College sector leaders will add their voices to an inquiry by the House of Lords Select Committee on Social Mobility tomorrow, discussing funding changes and how to improve employment opportunities for young people.
The witnesses will help the committee explore the choices and opportunities available to young people from age 14 in the UK education system. The evidence sessions will be the tenth and eleventh so far in the inquiry into social mobility in the transition from school to work.
The initial session will take place at 10.35am involving Pat Brennan-Barrett (pictured right), principal of Northampton College and chair of the higher education in FE Network at the Association of Colleges (AoC); and Malcolm Trobe, deputy general secretary of the Association of Schools and College Leaders (ASCL).
The second session, scheduled to begin an hour later, will focus on the development of University Technical Colleges (UTCs) and Studio Schools with witnesses David Nicholl, director of the Studio Schools Trust, and Charles Parker, chief executive of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust.
Issues the committee will explore with the witnesses include careers guidance, work experience, funding, performance measures and the role of Ofsted. The possible outcomes of the Government’s review of FE will also be discussed, as will inequality of provision for girls, black and minority ethnic (BAME) groups, and working-class boys.
The committee was formally appointed on Thursday, June 11, “to consider social mobility in the transition from school to work”, with Baroness Corston (main picture above) as chair. It is required to report its findings by March 23.
Ofsted boss Sir Michael Wilshaw told conference delegates that FE providers dishing out “dubious qualifications of little economic relevance” were among the “guilty parties” for apprenticeships failings.
The chief inspector was in an uncompromising mood today as he addressed the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) West Midlands education and skills conference, with a speech that officially launched the publication of Ofsted’s long-awaited apprenticeships report.
“Why is it that so many local firms are forced to rely on imported skilled labour because they find it impossible to find the right capabilities locally, and who is to blame for this?” Sir Michael asked delegates at the St John’s Hotel, in Solihull.
“In my opinion there are three guilty parties: schools, FE providers and… employers.”
Sire Michael called for an overhaul of the system for delivering apprenticeships, with a focus on Germany and Switzerland as examples of good practice.
He added the “snobbery” that has seen apprenticeships packaged as “the last chance for the academically challenged” has to end.
“The fact that only five per cent of our youngsters go into an apprenticeship at 16 is little short of a national disaster and a national tragedy,” he said.
His pulled no punches when offering guidance to both educators and employers.
He advised FE providers to specialise, rather than attempt “to be all things to all men and women”.
“Our inspection evidence shows that when they focus on the curriculum, when they concentrate on specialisms that meet local employment needs — standards invariably rise,” Sir Michael added.
“We are increasingly seeing providers, especially general FE colleges, failing because they’re not engaging with local businesses and not updating their courses to match local needs.”
Sir Michael was equally unforgiving, when addressing the many employers in the audience.
He said: “It’s no good carping from the sidelines about standards, if you don’t get involved yourselves.”
He recommended that businesses should lead by example — through sponsoring academies, engaging with curriculum design, and supporting employees who act as school governors.
Addressed business leaders directly, he added: “This is my challenge to you, organise yourselves, it’s no use waiting for others to put structures in pace and then bemoaning the progress made. Use your networks and knowledge to find solutions.”
Sir Michael claimed that low level apprenticeships were “wasting public money”.
“They’re abusing the trust placed in them by government and apprentices to deliver meaningful, high quality training,” he said.
Sir Michael added that Ofsted would not “shy away” from reporting failures, and called on funding agencies and the government to “continue to be prepared to withdraw finance from those employers and providers who abuse the system”.
“I urge government to be radical in its reform of this sector. We’ve indulged in mediocrity for far too long and we should no longer accept it,” he said.
Sir Michael added: “An apprenticeship isn’t endless tea making, shelf stacking or envelope stuffing. It is not an induction course, or a six week in house training scheme. It is not a badge for doing what is already being done.
“An apprenticeship is quality training, delivered over a long period, which meets real business needs and is regularly assessed by experts.”
Hackney Community College went up an Ofsted grade to good today as it became the first FE and skills provider rated under the new common inspection framework — but the revamped report itself came under fire.
The 6,200-learner East London college was inspected from September 29 to October 2, having previously been visited by the education watchdog in March last year with the resulting 19-page report featuring grade three — ‘requires improvement’ — ratings in each of the four headline fields.
The latest report, at 10 pages long, paints a rosier picture at the college, with eight out of the now-nine headline fields being rated as good and the other as requires improvement.
