Fashion students at Hull College have designed and produced a batch of hats and syringe driver bags to help hospital patients feel less self-conscious about hair loss and carrying their medication.
The hats and bags which were presented to the pathology unit at Castle Hill Hospital will be given out free to patients as part of National Pathology Week, which celebrates the contribution that pathologists make to healthcare in the UK.
Patients undergoing palliative care often carry syringe drivers, which are small portable battery powered machines that administer a continuous dose of painkiller.
Kerry Drury, one of the hospital’s pathology lab social practitioners, said: “Some of our patients are on palliative care and need a syringe driver to carry medication all day. The bags enable them to go about their daily life and still keep their medicine with them without drawing the attention these usually get.
“The hats have been created in a modern and fashionable style which helps the patients undergoing chemotherapy feel less self-conscious.”
The students produced the hats and bags with donated fabrics as part of their induction week at the college, and the project will count towards their industry skills studies module.
Featured picture: Kerry Drury with the hats and bags provided by Hull College Students
Congratulations to Richard Atkins, who as principal led the college to success, and of course to all the staff.
But league tables only have one top spot and with over 200 colleges in the UK, many college leaders will be less pleased.
I can’t pretend that publishing a full league tables using four measures won’t ruffle a few feathers
But the government has for many years collected and published learner and employer satisfaction data.
Now it’s being shared with employers through the new ‘Find apprenticeship training’ site (which we reviewed here) which is designed to “enable comparisons to be made against other colleges”.
Following the Enterprise Act 2016, the government has also improved destination data; readers will be familiar with our apprenticeship volume analysis.
This is my first attempt at a scoring system, and while I’m pleased with the results, colleges should expect refinements for 2017.
To rise to the challenge of a post-Brexit Britain, we need a clear, accessible skills system, says Graham Hasting-Evans
When you’re up to your neck in alligators it’s difficult to remember your first objective was to drain the swamp – or to put it another way: we need to get a grip following Brexit.
The objective is clear. In the next five years we must boost skills and productivity by 30 per cent. Last month the National Audit Office report ‘Delivering the value through apprenticeship reform’ stated bluntly that the “ONS estimates that Germany, France and the USA are each about a third more productive than the UK”.
Clearly reform is urgently needed.
Creditably the government has been trying to deliver critical changes and has some excellent policy ideas. But it lacks the vision, coherence and focus needed to create the single skills-enhancement strategy the economy requires.
We need clarity from two perspectives: both within the sector and from the outside. To paraphrase David Hughes in his opening speech to the AoC Conference, the future does look bright for the FE sector. However, it still needs to rise to the challenge.
We must commit to a single skills enhancement strategy, underpinned by a single skills-system, which embraces all the various initiatives, while ensuring increased productivity and social mobility, including development for the existing workforce.
The current plan focuses on reformed apprenticeships and new technical education qualifications, but we need to go further. There are two major gaps that still need filling: a plan for upskilling the existing workforce, and clarity of career pathways for those entering the system.
The future does look bright
Regarding the first, boosting productivity is not just about training up new workers. Only two per cent of our workforce is replaced every year – so a large part of increasing productivity must lie in upskilling. Yet with the distorted focus on the apprenticeship levy, professional development as a strategy to improve productivity has been cast aside by the government. This makes no sense. Training new entrants will not alone increase our productivity as a nation; we need a skills-enhancement strategy to improve capabilities at all levels of industry.
It is certainly the case that employers are looking at ways to use the levy pot to upskill existing workers, but they are likely to find that there is currently not a sufficient number, or breadth, of apprenticeship standards at this level to achieve their aim – nor are they in the pipeline.
In truth, it seems ridiculous that we should have to rebrand the idea of professional development as an ‘apprenticeship’ in order for it to be seen as worthy of investment, but that’s for another day.
The vast majority of the new standards are currently aimed at new entrants. If the aim is truly to boost productivity, more higher-level standards and qualifications need to be developed that would allow the levy to be spent on valuable professional development.
The second gap that needs filling is to establish clear pathways for young people. Improving social mobility increases productivity, but how can people move up the socio-economic ladder, if they can’t even understand which qualifications they need to take? We need to communicate better and in order to do this, we need to package the complexity of the further education offer as a single skills system.
To do this, rather than focusing solely on qualifications, we should focus on destinations. This doesn’t have to mean choosing ultimate career destinations at a young age, but simply directing young people to what could be called a ‘first-base job’.
