What exactly are the new, reformed Trailblazer apprenticeships? Nobody seems to be sure – but maybe we aren’t looking at them in the right way. If we do, we could have a world class apprenticeship regime.

The Government has set itself a target of 3m apprenticeships in this parliament, embarking on a major programme of change and, at the end of last year, publishing “Guidance for Trailblazers — from standards to starts” giving the first ideas of how this might work and what might be meant by “qualified” and “qualifications”.

So let’s start with the purpose of an apprenticeship. It’s a period of learning and skill development towards a defined job role. At the end of it the person who has successfully completed their apprenticeship will be “qualified” to be say a doctor or a chef.

Qualifications are part of the apprenticeship — they are not the apprenticeship; having a qualification doesn’t mean you’re qualified (or job competent)

The person is thus qualified to competently carry out the full range of requirements for the specific job. But isn’t that a qualification? I would argue no.

It is confirming a status in the workforce rather than a “qualification” which in many people’s minds is more about “knowledge” than skills development and competencies.

Successful apprentices who have “passed-out” must be able to perform the job day in day out and they can only do this as they develop their skills and competencies — until they reach the point at which they can operate safely and with confidence on their own.

So where do qualifications fit in?

Well, they are part of what an apprentice must achieve to become qualified to do a certain job. The exact requirements for “qualification achievement” for each job will vary very considerably, from passing a training knowledge qualification course that might involve 10 weeks study up to a degree or master degree.

Against this wide range of requirements there are some potentially common parts to an apprenticeship where qualifications are included: entry qualifications — employers may require the would-be apprentice to have achieved a certain set of formal, knowledge-based standards for example five GCSEs or three A-levels in certain topics.

Core common skills qualifications — this would be English and maths, at a minimum of level one (for example Functional Skills) for a level two apprenticeship and at a minimum of level two for a level three apprenticeship. For certain apprenticeships it will also be a requirement to achieve a defined qualification in the use of new technology/IT.

Licence to practice qualifications — in certain sectors or for groups of jobs it will be necessary to achieve a “licence to practice qualification” to work for example in construction site safety, first aid and food safety.

“Major” knowledge qualifications — certain jobs may require the apprentice to achieve a significant “knowledge” qualification such as a degree, masters, HNC or defined professional and technical regulated qualification during the period of the apprenticeship.

“Small” knowledge qualifications — certain jobs may require the apprentice to achieve a qualification in a certain topic, for example the use of CAD as a technician, laboratory analyst or working at heights.

So qualifications are part of the apprenticeship — they are not the apprenticeship; having a qualification doesn’t mean you’re qualified (or job competent).

For some this may seem radical, but this is because we are used to a regime of regulated qualifications and funding driven by achieving qualifications. In Europe and even previously in the UK the approach I have outlined is very common and is seen as the way of doing things.

It’s different from our recent past, but it could give us an apprenticeship regime which is not only world class, but also provides the bed rock for a productive and successful economy in the future.

 

The NUS has launched a new #FEunplugged campaign to battle against provider closures through the government’s programme of post-16 area reviews. Shakira Martin explains how collecting views from FE students on their needs and concerns for the future can help boost their case.

Area reviews are a secret our sector seems to be really good at keeping to itself.

It’s not news to say area reviews are the product of funding cuts, but there’s definitely a story in the way the FE sector’s very own Dr Frankenstein, Nick Boles, is cutting up the sector and trying to sew it back together — badly.

Students are worried about whether they’ll get tailored support to help them make choices about their futures

He’s completely disregarded the heart of FE by leaving students out of any decision-making, all the way from Solent to Tees Valley.

If this was happening in schools or universities, it would be on the front page of every national newspaper.

The NUS fought hard to get a seat at the table where these decisions are being made and we’re bringing students’ needs right to the heart of the discussion.

We’re hosting a roundtable for all students’ union officers and student governors in each area, asking them to come together and talk about what matters to them.