But the document itself has drawn criticism for a”broad brush stroke but superficial approach” from former Ofsted inspector Phil Hatton (pictured right), who now works as an adviser at the Learning Improvement Services.
Numerical gradings, previously listing outstanding as one and good as two and so on, have been dropped from the new reports along with round-up tables that used to sit towards the back of Ofsted reports. There was also a new pared-down colour scheme of light blue, black and white.
The changes come as part of Ofsted’s new unified framework, introduced from September across the FE and skills, early years and schools sectors.
Above: Hackney Community College’s 2015 Ofsted inspection report cover – with numerical gradings absentAbove: Hackney Community College’s 2014 Ofsted inspection report cover – featuring numerical gradings
“The style is more readable but in attempting to cover, judge and write about the work of a whole college, the level of sampling and applying findings more widely to the whole is a very difficult one to get right and have confidence in,” said Mr Hatton.
He added: “They will evolve but first thoughts are that they would benefit from more meat about what a college is doing well so that others can benefit”.
Further key changes in the new-style inspection reports include a new focus on learners’ personal development, behaviour and welfare, and a change from reporting on subject areas to types of provision.
Types of provision that can be covered in FE and skills inspection reports include 16 to 19 study programmes, adult learning programmes, apprenticeships, provision for learners with high needs, traineeships and full-time provision for 14- to 16-year-olds.
A spokesperson for Ofsted ruled out the return of the numerical grading system in reports, said: “In line with our common inspection framework we have sought to make our reports clearer, more straightforward and more closely comparable across remits”.
Hackney Community College’s Ofsted lead, deputy principal Lois Fowler, was unavailable for comment on the new-style report.
However, Hackney college principal Ian Ashman (pictured above) said he was “delighted” at the result of his inspection. Among its comments was the statement that “since the previous inspection, leaders and managers have successfully focused on precise improvement actions and outcomes for learners and teaching; learning and assessment are now good.”
Mr Ashman said: “The report reads extremely strongly, with praise for all departments of the college, for students, staff, managers and governors.”
A spokesperson for the Association of Colleges declined to comment on the new style reports, adding that it was more appropriate for college principals to comment.
More than 50 employers and apprentices have been recognised in the latest round of National Apprenticeship Awards ceremonies.
The event took place for the South East region on Wednesday (October 21), and Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Staffordshire, and South West, Thames Valley and Solent last night (October 22).
Awards and special commendations went to 26 apprentices, aged between 18 and 67 years old, and 28 employers.
Sue Husband, director of the National Apprenticeship Service, said that the “winners are the best of the best in the region and I would like to congratulate them on their achievements”.
“They deserve to be rewarded for their efforts,” she added. “There has never been a better time to become an apprentice or employ one.”
Skills Minister Nick Boles also said that he wanted to pass on “a big congratulations” to all the winners.
It comes after awards ceremonies for the North West (including Liverpool, Cumbria and Lancashire), South West, Yorkshire and the Humber, West Midlands, and North East took place between October 8 and October 15, as reported in FE Week.
Awards and special commendations went to 47 apprentices and 53 employers for those regions.
Ceremonies for the final two regions will be held next week — for the East of England on Tuesday (October 27) and the East Midlands on Wednesday (October 29).
Main picture above: The winners at the Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Staffordshire awards ceremony
Here are the latest winners and highly commended apprentices and employers:
South East
Winners:
McDonald’s Award for Intermediate Apprentice of the Year: Freya Ward, Napier Partnership Ltd
EAL Award for Advanced Apprentice of the Year: Yasmin Stageman, IBM
The Nuclear Decommissioning Site Licence Companies Award for the Higher Apprentice of the Year: Thomas Cope, IBM
City & Guilds Award for Apprenticeship Champion of the Year: Martha Kempsford, Kentucky Fried Chicken
Unilever Award for Small Employer of the Year: Snow-Camp
BAE Systems Award for Large Employer of the Year: Arqiva
BT Award for Macro Employer of the Year: Kent County Council
EDF Energy Award for Newcomer SME of the Year: Travelbag
Rolls-Royce Award for Newcomer Large Employer of the Year: Be Wiser Insurance
Highly Commended:
Sophie Hannington, Hampshire County Council IBM
Emma Pople, IBM
Tarnya Gardiner, level three, Base Connections Telemarketing Ltd
Daniel Brown, Visa Europe