There may be multiple routes to a first-base job: an academic or technical qualification, an apprenticeship (with or without a technical qualification) and/or work-based training. But whichever route learners take, it’s important they are equipped with both employability skills and the necessary broad knowledge of their sector or discipline so they can adapt as the economy changes.
Which brings us back to the first gap: the skills enhancement strategy. We must recognise that getting a first-base job is not the end, but rather the beginning. People will need to adapt and retrain throughout their working life.
If we get the skills enhancement strategy and underpinning system right, productivity and social mobility will rise – and that has to be a big step towards a successful economy.
There’s nothing wrong with colleges not providing apprenticeships, unless it threatens their future viability, says Ben Verinder
Recent figures on the proportion of apprenticeships delivered by different types of providers appear to paint a miserable picture for colleges.
Once again their share of the market has fallen; they now deliver fewer than one third of all apprenticeships, despite a warning from minister Nick Boles at last year’s AoC conference that they shouldn’t let independent training providers “nick their lunch”.
The Government’s continuing political and financial commitment to the scheme is clear. These new figures are likely to overestimate the college share, masking as they do the scale of subcontracting. So, should college leaders spend their time at this year’s conference shamefaced and penitent?
Perhaps not.
Firstly, the figures mask a much bigger range between colleges and sectors than between independent providers and colleges. General further education colleges are among the largest providers of apprenticeships in the country. Just under half of all construction, engineering and manufacturing apprentices train at college. The issue of proportion is not universal.
Secondly, should we really be surprised that employer-facing independent providers have been more nimble in responding to an employer-facing policy, even one that’s been around for a while? The heritage, brands, stakeholder expectations, cultures, systems and product ranges delivered by colleges are markedly more diverse and complex than their private sector counterparts. They do a lot more things besides.
It’s not a good idea to let someone nick your lunch if it’s the only square meal you’ll be getting
Thirdly, the suggestion that there is something intrinsically wrong (morally or as a point of governance) in not providing apprenticeships doesn’t make much sense to me. If a college decides that it does not have the capacity or culture to deliver apprenticeships, then shouldn’t we be celebrating, on behalf of students, a decision to eschew poor-quality education?
However, things start to get tricky when we apply a thin-end-of-the-wedge philosophy to the issue. If, because other funding streams are shallow, failure to provide apprenticeships poses a threat to the viability of an institution and its ability to serve a community in the future, then we have a governance problem. It’s not a good idea to let someone nick your lunch if it’s the only square meal you’re getting today.
If dipping out of apprenticeships means that students in a particular area who need and want to access an apprenticeship cannot get one, then we have a supply problem. And if too few colleges nationally are taking up the apprenticeship challenge, then we also have a reputation problem – failuring to positively respond to a Government priority tends to limit a sector’s ability to influence others.
Despite all this, it seems to me that focusing too much on the data here misses the point. It’s not apprenticeship numbers that matter per se, but whether they reflect a broader issue regarding employer engagement in the college sector.
On the one hand, it’s obviously oversimplistic to say that colleges have a problem in this regard. From Boots to Balfour Beatty, Pinewood to PWC, there are big-brand advocates of college provision across the country. In quantitative terms, the average college does business with around 600 employers. Our research among employers on behalf of FE clients regularly shines a light on college excellence.
On the other hand, too often we encounter college/employer relationships that are departmental rather than corporate, and so wither when a well-connected lecturer or head of department moves on. In too many cases we discover business relationship management systems that are used by a small pocket of staff and the broader intelligence and interactions go unrecorded. Too frequently we see college candidate selection, customer service or communication that isn’t up to scratch.
Addressing these issues requires singular focus. The question for some colleges, it seems, is whether their intrinsic complexity makes that focus unattainable without a radical change – one that may not sit at all well with its broader set of stakeholders, in particular its current members of staff. Sometimes lunch is just too expensive.
Ben Verinder is managing director of research agency Chalkstream
A special dish created by a college restaurant has made it into a cookbook showcasing the best recipes and stories from Liverpool’s culinary community.
The meal, of duck breast, croquettes, dauphinoise potatoes and star anise jus served with a creamy broccoli purée, is a signature dish at Hugh Baird College’s L20 Restaurant, based on Merseyside.
