When is an apprentice not an apprentice?

Graham Hasting-Evans considers whether Lord Sugar’s quest for simply an ‘apprentice’ rather than, for example, a higher or intermediate one is a wise approach.

This month saw The Apprentice return to our screens for its 11th Series.

As ever, Lord Sugar and his aides had a firm grip on the 12 apprentice hopefuls picked for the show to fight it out and win £250,000 — and a business partnership with the man himself.

But while the BBC’s Apprentice may be a reality show, being an apprentice in reality is somewhat different.

This has lead me to consider when is an apprentice not an apprentice?

My question comes at a time when employers have escaped the reach of a government clampdown on ‘misuse’ of the word apprenticeship. Companies who run their own unfunded courses and label them ‘apprenticeships’ can continue to deliver such programmes in less than a year — without fear of a proposed magistrates’ court prosecution and fine.

Even firms that run internal ‘apprenticeship’ programmes with government funding not specifically for the official scheme will remain free from strict rules that apply to Department for Business, Innovation and Skills-funded apprenticeship provision.

Little wonder then that the apprenticeship ‘brand’ remains weak and continues to confuse many — despite the government’s pledge to create 3m more in the life of this parliament.

You don’t need me to tell you that apprenticeships are currently FE’s main focus and funding steam. The Conservative’s insistence on 3m apprentices in record-breaking time is enough to focus anyone’s mind.

But, does it really matter if we can’t create 3m apprentices by the end of this government and should every company be forced to have one or, do companies already have apprentices, but call them something else?

We seem to have developed a new language around apprenticeships. We have intermediate apprenticeships, apprenticeships, higher level apprenticeships and now degree apprenticeships.

Could companies, employees, providers and potential apprentices be holding back because of a lack of understanding and/or agreement of what an apprentice actually is? Do we risk being distracted from core learner needs by faddy terminology, trendy targets and politics?

In other words do we really need all these titles or do they just confuse it all and make us lose sight of what it’s all about?

To me, as someone who went through an engineering apprenticeship some years ago (we would probably call it a degree apprenticeship now), an apprenticeship is an apprenticeship. That is what it has been called throughout history and, in fact the word apprenticeship is commonly recognised. It’s always been a rite of passage to a defined and recognised job or a profession.

Do we really need all these titles or do they just confuse it all and make us lose sight of what it’s all about?

Does Lord Sugar, when he is looking for someone to join his business and management team look for a ‘high level apprentice’, or a ‘degree apprentice’? No.

The Skills Funding Agency’s ‘official’ definition of an apprentice is ‘a person who is employed and is embarking on a clearly defined significant period of both formal education and training mixed with practical work experience, under direction, to develop all the skills and competencies necessary to finally do a specific job role.’

The FE sector and other training providers train many for jobs that fit the ‘apprenticeship model’ (bricklayers, chefs, health care assistants, plant operators and rail technicians) but the model applies to many other jobs which may not have considered they have been through an apprenticeship — accountants, bankers, chartered engineers, doctors, lawyers and nurses.

Let’s recognise this reality and make sure we get the training and assessment resources in place to deliver 3m ‘high quality’ apprenticeships across the board.

And, by the way, a little bird tells me that Civil Servants are considering that the word ‘apprenticeship’ should be applied only when an apprentice is qualified — like the word graduate. I suppose a non-qualified apprentice might be called an ‘under apprentice’, which leads me to my final question — who’s going to tell Lord Sugar?

Edge Foundation Annual Lecture focuses on bridging skills gap

“People without jobs and jobs without people” was Australian chief executive Nicholas Wyman’s chosen topic for the 2015 Edge Foundation Annual Lecture, as he spoke about the challenge of the ‘skills gap’.

Mr Wyman delivered his keynote speech to an audience at Glaziers Hall, in London Bridge, following an introduction from former Education Secretary and Edge Foundation chair Lord Kenneth Baker.

His top three recommendations for tackling the skills gap began with on-the-job training from school age, followed by determining the skills gap in the labour market and linking it to skill areas in the curriculum. His top tip was to build in better collaboration between training providers and industry.

Mr Wyman acknowledged that not everyone might agree with the idea of a ‘skills gap’, but said: “I personally believe there is a skills gap and I say that because people are leaving our education systems without the skills that employers need.”

As chief executive officer of the Australian Institute for Workplace Skills and Innovation, he gave a global perspective on the topic, covering education systems from Singapore to Canada, but said “there is no silver bullet, there is no one system that is going to solve this labour market mismatch”.