SGN
British Army
KFC GB Ltd
Andreas Stihl Ltd
South West, Thames Valley and Solent
Winners:
McDonald’s Award for Intermediate Apprentice of the Year: Jodie Cook, South West Apprenticeship Company Ltd/Rosebank Health
EAL Award for Advanced Apprentice of the Year: William Jacobs, IBM United Kingdom Limited
The Nuclear Decommissioning Site Licence Companies Award for the Higher Apprentice of the Year: James Garnham, Cisco Systems Ltd
City & Guilds Apprenticeship Champion of the Year: Kevin Haydock, Royal Naval Armaments Depot (RNAD), Gosport
The E.ON in partnership with the National Skills Academy for Power Award for Medium Employer of the Year: Isys Intelligent Systems
BAE Systems Award for Large Employer of the Year: Clarkson Evans Ltd
BT Award for Macro Employer of the Year: Amey Plc
EDF Energy Award for Newcomer SME of the Year: Buckinghamshire Care
Rolls-Royce Award for Newcomer Large Employer of the Year: Microsoft UK
Highly Commended:
Christopher Daniels, Parsloe Consulting
Louise Holton, level two, South West Apprenticeship Company Ltd
Jordan Wilshire, level three, Vector Aerospace Helicopter Services UK
Jessica Quinn, level four, Cisco Systems Ltd
Crayon Limited
DAF Trucks
Virgin Media
Gigney Enterprises CIC
Hovis Ltd
Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Staffordshire
Winners:
McDonald’s Award for Intermediate Apprentice of the Year: Laura Broughton, Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service
EAL Award for Advanced Apprentice of the Year: Sophie Knight, IBM
The Nuclear Decommissioning Site Licence Companies Award for the Higher Apprentice of the Year: Jade Aspinall, MBDA UK Ltd
Unilever Award for Small Employer of the Year: Adary Joiners
The E.ON in partnership with the National Skills Academy for Power Award for Medium Employer of the Year: Tangerine PR
BAE Systems Award for Large Employer of the Year: KMF
BT Award for Macro Employer of the Year: United Utilities
EDF Energy Award for Newcomer SME of the Year: Metamorphic PR
Rolls-Royce Award for Newcomer Large Employer of the Year: ao.com
Ofqual chief Glenys Stacey has spelled out how its “transparent” audit system will work under the new Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF).
Ms Stacey told the Federation of Awarding Bodies’ conference today that Ofqual would be publishing the results of its audits, as she challenged awarding bodies to create qualifications that are “valid”.
“We will be transparent about our work,” Ms Stacey said. “We will publish the outcomes of audits and scrutinies as we complete them, so that all of you, not just those of you involved in each audit, can consider what you can learn from them.
She added: “We will be checking too that our regulations and processes are doing what they need to do.
“We will be making sure that compliance is likely to lead to good outcomes so that we are not placing unnecessary burden on you, or getting in the way of those good outcomes.”
The RQF, Ofqual’s new framework for vocational qualifications, came into effect on October 1, as reported in FE Week.
It is designed to have fewer rules than its predecessor, the Qualifications Credit Framework (QCF).
“There is no longer a straitjacket,” Ms Stacey said at the conference in Leicester.
Under the new RQF, she added, qualifications should be “more valid, relevant and fit-for-purpose”.
Awarding bodies will need to be “flexible, adaptable, innovative” to respond to a new environment where employers and learners have more say over qualifications, rather than decisions being made by central government, she said.
Ms Stacey warned that learners “will want to know what value the qualification will add to their earning potential”.
“Employers will [also] want to know whether people with particular qualifications can really demonstrate the skills and activities they say they can,” she added.
Now that the rules of the QCF have been removed, Ms Stacey urged awarding bodies to “innovate” and “adopt new and different ways” of designing qualifications.
“You can decide what works best. Not decisions about how to meet rules,” she said.
However, Ms Stacey warned, “we won’t tell you how to meet our conditions”.
Ofqual’s requirements, she said, would provide a “firm foundation”, but “we will not come to your rescue”.
Instead, she said that awarding bodies should engage with “your customers, your learners and those who rely on your qualifications” to develop valid and relevant qualifications.
Awarding bodies will be deemed to be successful if people chose them — “not because they’re funded, but because they trust and value them,” she added.
[Photo: Glenys Stacey speaking at the Federation of Awarding Bodies conference. Credit: Osborne Photography]
Experienced troubleshooter Ian Clinton has temporarily taken charge at Stafford College, following the resignation of previous principal Beverley Smith.
Mr Clinton, who saw Stockport College’s Ofsted rating improve from ‘inadequate’ to ‘requires improvement’ during a short stint in charge, will start as interim principal at Stafford on November 4.
His appointment comes after Ms Smith resigned earlier this month, following five votes of no confidence from staff and management.