Developed by students under head chef Anthony Wright and sous chef Barry Langston, the dish will appear in ‘The Liverpool Cook Book’ as an example of fine cuisine taken from across Merseyside and the Wirral.
Also featured in the book are fine dining establishments such as Panoramic 34, as well as restaurants, cafes, delis and pubs.
The college runs the L20 Restaurant as part of its hotel school, which is serviced by students under the supervision of staff.
Hospitality student Grace Clarke, who worked on the dish, said: “We’re all made up to see it in the book.
“We came up with dish after working with Anthony and the team. They taught us what different flavours and textures complemented each other, and they allowed us to try our different ideas.”
Featured picture: (L-R) Sous chef Barry Langston, student Grace Clarke, and head chef Anthony Wright with the Liverpool Cookbook.
The latest report from the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) recommends abolishing level two apprenticeships for all 16- to 18-year-olds. It proposes forcing all those in this age group who are not taking an academic route to university, to undertake a two-year pre-apprenticeship programme at their local FE college or not-for-profit training provider.
Even before the government’s reforms have been implemented, let alone evaluated, the authors are suggesting, somewhat prematurely, a total change in the way young people enter the world of work. But the report is based on highly selective statistical data without any context.
The failure is not in post-16 vocational education or apprenticeships but in the 11 years of education leading up to this point. Our current school curriculum and examination system are designed to prepare pupils for university. It needs to be changed also to prepare pupils for the world of work with a vocational skills route as opposed to an academic route.
To subject pupils to an additional two-year pre-apprenticeship programme at an FE college would be a disservice to the pupils concerned – not to mention an admission that state education has not properly equipped them for employment.
As judged by Ofsted, FE colleges’ track record for delivering apprenticeships is disappointing, with a few notable exceptions. Indeed, FE colleges are minor players in apprenticeship delivery and were strenuously encouraged to increase it by the previous skills minister Nick Boles. When modern apprenticeships were introduced some 30 years ago, FE colleges, third-sector and private providers all had an equal opportunity to deliver them.
Yet today 76 per cent of all apprenticeships are delivered by private training providers, with the remaining 24 per cent equally split between employers with their own direct contract and FE colleges.
The massive growth in apprenticeship numbers and the astounding increase in success rates from a low 50 per cent to 75 per cent plus today has been achieved mainly by private sector providers. This report choses to ignore this and proposes a monopoly of FE colleges and charities to deliver their ill-conceived pre-apprenticeship programmes. This is more reminiscent of a Stalinist approach than a 21st century solution to producing a skilled workforce.
The statistics this report uses to justify its two-year pre-apprenticeship programme are based on those leaving full-time education with poor results, not those entering apprenticeships. Vocational learning in schools and colleges, through a variety of initiatives, such as TVEI and vocational GNVQs, has produced poor results.
This concept of a two-year pre-apprenticeship programme would be ideal for 14-year-old pupils, for whom a vocational career is the best route and a programme including early work experience – especially for those disillusioned with full-time education – would be a benefit. At 14 it’s a brilliant concept; at 16 an irrelevance.
The authors are suggesting, somewhat prematurely, a total change in the way young people enter the world of work
There will always be a sizeable group of young people at 16 for whom entering employment is the most suitable route, and an apprenticeship the best thing for both the young person and the state. This report’s plan to prevent this is undemocratic and demonstrably not in the public interest.
This government has already introduced the traineeship programme for unemployed young people and the take-up has not been brilliant, partly because the Youth Training Scheme it aimed to replicate paid both trainees and employers, which the current programme fails to do. There are other reasons why traineeships are not successful, such as the fact that in many sectors there are entry-level job vacancies available – in retail, hospitality and catering, for example – so young people would prefer paid work to working for free.
The statistics in this report appear to have been selected and the contents written to support a preconceived outcome for the FE sector – to deliver a two-year pre-apprenticeship programme – without any alternative being considered, or the bigger role of the economy and of employers in the programme being discussed.
A system of any extreme is unlikely to deliver the right outcomes for individuals, employers or the economy, says Gemma Gathercole
There can be little doubt that apprenticeships are the hot topic in the skills world, but recent events and reports have shown us there is still little consensus on what our apprenticeship system should ultimately look like.
Over the weekend I found myself thinking about apprenticeship policy through the lens of two letters: QP. These letters represent three essential questions for the sector right now: Question of Priority, Question of Purpose and Question of Position.