In the context of an aging population, Mr Wyman said engaging young people and securing the labour pipeline is vital, and leaving the problem to governments to solve is not good enough.

“I say it’s industry’s problem. I say it’s the educators’ problem. I say it’s a problem for communities and a problem for parents — everyone needs to be involved in the conversation,” he added.

The event’s keynote speech was followed by a panel discussion, chaired by David Harbourne, acting chief executive officer of the Edge Foundation. The debate covered a range of topics, including concerns that the government’s proposed large employers’ apprenticeship levy could fail to address challenges in FE.

Panel member Ben Willmott, head of public policy at the CIPD, the independent body for HR and people development, said controls around the quality of apprenticeships were needed, as well as increasing the number to the government’s target of 3m by 2020.

“The danger of the levy is unless there’s some controls around quality, it could just end up boosting the numbers and not necessarily increasing the quality,” he said.

Mr Willmott’s comments came in response to a question raised by a representative from the Education and Training Foundation, who expressed concerns about funding struggles in the FE sector and an insufficient number of employers coming forward to provide opportunities for young people in vocational education.

The event panel was completed by David Meller, chair of the National Apprenticeship Ambassadors Network; Deirdre Hughes, principal research fellow, Warwick Institute for Employment Research; and Sue Williamson chief executive SSAT. They were asked whether they thought the levy would be able to tackle such problems.

Mr Willmott said ensuring “businesses and providers are really working collaboratively together” would be key. He cited an example from the CIPD’s consultation response on the apprenticeship levy, in which one employer in the food sector said it would not have its two higher level apprenticeships if the local university had not broached the subject.

“If they’d been left to their own devices that wouldn’t have happened,” said Mr Willmott. “I think it comes back to the issue of partnerships and ecosystems.”

Dr Hughes, former chair of the National Careers Council, focused on the need to address the UK’s “untapped talent”. She said young people who have dropped out of AS or A-level must be engaged in order to help meet apprenticeship targets.

“If you have a look at the number of young people that drop out of AS or A-level … that number is significant,” she said.

“If we’ve got a challenge around meeting apprenticeship targets and we can enthuse employers to take more young people on, then actually I think we need to be thinking around how we can get behind those young people.”

Mr Meller said he was confident government plans for apprenticeships were on track. “I think they will get us to the number of 3m,” he said.

“Our trajectory at the moment is on target to get five/six hundred thousand this year. We are very conscious of working for high quality, we don’t just want a number,” he said, adding that “more and more companies are being signed up every day”.

 

An expert piece by Dr Hughes on the issues raised in the lecture can be read here.

Safeguarding at ‘heart’ of new common inspection framework

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has issued 22 improvement and prohibition notices to general FE colleges in the last five years. However, the safety of learners at college is not just inspected by the HSE, explains Paul Joyce.

Inspectors draw upon a range of evidence when deciding if safeguarding arrangements are effective.

In order for students to acquire the knowledge and skills that will help them advance to FE, training or employment, it’s vital that colleges and other FE and skills providers offer safe environments for them to learn in.

So it is no surprise that the word safeguarding appears frequently in the new common inspection framework and FE and skills handbook.

Although a number of things have changed with the introduction of the new framework, safeguarding remains very much at its heart.

But what do we actually mean by safeguarding in the context of FE and skills providers?

Although a number of things have changed with the introduction of the new framework, safeguarding remains very much at its heart

Well it is about ensuring learners are protected from harm and ensuring their welfare, it is about making sure students feel safe and are safe in their learning environments wherever that may be, in the classroom, the workshop, or in the workplace.

Inspectors draw upon a range of evidence when deciding if safeguarding arrangements are effective. They will ask the following kinds of questions — has the provider assessed the risk to students’ safety effectively?

Do students say they feel safe? Do staff understand the range of risks to students? For example, would they recognise signs of internet bullying, child sexual exploitation or vulnerability to extremism? Do they know to whom to refer such cases where they have concerns? Can the provider demonstrate where they effectively handled an incident or accident? Has the provider put in place necessary and proportionate steps for safe recruitment? What steps have they taken to review cases and policies?

You will see that we have published a new guidance document: ‘Inspecting safeguarding in early years, education and skills settings’ which sets out our general policy and practice [visit feweek.co.uk for link].

This complements the handbook for the inspection of FE and skills providers. Inspectors will evaluate whether a provider’s safeguarding arrangements are effective or not on all full and short inspections.