Chair of governors Mark Winnington said: “We are looking forward to Ian bringing his expertise to the college and supporting the staff and students.”
Mr Clinton, who was awarded an OBE in the New Year’s Honours list for services to FE, was interim principal at Stockport College from around February 2014 to April this year.
He oversaw rapid improvement from a grade four Ofsted rating, that was slapped on the college (in November 2013) before he took over, to grade three in January.
Mr Clinton (pictured above) previously led Blackburn College from 2004 until the end of 2013.
It was rated by Ofsted as good in eight curriculum areas, satisfactory in five and outstanding in hairdressing and beauty therapy in May 2004, before improving to outstanding across-the-board in January 2008.
Ms Smith’s resignation from Stafford College, which received a grade three-across-the-board Ofsted rating last November, was reported in FE Week on October 14.
She had been the focus of growing unrest and concern among staff at the college, amid allegations that she was operating a regime of “crippling workloads, rising stress levels and a culture of fear”.
Ms Smith (pictured right), who took over at the college early last year, received five votes of no confidence from staff and management, including members of UCU, in June, as reported by FE Week.
According to reports in the local media, up to 150 members of staff took part in a protest outside the college, calling for Ms Smith’s resignation.
However, following a four-hour meeting on June 29, governors concluded that there was “no evidence presented which would support any action to be taken against the principal”.
Mr Clinton was unavailable for comment on his new appointment, but said in an FE Week expert piece he wrote in February on his experiences at Stockport: “Taking on the principal’s role at a college that has been called ‘toxic’ is not for the faint-hearted.
“I believe you need to take on such a role for the right reasons, namely to make a difference for students, staff, the local community together with businesses.”
Skills Funding Agency (SFA) finance director Paul McGuire is stepping down next month — which will clear the way for responsibilities falling under his remit to be shared with the Education Funding Agency (EFA), FE Week can reveal.
The announcement was made by Peter Lauener (pictured below left), who became chief executive of both agencies in November, in an email to partner organisations that has been shown to FE Week.
It said that Mr McGuire (pictured above) would be stepping down at the end of next month.
“At that point Paul’s responsibilities will be split,” Mr Lauener added in the email.
“His responsibilities for financial management and assurance and for ICT [information and communications technology] systems and digital, as well as premises will be managed by Simon Parkes, who is currently chief financial official in the EFA,” he said.
He added that Mr Parkes would also lead “the establishment of a shared finance and system operation which will cover both EFA and SFA”.
The decision will raise further questions about the long-term futures of the EFA and SFA as separate entities.
It comes after Mr Lauener answered questions on the possible merger of both agencies, during a House of Commons Public Accounts Committee hearing on Monday (October 19).
He told MPs that he was working on delivering “savings” for both, but “actually took the job on the basis that there was no planned merger”.
An FE Week report earlier this month also revealed details of a leaked Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) memo suggesting plans to more than halve the number of its partner organisations by 2020.
Meanwhile, Mr Lauener said in the leaked email, which was dated October 12, that he planned to “take responsibility for our [the SFA’s] legal team” following Mr McGuire’s departure.
Mr McGuire’s responsibilities for funding allocations, the central delivery service, and human resources would pass to the SFA’s former interim chief executive Keith Smith (pictured left), who is currently the agency’s director of funding and programmes, the email added.
Mr Lauener was full of praise for Mr McGuire, saying that he “has been a driving force for change and quality and he has also been a passionate advocate of the skills agenda”.
A Skills Funding Agency spokesperson said: “Paul McGuire has taken the decision to move on and will be leaving the SFA at the end of November.
“We are working to further realise the opportunities to be gained from closer working with the EFA, as part of our ongoing efforts to make our systems simpler and more effective.”
The EFA was unable to comment ahead of publication.
Bob Harrison considers the role of technology in post-16 education area-based reviews.
Why is everyone so twitchy now Skills Minister Nick Boles has announced a process which some feel is not only hasty, but fundamentally flawed and is merely being used as a thin cloak for the cuts expected in the next comprehensive spending review?
The pace of the reviews in Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham has already begun to raise questions about ‘opportunity cost’ and a worry that all the effort will detract from the quality of teaching and learning. A particular concern repeatedly voiced by the National Union of Students is ‘What about students? Don’t they get a say in this?’
Technology-enhanced learning, blended learning and online learning feature prominently in the criteria the reviews should consider when making recommendations about future provision.
Others however feel the reviews are long overdue and the FE sector needs radical reform of the funding and assets with a much closer alignment of provision to the future needs of learners and employers. This also, coincidentally, fits neatly into the government’s plans for devolution to the regions.