We’re risking distorting our skills system so apprenticeships are the only answer
On the question of priority, apprenticeships have never been higher, but we’re risking distorting our skills system so that apprenticeships are the only answer.
Part of the issue emerges from the general decline in employers’ investment in training, as Sajid Javid noted in the 2015 apprenticeship levy consultation by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
But a secondary issue contributing to the decline is the limited availability and/or general removal of government investment in this type of learning. The conversion of grant funding to loans has caused a decline in the offer of higher level courses. In fact as recently as July this year, individuals wanting to access this type of training would have had to self-fund. It was only at the start of this funding year that courses at levels five snd six could be funded by an advanced learner loan.
On the question of purpose, there has been some discussion about what sort of apprenticeship system these reforms will deliver. But perhaps part of the confusion is the term apprenticeship itself. Do we as a nation share a common understanding of what an apprenticeship is? For some it’s still a traditional indemnity to an employer, to others it’s the worst example of the misuse of the system, and for others still, it’s indelibly linked to qualifications.
If we take it back to core principles, it’s a job with training
If we take it back to core principles, it’s a job with training. We must remember that jobs with training allow progression from beginner to competence in a particular role. But the journey shouldn’t stop there.
The system should be individual-led rather than employer-led. Potential learners and/or apprentices are the consumer for this form of training and should have the ability to select for themselves the type of training they want to undertake.
After all, if they are both invested in the system and have to pay back some of the cost they should have the same decision offered to university students: follow a course that leads to a job/career, or follow a course they are interested in, but which may not necessarily lead directly to a job.
While the person specification for my current job required a degree, it did not specify the subject. If this is a suitable outcome for the ‘academic’ track, then the ‘technical’ track should not limit a learner’s outcome either. For those keeping track – that’s the third and final QP, the question of position: how and where does it lead?
And of position, a system of any extreme – employer only, government only, awarding organisation only – is highly unlikely to deliver the right outcomes for individuals, employers and the economy. The government is right to want to put employers at the heart of the system, but to suggest that this is the first time is naïve.
Taking the theme of David Hughes’ opening speech to the AoC Conference this week, I want to focus on a positive: in order to deliver effective apprenticeships, reform and the broader technical agenda, we need a position where the expertise of all aspects of our system is respected, and we need to work together to get the best possible outcomes.
The Skills Plan will fail if it isn’t sufficiently embedded in curriculum choices before 16 and, critically, in parents’ and employers’ minds, so young people are supported to make those choices. In the end, that will make the government priority of three million starts incredibly easy to achieve as apprenticeships will be a destination of choice, rather than the thing that other people’s children do.
Gemma Gathercole is head of policy for FE and funding at OCR
Sector leaders should expect sage advice on how to excel in all areas from the new FE Commissioner, now that his former college has come out on top in FE Week’s first ever rankings table.
Exeter College, which was led by Richard Atkins CBE until he retired in March, scored a perfect 16 in our new survey, making it officially the most successful college in England based on a number of key criteria published by the Department for Education.
Three other colleges narrowly missed out on the top spot, with Kendal College, Selby College and Eastleigh College scoring 15 points each.
All four of the top-scoring colleges have been rated ‘outstanding’ at their most recent Ofsted inspections.
Exeter’s current principal John Laramy told FE Week that he was “delighted” that the college’s “unremitting focus on outstanding teaching, learning, employer engagement and the student experience has been recognised by this accolade”.
Our success is down to our focus on individuals
“We have great students and a great team of staff,” he said. “I would like to thank everyone – partners, employers, students, staff, leaders, governors and stakeholders – all of whom have contributed to our ongoing success.”
Mr Atkins took up the reins as FE commissioner from Sir David Collins earlier this month, leaving a college he headed between 2002 and 2016 – which means he was in charge for the period that our data covered.
FE Week’s ratings are based on four measures: 2016/17 adult apprenticeships allocations as a percentage of all adult funding, employer and learner satisfaction scores, and destination data (specifically a college’s success at getting unemployed learners into work).
All 213 colleges in the country were awarded a score of between zero and three points based on their performance in each category, with an additional volume-based bonus point available per measure.
The points system was devised by Nick Linford, FE Week’s editor and a former director of performance at Lewisham College.
He said: “The government previously considered scoring colleges via what they called ‘a balanced scorecard approach’ within the Framework for Excellence.