On full inspections this judgement will be made as part of the ‘effectiveness of leadership and management’ key judgement and will obviously have a bearing on that judgement and thus on overall effectiveness.

Furthermore, an important criterion in the personal development, behaviour and welfare key judgement on full inspections is ‘how well learners know how to protect themselves from the risk associated with radicalisation, extremism, forms of abuse, grooming and bullying, including through the use of the internet’.

On a short inspection, if inspectors find that safeguarding is not effective, then the short inspection will always be converted into a full inspection.

A lower grade may well follow. Certainly, unless a provider has effective safeguarding arrangements and keeps its students safe, then it cannot be judged to be good or outstanding.

The good news is that most providers have ensured they safeguard their learners since we started making a specific safeguarding judgement a year ago.

Government absent as FE protestors call for Esol answers

Government ministers were missing from a lobby on funding cuts to English for Speakers of Other Languages (Esol) — despite the event drawing hundreds of demonstrators from across the FE sector.

Around 600 staff and students from a range of colleges gathered at the Houses of Parliament on Wednesday (October 14) to protest against the cuts, but no members of government attended the event to respond.

Laila El-Metoui, an education officer for charity Schools Out UK, described the event as a “huge success with some great motivational speakers”, but added that she was frustrated by the absence of government representatives.

“Shame, shame, shame on BIS [the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills] and the SFA [Skills Funding Agency] for not turning up and not sending a representative, because they are the ones holding the strings to the purse and they didn’t even bother,” she said.

The rally, hosted by campaign group Action for Esol and the University and College Union (UCU) London branch, came in response to the government’s decision in July to cut funding for a £45m programme of English courses for foreign language speakers, run with Jobcentre Plus.

A range of speakers attended the event including Liz Lawrence, UCU president; Shakira Martin, NUS vice president for FE; and college principals Gerry McDonald, from Tower Hamlets College, and Ian Ashman, from Hackney Community College.

But Labour politicians Matthew Pennycook, Richard Burgon and Andy Slaughter were the only MPs to attend.

A BIS spokesperson declined to comment on why it had no representative had been present or whether the rally would influence Esol policy.

Instead, he said: “The government continues to cover the full cost of Esol for those who have been in the UK for at least three years, are in receipt of JSA [Job Seekers Allowance] and who need to improve their English in order to find work. This will continue to be funded through the Adult Skills Budget.

“In 2013/14, BIS invested an estimated £140m on fully and part-funded Esol courses, supporting 142,000 learners.”

Rebecca Durand is an Esol teacher from Tower Hamlets College. She brought her students to the rally and said her college had long waiting lists, with applications for Esol building up as classes are cut back.

“It’s getting harder and harder for students to get into the classes. There are so many restrictions … we’re being treated like we’re part of the immigration services and part of the welfare system. We just want to teach English,” she said.

A number of Tower Hamlets College students attended the demonstration, including Aziza Rahima, 46, who came to the UK from Bangladesh eight years ago with her husband and two sons, aged 19 and 11. She said she enjoys studying at Tower Hamlets and has found it very helpful, but added that she is worried about the cuts.

“Our Esol class funding has been cut. We are not speaking English properly. It’s all cut so we have a real problem,” she said.

Students not only joined the rally but some also chose to make speeches themselves, facing a large audience to express what language learning has meant to them.

Michela Ravano, an Esol teacher from Morley College, said she was “extremely proud” of her students for speaking out at the event.

“They could hardly speak English and they went up there and said their thoughts, it was very moving.

“It is very difficult to stand up and speak in other country and express your rights,” she said.

Scrapping of QCF ‘small but not insignificant step for mankind’, Ofqual boss tells MPs

The unpicking of the qualifications and credit framework (QCF) was a “small but not insignificant step for mankind”, Ofqual chief regulator Glenys Stacey has told MPs.

During a hearing of the House of Commons Education Select Committee, Ms Stacey said the qualification watchdog’s move to scrap the QCF was “actually extremely technical” because it had not been designed to be “unpicked”.

She also emphasised the watchdog’s renewed focus on vocational qualifications, claiming Ofqual was making “quiet inroads” into an area of work which was “not often focused on”.

She said: “It’s quite interesting, people generally deride the QCF and I understand why and I would probably join them in that.

“But when you create something like the QCF people don’t think about whether you could readily unpick it, and actually unpicking it has been extremely technical and we have done it and we have achieved it.

