy and other reforms to the system, which have driven the overall collapse in starts as well as the fall in intermediate apprenticeships. Restoring SME apprenticeship starts to pre-levy levels and unlocking additional opportunities would be required to realise the vision of an apprenticeship guarantee.
To do this the next government should shift to demand-led youth apprenticeship funding, for SMEs, and introduce targeted financial incentives for both small employers and apprenticeship providers to boost youth opportunities.
The next government should shift to demand-led funding
Alongside enhanced funding and targeted financial incentives there is also a need to build the appetite and capability of small firms to engage in apprenticeships and skills investment more broadly, as well as to help them navigate a complex skills system.
To do this we need enhanced partnerships and business support at a local level. Combined authorities can play a leading role here, while Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs) have the potential to be a key actor but require long-term and sustainable funding if they are to fulfil this potential and make the required impact.
As well as action to boost SME engagement the next government should reform the apprenticeship levy into a flexible skills levy with at least half of the levy money ring-fenced for young people and the remainder for wider workforce skills needs.
Our research also highlighted that 54 per cent of those that pay into the levy admitted to rebadging existing training schemes as apprenticeships as a way to claim their allowance. Establishing a more flexible skills levy would remove the incentive for employers to reclassify training as apprenticeships. Additionally, it would enable the provision of accredited training choices that better suit the skill development needs of existing employees.
Finally, as part of a guarantee, there is a need for additional support for those young individuals who are not yet ready to embark on an apprenticeship programme, restoring a crucial initial step on the path to opportunity.
That is why we are calling on the next government to introduce a dedicated pre-apprenticeship programme which should include a weekly bursary, similar to that offered in Wales, to boost participation.
While a youth apprenticeship guarantee would be challenging to deliver, our research has clearly demonstrated an appetite and a willingness by employers to rebalance the apprenticeship system towards young people.
We need the next government to match this ambition with the necessary vision and funding to transform the apprenticeship and wider skills system so that it delivers much better outcomes for learners, organisations and the economy.
Interesting fact: With a special interest in improving outcomes for young people, Gary established the Young Advisors Charity in 2007 and grew the organisation to employ over 1,500 people nationwide.
Stuart Liversedge
Head of Operations and Customer Relationships, Active IQ
Start date: May 2024
Previous Job: Business Development Manager, Active IQ
Interesting fact: Stuart’s career in health and fitness spans two decades. He’s a passionate advocate for health and fitness, participating in charity runs for MIND and the Stroke Association and staying active as an amateur footballer.