The roundtables cover a range of topics, from what quality education is to the very fundamental things students need to access their education.

After these discussions, NUS is writing a report for the area and delivering it to BIS, so each area review board knows exactly what students need.

It’s a really big job. We’re asking students to give up their time, but it’s all so we can make sure the education received by the next generation of students is just as good as what current students are getting.

But this isn’t enough.

There are major concerns coming up at every roundtable.

Over and over again, students are saying the local transport infrastructure is so poor they can’t get to college in a timely and affordable way.

Other students are worried about whether they’ll get tailored support to help them make choices about their futures.

This is why NUS is launching the #FEunplugged campaign. We don’t think it’s right for the government to pull the plug on FE.

Colleges have been backed into a position where mergers are now essential for survival, instead of arising through a desire to collaborate and coexist.

We want students’ unions to speak to their students and find out what keeps them in education.

It could be specialist support for their disability, a campus on their doorstep so they can balance studying and childcare, a classroom with enough workstations and equipment for everyone to use or simply a bus journey they can afford.

Then we want students and their communities to fight to keep these things.

It could be by making local MPs finally understand and care about the sector and the vital role college plays in their constituency.

Or they might ask a bus company to change its timetabling and routes so students aren’t missing out simply because they can’t get to college.

NUS wants students to have a powerful voice when it comes to the decisions that shape their education and ultimately the lives this education allows them to lead.

And let’s be fair, it’s about showing Nick Boles that FE is already a resilient sector. We’ve put up with a lot and colleges are still delivering for students who, like me, need these courses and these opportunities so much.

This campaign won’t be successful unless the sector gets behind it.

We’re calling on principals and clerks to support students, so they can attend our roundtables.

We need tutors to make space for students’ unions and course reps to find out what students need.

All of us need to make sure our voices are heard loud and clear when we fight to stop the plug being pulled on our bright futures.

 

The government announced on January 24 that it would legally force schools to let FE providers talk to students about the benefits of apprenticeships, as part of a review. Deirdre Hughes reflects on progress being made in this area.

 I welcome the government’s announcement to publish a new careers strategy.

For more than three years, the government has received a series of evidence-based reports indicating the careers system in England is fragmented and incoherent (for example Ofsted, 2013; National Careers Council, 2013 & 2014; Pearson, 2013, British Chamber of Commerce, 2015).

A key element missing in all recent announcements from the Department for Education (DfE) and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is the role of career development professionals trained and qualified to provide independent and impartial careers guidance.

Firstly, we heard about more employers going into schools, then Jobcentre advisers, then mentors and now apprenticeship providers.

Where do career development professionals fit into current thinking?

Time is of the essence, with yet another cohort of young people missing out this year

Schools are increasingly acknowledging their responsibility to guide students in their career development.

The guidance provided to schools in England from government focuses, for the most part, on helping students towards their academic achievement, and not on helping them develop competencies to manage their future career.

While some schools, colleges and local authorities are doing reasonably well, many institutions need to rise to the challenge of meeting their statutory and non-statutory duties to provide impartial and independent careers guidance.

In countries such as Austria, Finland, Germany and Switzerland, these issues are addressed by ensuring that careers information, advice and guidance (CIAG) feature prominently in their education and training systems from an early age.

For example, a 2009 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report said a key strength of the Swiss vocational education training system was the integration of school and work based learning, with information on the benefits of both communicated between them.

London has made an excellent start in making explicit what a good careers offer looks like for young people across the city.

However, outside of London, many local enterprise partnerships are getting on with shaping their own local provision.

Time is of the essence, with yet another cohort of young people missing out this year on having access to good quality careers information, advice and guidance.

The new Careers and Enterprise Company is employer-led and independent of government.

It hopes to position itself at the heart of the careers and enterprise ecosystem — as a ‘market maker’ with funding provided from government.

The National Careers Service also has a formal ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ with the new company (it had a 5 per cent allocated budget from the Skills Funding Agency for ‘brokerage services’ to schools and colleges).