“It is a small but not insignificant step for mankind.”

Ms Stacey said she was pleased to be asked about vocational qualifications, lamenting the fact there was “so much attention on general qualifications”, despite the fact most awarding bodies are “in a different market”.

She said: “What we have done is about 18 months ago recognised that we could raise our game on vocational qualifications.

“So we have actually restructured the whole organisation, created a vocational qualifications directorate, appointed an experienced executive director for vocational qualifications, Jeremy Benson, and we have I think on the last count about 50 staff dedicated in that area.”

She said Ofqual had developed a “very good understanding” of the “diverse nature of so-called vocational qualifications” and had taken steps to review functional skills qualifications, adding: “They are significant qualifications within apprenticeships and elsewhere, and particularly important in colleges.

“We have done comprehensive audits of a good group of vocational qualifications providers focusing on particular qualifications which are thought to equate to others but perhaps don’t.”

The committee’s one-off evidence session on the role of Ofqual took place yesterday and also included the qualification watchdog’s chair, Amanda Spielman, as witness.

Unison FE members ‘overwhelmingly’ reject AoC pay freeze proposal

Further education sector members of Unison have “overwhelmingly” voted to reject an Association of Colleges (AoC) pay freeze recommendation for 2015/16, FE Week can reveal.

Unison has written to the AoC, and colleges it is negotiating for, with the result and a warning that unless the offer was improved the union would be “in dispute” with them.

A total of 95 per cent of those voting in the Unison consultation rejected the offer, with twice as many colleges participating as last year. Unison has called for an urgent meeting of the union side of the Joint National Forum, with a view to discussing next steps and also a campaign against further funding cuts ‎expected in the Autumn Statement.

Jon Richards, national secretary for education at Unison, said: “The unprecedented recommendation for a pay freeze has caused anger at a time when staff are being asked to carry greater burdens and when there is a need to provide a united front to defend the sector and learners.”

The University and College Union (UCU) also opened a ballot with its members in September on the pay freeze proposal and potential subsequent strike action. The results are expected by the end of the week with the ballot officially closing at noon tomorrow (October 15).

“Our FE committee will meet shortly after we have the result to consider our next steps,” said a UCU spokesperson.

The Association of Teachers & Lecturers (ATL), has also debated the AoC’s proposal for a wage freeze, but said members were reluctant to pursue industrial action.

The ATL submitted a ballot early last month in the form of a survey to its members, and to members of its leadership section, the Association of Managers in Education (AMiE).

Dr Mary Bousted, ATL general secretary, said: “ATL and AMiE members in FE colleges affiliated to the AoC in England were consulted on their attitudes around taking industrial action over the AoC’s recommendation for a 0 per cent pay rise.

“Although members expressed significant unhappiness with the offer, there was little enthusiasm for sustained industrial action at this time.”

In response to the results of the Unison consultation, Marc Whitworth, Director of Employment Policy and Services at the Association of Colleges (AoC), said that colleges want to reward their staff for the work they do, but are also faced with limitations.‎

“The zero per cent pay recommendation AoC has made reflects the feedback we have had from our member colleges about the stringent financial circumstances in the sector.

“Cuts to funding for both adults and young people have left budgets stretched and this means colleges have to make some tough decisions,” he added.

In reference to the UCU ballot which closes at noon tomorrow (October 15), Mr Whitworth has previously said: “Although not unexpected it is nevertheless disappointing that the UCU will ballot for action … Strikes are very disruptive for colleges and more importantly for students.

“We would encourage UCU to consider how we might better work together to represent our respective members collectively and position the FE sector to remunerate more effectively in the longer term.

“There is a willingness from the employers’ side to work together to protect the prospects of FE, its skilled workforce and the students it serves.”

Five ‘no confidence’ votes principal steps down

A Midland college principal hit with five votes of no confidence by staff has stepped down.

Beverley Smith has resigned from her position as principal of Stafford College with immediate effect, the college has confirmed.

It follows reports in local media this month that 14 members of staff at the college had been made redundant, after a summer-long review of staffing levels.

A statement from the board of governors said: “Principal Beverley Smith has decided to step down, and has agreed with the governors to pass the leadership of the college onto fresh hands for the next phase of its development.”

The college, which received a grade three (requires improvement) rating at its last Ofsted inspection in October last year, is expected to announce an interim principal on October 20.

Ms Smith, who took over at the college early last year, was 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 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”.