Some groups such as the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association and others are dumbfounded that the process is going ahead when school sixth forms, University Technical Colleges and free schools are excluded from the process.
There is big money at stake with an FE and skills budget of over £7bn up for grabs which the devolved regions, and the local enterprise partnerships (Leps), would dearly like to get control of.
There is a tension between the needs and aspirations of learners and the needs of employers. They can, and often do, align but they may not.
The long history and evolution of further and adult education does not neatly fit into lines drawn on a map. Lep regions do not always map easily to areas of economic development and travel to work areas not to mention the hopes and dreams of individuals and communities?
It is a constantly shifting dynamic which extends beyond county and country borders and cannot easily be mapped and managed but the Minister and the FE and Sixth Form Commissioners are anxious to get the process underway and are cracking on.
The Area Based Review Advisory group (ABRAG) has issued guidance for the local steering groups. Technology-enhanced learning, blended learning and online learning feature prominently in the criteria the reviews should consider when making recommendations about future provision.
This will mean a realignment of the current assets of the FE sector from the predominantly analogue delivery model based on land and buildings to one fit for a digital future.
It will also mean a reinvestment of some of those realised capital assets into wireless and digital infrastructure and critically enhanced workforce skills to support learning and assessment in a digital age. It could mean we will need more teachers but with a different skillset?
This does not mean face to face learning will disappear but hopefully a more balanced ‘blend’ of learning will emerge which will be more flexible and responsive to learner and employer needs.
This time we really do need a ‘paradigm shift’ in thinking about how learning programmes are designed, delivered and assessed.
All of these area-based deliberations are set in a context of drastic cuts to the FE budget and if we have learned anything about technology enhanced, online and blended learning it is that it is not a cheap option. While the predominant view of the misinformed is that ‘online equals cheaper’ history teaches us that any realignment of learning vision, leadership, culture, design, methodology, pedagogy and assessment will need considerable upfront investment in infrastructure and human resources.
That is why the emergent lessons from the first reviews are essential for Leps, teachers, managers, principals, governors, work-based learning providers, assessors and policy makers.
Widespread use of government cash to subsidise low wages on apprenticeships for older learners has “got to stop”, Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw has exclusively told FE Week.
He hit out at poor quality training programmes for people aged 25 and above and government failure to encourage more starts among 16 to 24-year-olds, ahead of publication this morning of Ofsted’s long-awaited apprenticeships report.
“What we’re seeing is that a lot of apprenticeships are simply accrediting what they’re doing already and again employers are using funding from government to subsidise already low wages — that’s got to stop,” he said.
Sir Michael (pictured above being interviewed by FE Week reporter Alix Robertson), who will deliver a hard-hitting speech to officially launch the report at a CBI event in Solihull later this morning, added during the exclusive interview with FE Week: “The big challenge is 16 to 24, certainly 16 to 19.
“We’ve had a static trainee population/apprentice population for the last ten years.
“Years ago, many more youngsters left at 16 and went into apprenticeship programmes.
“The number has declined steadily over the years and now it’s just 6 per cent of 16-year-olds going into apprenticeships”.
The report called on the government to “prioritise young people aged 16 to 24 through better promotion of the benefits of apprenticeships”.
The most recent provisional government figures on apprenticeships, reported by FE Week on October 14, suggested a full-year growth in numbers across all age groups — but minimal increase for younger people.
In 2014/15, the number of starts was provisionally put at 492,700 — which was up by 13.9 per cent from 432,400 the previous academic year, according to the Statistical First Release.
Of these, 210,100 in 2014/15 were aged 25 or above — a rise of 33.2 per cent, or 52,400, from the same figures last year.
Meanwhile, 158,200 were aged 19 to 24 — an increase of just 1,300, or 0.8 per cent.
For the under-19 category, the same figures suggested there were 124,400 starts in 2014/15 — a rise of 5.6 per cent from last year’s provisional figure of 117,800.
A government briefing paper published in August, called Apprenticeships Policy, England 2010-15, said that the number under-19s starting an apprenticeship only increased by 3,000 (3 per cent) from 2009/10 to 2013/14.
It added that while 19 to 24-year-old apprenticeship starts increased by 45,300 (40 per cent) over the same period, the number aged 25 and over increased by 112,500 (229 per cent).
After reading the damning new Ofsted report on apprenticeships, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges Gill Clipson (pictured left) said that to attract more 16 to 18-year-olds, the government “must recognise that for some young people a pre-apprenticeship offer, comprised of a broad-based programme of education and training relating to industry, may be required first”.