Read editor Nick’s comment here
“This has now become FE Choices, but no overall score was ever implemented until now.”
As reported in last week’s edition, Selby College has been the best in the country at helping its unemployed learners into work, according to the latest destination data published by the DfE.
This achievement helped it take joint-second place in the rankings.
Selby’s principal Allan Stewart OBE told FE Week that he was delighted at his college’s performance.
“Our success is down to our focus on individuals, putting the learner at the centre of everything we do,” he said.
“We also recognise what key partners employers are.”
Kendal College’s employer and learner satisfaction rates were among the highest of any college, according to the latest FE Choices data, which is what put them squarely in joint-second place.
Graham Wilkinson, Kendal College principal, said: “We a delighted that Kendal College has performed so consistently well across all the measures for a number of years. We highly value the views of our learners and employers.”
An adult apprenticeships allocation of more than £11.5 million, alongside employer and learner satisfaction rates of more than 90 per cent, is meanwhile what propelled Eastleigh College to joint-second.
Eastleigh’s principal Jan Edrich said: “We are pleased to be ranked so highly in the FE Week survey, and it is a testament to the focus we have here at the college.”
As we have previously reported, colleges’ total share of apprenticeships cash has sunk from 37 per cent to 32.5 per cent, despite former skills minister Nick Boles urging them to up their game at last year’s Association of Colleges’ conference.
Explained: our league table and points-based method
It took legislation to achieve it, but the government has now finally improved the way it reports learner destination data. So now seemed like a good time to revisit the notion of a balanced scorecard for colleges. It was what the Framework for Excellence had been intended to be, but it lost its way as it morphed into a simple satisfaction survey through FE Choices.
The balance with our table, I hope, comes from combining customer satisfaction with how many unemployed learners find work, and finding out whether the college is responding to government demands for more apprenticeship delivery.
For those wondering why I have chosen not to include qualification achievement rates, it is well recognised that an overall all-age, level and sector-achievement rate tells you little to nothing about how good a college is. For example, the shorter the course, the higher the typical achievement rate. What’s more, the recent inspection of NCG taught us that achievement rates need to be put into context before we form judgements.
I’ve also chosen not to include Ofsted grades because they represent a snapshot in time. And, as report on page two, some colleges have not received a full inspection in over 10 years.
The strongest indication yet has been given that the Department for Education is planning to change its English and maths requirements for post-16 learners, by apprenticeships and skills minister Robert Halfon.
The revelation came during his speech this afternoon at the Association of Colleges annual conference, in Birmingham. He conceded to delegates that GCSEs are not always the best option for FE students.
“It is clear that we need a credible, high-quality option for students for whom GCSEs are not appropriate or achievable,” Mr Halfon said.
“This is why we are reforming Functional Skills to make sure that they are genuinely relevant to employers, and consequently have credibility and prestige in the jobs market.”
The government made it a condition of funding, in 2014, that all 16 to 19 year olds who did not already have at least a grade C in GCSE English or maths should be enrolled in courses in these subjects.
This was changed a year later to require all of those with a grade D in those subjects to do to a GCSE course, rather than an equivalent ‘stepping stone’ course.
But this year’s GCSE results showed that huge numbers of learners aged 17 and older failed to get the necessary C in English and maths – which Mark Dawe, Association of Employment and Learning Providers described as a “body blow”.
This led to widespread calls for the government to scrap its GCSE resit policy, and replace it with a more employer-focused approach including Functional Skills qualifications, which it is understood the government is considering.
Education secretary Justine Greening also spoke to AoC conference delegates about maths and English provision.
She said: “We all need to think quite carefully about how we strike the right balance between a system that really pushes people, so we’re not giving up on someone being able to reach their potential because it’s hard for them to do that – but also a clear sense of getting them from A to B quickly so they’re not spending time running upwards against a brick wall that they’re not going to get over.”
In January this year the Education and Training Foundation launched a multi-stage consultation on how maths and English Functional Skills qualifications should be reformed.
Former skills minister Nick Boles said that he welcomed the consultation was the “first phase of a reform programme which will provide more rigorous and respected Functional Skills qualifications”.
After today’s speech, Mr Dawe said that he appreciated Mr Halfon’s approach.
“Both he and the Secretary of State [Justine Greening] have identified the importance of maths and English and the role of functional skills in improving them,” he said.