According to reports in local media, Ms Smith subsequently went on long-term sick leave on July, with deputy principal Donna Brown taking over as acting principal in Ms Smith’s absence.

A spokesperson for the college could not confirm whether Ms Smith returned to the college before resigning on October 9.

College UCU representative Marina Bowler, in a joint statement with Unison representative Mike Steer, said:  “Following this announcement we are keen to continue our work with the leadership team and governors.

“Recent events have demonstrated how much the staff care about this organisation and it has united us all together.”

Mark Winnington, chair of governors at Stafford College, said: “The board would like to thank staff for their continued professionalism over the last few months.

“The college will continue to deliver outstanding education to our students, work with employers and provide a vital service for the local community.”

A spokesperson for Stafford College, which has 6,440 learners, confirmed that there had been 14 redundancies out of around 500 staff at the college. The affected staff, around half of which were teaching staff, had been informed over the summer period, the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson confirmed that Ms Brown would continue as acting principal until an interim principal is appointed.

FE Week was unable to contact Ms Smith for comment.

 

Esol funding cuts protest rally draws hundreds from across FE

Staff and students from across the FE sector gathered outside the Houses of Parliament in their hundreds today to protest against cuts to the provision of English for Speakers of Other Languages (Esol).

Demonstrators, said to number around 600 in total, joined the rally to protest against the government’s decision in July to cut funding for a £45m programme of English courses for foreign language speakers, run with Jobcentre Plus.

The crowds were brought together by campaign group Action for Esol and the University and College Union (UCU) London branch, which organized the event. As well as protesting with banners and chants outside Parliament, students and staff from a range of colleges attended talks and debated inside Westminster.

Speakers included Liz Lawrence, UCU president; Jenny Roden, from the National Association for Teaching English and Community Languages to Adults (NATECLA); Shakira Martin, NUS vice president for FE; and Sue Pember, director of policy and external relations at the Holex network of community learning and skills providers.

A handful of brave Esol students also faced the audience themselves to express what the language learning had meant to them, but no government representatives were present to respond to the concerns.

According to reports from the UCU, Bradford College has already announced it will cut one-third of its Esol classes with the loss of nine jobs, while Brent Adult and Community Education Service is to get rid of two-fifths of its Esol courses, leading to the loss of five jobs.

Two thirds of courses will go at Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College, where 25 jobs will be lost, and Hackney Community and Tower Hamlets colleges have said their Esol courses are not guaranteed to run after Christmas.

See edition 151 of FE Week, dated Monday, Octbober 19, for further coverage and click here for our rolling coverage today from Twitter

Main pic: Alix Robertson

Taking a closer look at the FE college sector’s ‘financial meltdown’

The Public Accounts Committee next week looks deeper into the FE college sector over fears it was heading for “financial meltdown,” explains Meg Hillier.

As Shane Chowen wrote in his FE Insider column earlier this month, the government has committed to investing £411bn in national infrastructure, but we lack the right skills to deliver the projects.

Just looking at construction, we need to recruit and train 100,000 workers and up-skill 250,000 of the existing workforce by 2020 to deliver Government’s plans. This will be no small feat.

The FE sector has a vital role to play in meeting skills shortages like these and equipping young people and adults with the skills to contribute to a growing economy.

But at a time when the government is setting out its stall to create a high-skilled economy, the financial stability of the FE sector is worryingly uncertain.

Too often FE is considered the Cinderella of education. As I said when I read the National Audit Office report on the financial sustainability of the sector, I do not believe it is any exaggeration to say the sector is at risk of financial meltdown.

The number of colleges facing serious financial problems, either in deficit or having been rated as financially inadequate by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) has more than doubled since 2010.

The financial health of colleges is only getting worse, with the SFA expecting the number of ‘financially inadequate’ colleges to double again to 70 by the end of 2015/16.

It raises real concerns about the continuation of the sector and shows us just how important it is to ensure value for money, which is where the Committee of Public Accounts comes in.

We will be examining the financial sustainability of the further education sector on Monday, October 19, questioning the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the SFA and the Department for Education about the challenges being faced by the sector and what can be done about them.

To do this effectively, we need to hear from those working in, or affected by, the sector. We know that the FE sector is facing some real challenges, but that there is also good work going on in response.

We want to know about these experiences — what is going well, what could be improved and, ultimately, what more could be done to put FE on a more stable financial footing?

Email pubaccom@parliament.uk with written submissions.