A spokesperson for the Association of Employment and Learning Providers said: “We want to see starts for 16 to 24 increase every year and strongly support initiatives such as better information and guidance to help make that happen.”
A spokesperson from the National Union of Students warned: “If the government doesn’t face up to the lack of young people taking up apprenticeships, we foresee a generation of young people having education and training opportunities cut away.”
Neil Carberry
Confederation of British Industry director for employment and skills Neil Carberry (pictured left) said greater employer control of apprenticeship would “give more young people the opportunity to get a genuine foothold on the career ladder”.
The report also raised concern about the government’s failure to encourage small and medium enterprises to take on apprentices and deliver training that matched up to national skills shortages.
It said the government should “make available information to providers about local and national skills priorities and hold them to account for the extent to which their provision meets these”.
Skills Minister Nick Boles said: “Putting an end to poor quality apprenticeship training lies at the heart of our reforms of apprenticeships.
“Ofsted’s welcome report backs up the findings of our 2012 review and provides further evidence for our decision to put employers rather than training providers in the driving seat.”
Here’s the full interview with Sir Michael Wilshaw:
Q: The AELP has criticised Ofsted this week for singling out apprenticeships involved with cleaning floors and coffee making in the new report. Do you accept that they are important parts of our economy and therefore need structured training programmes to support employers?
A: That’s not what we’re saying. Those jobs are valid and they have a certain level of skills.
Our issue is, should they be called apprenticeships, which carry a connotation which everyone recognises being a high-skill, high-level qualification — a training programme which lasts over time and develops people’s existing skills, not maintains them?
What we’re seeing is not that. We’re seeing low level skills being called apprenticeships.
Q: Can tasks like cleaning not be part of an apprenticeship in, for example, the care home industry?
A: If that is the view of that particular organisation, it certainly isn’t the view of the government, it’s certainly not the view of Ofsted and it’s certainly not my view.
We’re not against people getting jobs in those sorts of companies and that sort of work — but don’t call it an apprenticeship.
It debases the whole brand, and that something that we should guard against.
Q: So do we need to work on preserving a ‘brand’ for apprenticeships?
A: I’ve been to see apprenticeships in Rolls Royce for example, I went to Derby last year and saw very high level stuff, level three stuff, and we saw apprentices on three, four, five year programmes doing stuff that the public would see as being worthy of the name ‘apprenticeship’.
That sort of apprenticeship and that sort of brand would be quickly devalued if we called these sorts of practices [floor cleaning and coffee making] apprenticeships.
Q: Is Ofsted’s concern on this issue also related to how we package apprenticeships for parents and prospective students?
A: We want schools to do something about this.
As an ex-headteacher in a secondary school, I know how important careers education was, and if you looked at our report on careers education two years ago you’d see we were very critical of how it’s been done in a great many secondary schools.
It’s not getting the attention and focus it deserves and a lot of young people are leaving school not having the faintest idea of what an apprenticeship is, what it looks like, how to apply and where to go.
Q: Your report is quite critical of the government’s approach, which you say doesn’t prioritise small employers enough. How worried are you that in the reforms and chase for 3m apprenticeship starts they are being ignored?
A: There’s nothing wrong with the government’s ambition to create 3m apprenticeships over the next five years.
It’s good and it’s much needed. What we are saying is that if you are going to do this, make sure that you focus not just on quantity, but on quality. That’s why we’re so up front with our concerns about what’s happening in the system already.
They’ve got to change that and if most employers are small and medium-sized businesses they need help.
The local plumbing company, the local electricians, employing less than 20 people, often don’t know very much about apprenticeships, if they don’t have them already. They don’t know how to fill in the necessary paperwork to get the subsidies from government and so on.
It’s not the case with a big company, which often does its own training, but small and medium-sized companies need to be helped with the process.
Q: Ofsted focuses on the performance data especially timely success rates. What might be the benefits/challenges of developing a wider basket of measures, that includes employer and apprentice satisfaction?
A: Success in my eyes is whether these youngsters are able to get jobs. They’re only going to be able to get jobs if they go into apprenticeships and Trainee programmes which help to get those jobs.
Those training programme have got to be focused on the local employment needs of a particular area.
It’s no good designing a curriculum which doesn’t do that. If colleges of FE and other training agencies don’t focus their training on meeting local employment needs then we will criticise that.