In December last year, Skills Minister Nick Boles indicated in a Skills Funding Letter, April 2016 – March 2017, that the National Careers Service should be “re-focussed on the new priority groups, young people aged 19-23 not in touch with schools/colleges, lower skilled adults aged 24 plus and adults (25 plus) with learning difficulties and disabilities… to help citizens make informed choices about learning and work and determine their career pathway and suitability for programmes including apprenticeships and traineeships as well as other learning and skills programmes intended to boost UK productivity”

This shift in policy represents a potential further reduction in trained and qualified career development professionals supporting local schools and colleges with their careers offer to young people, teachers and parents/carers.

The Careers & Enterprise Company is part of the solution in transforming the provision of careers, enterprise and employer engagement experiences for young people.

It plans to “launch a series of campaigns to stimulate debate, increase collaboration and raise aspirations.”

In reality, England does not need a series of costly campaigns.

Instead, government should assure quality control in the congested marketplace and take steps to ensure independent and impartial careers guidance is available to all young people.

A report published earlier this month by the House of Commons women and equalities committee found evidence of “unacceptable” bullying of transgender adult learners. FE Insider Shane Chowen looks at how the sector can respond to this.

In workplaces, schools, colleges, training providers and universities across the country this month, activities will be taking place to mark LGBT History Month.

This is a time when we mark the contribution that lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people around the world to society and their community, often in the face of discrimination and persecution from their peers or their governments.

It’s also the time of year we make all sorts of pledges to make our learning institutions; our buildings, classrooms and curricula, not just safe spaces for LGBT people, but places where prejudice and discrimination is challenged and we provide students with the skills to challenge homophobia, biphobia and transphobia at work and in their every-day lives.

I don’t believe that we lack any ambition in FE to make our learning institutions safe spaces for everyone to access, achieve and progress

Or at least that’s what we thought.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who was disappointed to read in a parliamentary select committee report last month that they had evidence which suggested the learning environment for LGBT students in further education was, “more hostile than in higher education.”

On the face of it, that’s quite a charge to throw at FE, so you’d be forgiven for being shocked or possibly defensive.

But then, the more you think about it, and the more you look into the research, it becomes less shocking.

A report out this month from the Forum for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity supported by Learning and Work Institute and Skills Funding Agency, will offer new evidence about the experiences of LGBTQ+ (Q represents people who define as ‘queer’ — not necessarily identifying with LGB or T or identifying with multiple identities, and the + is for other identities that are not represented by LGBT or Q) learners and staff in FE, which we hope will shape future activity that works for practitioners, managers and learners

So this LGBT History Month, as well as the activities you might be planning at your institution, I offer a number of points for providers and policy makers to consider.

For a start, I don’t believe that we lack any ambition in FE to make our learning institutions safe spaces for everyone to access, achieve and progress.

But the fact is FE institutions face challenges that universities don’t, which is why making direct comparisons about relative levels of “hostility” might not necessarily be very helpful.

Students in FE, particularly 16-19 year olds, are highly regulated.

Every hour of their learning has been pre-determined by someone leaving practitioners with little room for manoeuvre.

The time we do have with learners is prioritised and we sadly categorise things like learning about the world and the difference between people we co-exist with as “soft skills” which is, in turn, lower priority.

For better or worse, the regulation of FE learning doesn’t stop there.

The challenge is not allowing equalities to just be another tick-box at the end of a lesson plan, but something we collectively take every opportunity to embed.

The last thing our teachers need is to be told that alongside English, maths, IT, sustainability and citizenship there’s another box you need to tick.

Clearly, there are major differences in the student experience which allows for more learning and positive student-led interventions in higher education than in FE.

Students are not physically around for as much time, by and large, and won’t necessarily come to FE with much exposure to diversity as students who go to university will have had.

Nonetheless, whether it’s better staff training, more resources for student-led campaigns, or a better policy for your institution, this is a great opportunity to start to do things differently.