Q: Once learners have completed their courses and left, perhaps they’ve haven’t got a job lined up from the moment they leave. Is there an onus on the provider to make sure that within a certain amount of time they are in gainfully employed, based on the courses they have done?
A: That’s exactly what I’m saying. The training provider has got to make sure that the programmes of study and the training programmes are geared towards getting these youngsters jobs.
They might not get a job at the end of the day, that’s up to them. However, if the training that they’ve received hasn’t been good enough then they’re not going to get those jobs, and by good enough I mean are they being trained in the right skills that the local employment requires?
Q: How long is a student still the provider’s or the college’s responsibility after they’ve completed their studies?
A: Well you would hope that they would do everything within their power to make sure that they have the right skills to progress towards the next stage of their career.
The government is very interested — as we are — in destination data and we’ll be looking very carefully at how colleges and training providers are using destination data to tailor their programmes of study.
Q: Apprenticeships for people aged 25-plus are highlighted as easier to get on to but perhaps lower quality than others. How can this issue be addressed?
A: The big challenge is 16 to 24, certainly 16 to 19, we’ve had a static trainee population/apprentice population for the last ten years, something like that.
Years ago many more youngster left at 16 and went into apprenticeship programmes.
The number has declined steadily over the years and now it’s just 6 per cent of 16-year-olds going into apprenticeships.
So that’s the big challenge for government: to ensure that youngsters from 16-19 get apprenticeships.
The 25-year-olds are often already in work. What we’re seeing is that a lot of apprenticeships are simply accrediting what they’re doing already and again employers are using funding from government to subsidise already low wages – that’s got to stop.
Q: Do apprenticeship programmes, particularly for the 25-plus age group, lack structure?
A: That’s absolutely right. If you read the report carefully, it’s saying very clearly that if the government’s ambition is going to be fulfilled, there needs to be an infrastructure around the apprenticeship programme and both training providers.
The FE sector and employers have got to get together to form that infrastructure, to develop that infrastructure.
The CBI have got a big part to play in ensuring that local chambers of commerce and local enterprise partnerships have a big part to play in doing this. If you look at best practice in Germany and in Switzerland, and I’ve been to both, that’s exactly what they do there.
Q: Do we need to do more to promote examples of best practice and provide clearer guidance on how to deliver high quality apprenticeships?
A: It is lacking, but even more lacking is a local infrastructure. If you go to Germany and Switzerland, there’s a well-established local infrastructure which has been going well and has been employed over many, many years. We haven’t had that, so there isn’t that history of a local infrastructure in this country and we’ve got to develop that very quickly if this big and bold ambitious programme from government is going to work.
It has to be it seems to me both CBI led and government led.
Q: You call for greater pre-apprenticeship routes, such as traineeships. Currently the government restricts traineeships to grade one and two providers only, so many apprenticeship providers can’t do traineeships. Should they allow grade three providers to deliver traineeships, or only allow grade one and two providers to do apprenticeships?
A: It’s a bit like a school situation — you’d only want good and outstanding schools to train teachers, because they know what good looks like. It’s the same, you’d only want good and outstanding trainers to develop their trainee programmes.
Q: Some of the points in your report have been raised by others over the last five years. Why has it taken Ofsted so long to produce this report?
A: Look at our previous FE annual reports. It has been a recurrent theme certainly since I’ve been here and before, that apprenticeship programmes have not been of sufficiently high quality.
Q: Some would say that Ofsted is only a specialist in inspecting classroom learning. Do you take any responsibility for not focusing enough on poor quality work place apprenticeship provision as part of wider FE & skills inspections?
A: Our reports consistently say and are very critical of classroom-based programmes of study.
Q: Is a lack of funding part of this problem of preparing properly to deliver apprenticeships effectively?
A: It’s an age of austerity and no-one’s going to get more money now. However, it’s a new era certainly in terms of the skills agenda, the government has made it absolutely clear that it wants more apprenticeships in the system.
If I was leading a training provider, I’d make sure that I got closely involved with that enterprise [as the government has increased funding available for apprenticeships].
Q: Some colleges have had to merge to remain financially viable. How do you feel mergers will impact on providers’ ability to work effectively with local businesses [on apprenticeships]?
A: That really is down to really good leadership to say ‘yes we’re going to get bigger, yes there has to be consolidation, that’s going to be the way of the world with less money about, but there are also opportunities and the opportunities are to get closely involved with the apprenticeship programme’.
Q: Do you think this need to better understand the local employment needs will have any impact on recruitment e.g. governors/senior staff?
A: I think they’ll be looking to employ people who can teach well, that’s the first thing.
They’ll be looking to people who can teach not only the particular vocational specialism, but also English and maths because that’s now a government requirement.
They’ll be looking to employers to help them, so to join the governing board and help shape their curriculum.
Q: You recommend that apprenticeships are focused on the industries that “contribute to economic growth”. Which industries do you believe fill this description?
A: What sells well I suppose is the issue. The country grew and developed and became great because it sold stuff to the world. We need to do the same again.
Our manufacturing base is low, the emphasis has been on service sector industries. That’s all well and good, particularly finance, but the West Midland was the heart of the industrial revolution, we need to expand our manufacturing base and sell stuff that we make overseas and sell services overseas and we need highly skilled people to do that.
That’s [what is behind] the government’s whole focus about apprenticeships.
Q: Is this programme a push back to ‘the way things used to be’, to some extent — so reversing the drive to get as many students as possible into Universities?
A: I think it’s a realisation that we got it wrong, yes, there has been an imbalance. There has been an emphasis on 50 per cent of youngsters going to university and following level three A-level programmes into universities.
However, we’ve got nearly 50 per of our youngsters at 16 not getting five A* – C grades and not getting to qualifications to go on into A-level programmes. What are they going to do? They’ll be looking to other success pathways, or pathways that lead to success, and one of those pathways is the apprenticeships programme.
Q: At school level, is there an adequate focus on commending a range of skills, not just those that lead down the path to university?
A: That’s chicken and egg, that’s what we’re saying, apprenticeships have got to be seen as being credible.
If they’re not seen as being credible, then youngsters won’t see it being of equal merit with an A-level programme leading on to university.
The issue is that they want to see youngsters who are up for it and who have received a good broad and balanced education and have got the basic skills for the next stage of their education and training.
Q: Alongside Ofsted, which other bodies do you see as responsible for holding apprenticeship providers to account?
A: Employers. At the end of the day, this is what the government wants and it’s something that we support.
They have got to accredit the quality of the training programmes that are sending them their potential workforce.
So if I’m doing a catering apprenticeship, it will be the local catering businesses in the area, organised hopefully by the local chambers of commerce, who will be the gatekeepers of quality.
Q: What are your views on how to make apprenticeships accessible to students with special educational needs or disabilities? Is this a challenge that has been effectively addressed so far?
A: One of the criticisms that we’ve made in the past, and I’m sure it will be an ongoing criticism, is that there is insufficient data transference between schools and FE for those youngsters who have statemented special educational needs.
There nothing wrong with a youngster on the special educational needs register doing an apprenticeship, as long as their needs are met and they can be well supported on any trainee programme, or apprenticeship programme they are enrolled on.
The issue is making sure that all the assessments that are taking place in school are passed over to FE, so they can make the right judgements about the level of support that is required.
Q: Is there an onus on colleges and training providers to effectively pass this information on to employers as well?
A: I think so yes. I think most employers want to take on youngsters with different backgrounds, and are very open to taking on youngsters with special educational needs as long as they feel that they can be well supported.
Q: So does that apply to challenges for students with autism just getting through an interview? Sometimes employers do not understand an individual student’s situation
A: That would be up to the institution and the training provider to say ‘this is a youngsters with special educational needs, who can do a job or work successfully, they will need a level of support, which we can provide as they enter the workplace’.
Q: How would that be provided, perhaps with teaching assistants?
A: Yes. That’s a funding issue for government. But I think if an employer wants to take on a youngster on an apprenticeship programme with special educational needs it would have to be made absolutely clear what those needs were and how that student could be supported.
Q: Overall, what do you hope the outcome of this report will be?
A: The headline will be ‘very good to government, brilliant that you’re embarking on this very ambitious programme to create 3m apprenticeships over the next five years.
‘That’s good and Ofsted is in full support of that and it will meet the needs of many youngsters’, but to ensure its success the apprenticeship programme has got to be seen as being of high quality and being credible and if that doesn’t happen then the whole programme will founder’.
That’s why we’re firing some warning shots over the bough of these proposals, to say it’s not just about numbers it’s also about quality as well.
itial session will take place at 10.35am involving Pat Brennan-Barrett (pictured right), principal of Northampton College and chair of the higher education in FE Network at the Association of Colleges (AoC); and Malcolm Trobe, deputy general secretary of the Association of Schools and College Leaders (ASCL).
Mr McGuire’s responsibilities for funding allocations, the central delivery service, and human resources would pass to the SFA’s former interim chief executive Keith Smith (pictured left), who is currently the agency’s director of funding and programmes, the email added.
