We have to practise what we preach about sustainability

I recently taught a session about sustainability in the workplace to trainee early years practitioners. Reflecting on the experience I began to wonder how effective words are in influencing young people’s worldviews.

Sustainability is a hot topic, and rightly so. Taking responsibility for our actions and behaviours at home and in the workplace to do our part is the only way most citizens can be proactive in protecting our planet. However, educators are in a privileged position to inform and enthuse young people for the effort.

As tutors of future early years practitioners, teachers, family support practitioners and social workers, my colleagues and I are deeply aware of our responsibility in this regard. We are not only teaching sustainability to our learners but teaching them to teach the subject to children, young people and families.

With sustainability as with other topics such as mental health, privacy and British Values, we are offering our students an opportunity to think about their own lives, practices and choices and modelling how to pass that opportunity along to their communities.

For example, we can’t just teach about the ravages of single-use plastics with a plastic water bottle from the vending machine in our hand. What use is recommending a reusable one from home if we don’t make that choice ourselves? We are teaching knowledge and skills rooted in appreciating and protecting the natural world. And that starts with each of us being (and being seen to be) responsible for caring for the planet.

What surprised me most while leading this session was how students reacted to the information I passed on. It made me question whether we are embedding sustainable living into our teaching enough and question the bolt-on approach we are often forced to adopt when doing so. But most importantly it made me wonder if we should be considering the impact of teachers (and the organisations we work for) as role models.

Do we really need to ‘teach’ all these topics outright, or would learners be more greatly influenced by seeing us, as responsible adults, walking the walk and not just talking the talk?

There’s a mental health component here too

Early years settings implement policies that include drinking only water and snacking on fruit and vegetables in front of their young charges because they appreciate the value of social learning and role modelling. But how many FE staff do the same?

Do we role model the use of separate bins for recyclable and non-recyclable waste in the classroom or workshop? Do we verbalise our actions and explain why it matters? How many students witness staff stubbing out a cigarette on the ground? How many see staff using a coffee mug they brought in from home or throw away their lunch waste into a separate bin?

It’s not just a question of sustainability. There’s a mental health component here too. Climate anxiety is real and affects many young people. What damage are we doing preaching sustainability while failing to practice it?

The examples above are only the tip of the iceberg. Every member of staff associated with a particular industry or sector can tell you how their industry is tackling sustainability in the ‘real world’. Does FE live up to that?

The opportunity and availability of resources to implement sustainable practices across colleges vary greatly. I am lucky to work in one where sustainability is high on the agenda and always part of strategic plans. Suffolk New College won the Inenco Award for Education for Sustainable Development for its Green Skills initiative.

We ran a two-day Sustainability Festival, hosted a green skills conference, and created a Net Zero Skills Centre to support training in renewable energy solutions and sustainable construction.  We even held a basketball game between students and staff, the score of which dictated the number of trees we planted around campus. (Basketball scores are high!)

Not all colleges have the resources to do this, but the little things count too. What every college can do is to conduct an audit of its day-to-day routines and be guided by it to do better. Because just telling learners how to do their part isn’t enough; we have to show we mean it.

We must embrace an assessment system that goes beyond grades

There’s a growing consensus within education that the current assessment system is not adequately addressing the needs or recognising the skills of diverse learners.

Our recent research with TeacherTapp asked more than 7,500 teachers if they felt GCSEs are suitable for every pupil. Only 7 per cent said that they do, and 81 per cent disagreed.

Assessment methods often focus on recall of knowledge that may advantage some but may be to the detriment of others, particularly those with additional learning needs, those from under-served backgrounds and those from ethnic minorities.  

According to Rethinking Assessment, the list of pupil groups who are disadvantaged by high-stress exams includes those with dyslexia, young people with poor mental health, those with English as an additional language, those from economically challenged and minority-ethnic backgrounds, autistic learners, and anyone who lacks the financial means to benefit from personal tutoring.

The upshot is clear: We need to rethink the purpose of assessment. It should be used for more than just generating a final grade. And it can and must be used to help develop skills, moving us beyond a largely high-stakes assessment system to an environment where formative assessment is embedded throughout the learning journey.

But how? Answering this question is why, back in 2021, we committed £1 million and created NCFE’s Assessment Innovation Fund (AIF). Its aim is to support the development of new ideas and methods for assessing learners at different ages and levels, and to help fill an evidence gap in the sector.

Over the past two years, this fund has supported 12 projects, with 3,289 learners now having participated in those pilots. In total, 206 educators across two continents and 49 institutions have been involved in AIF-funded studies.

One of the very first AIF pilots saw The Sheffield College using virtual reality (VR) in summative and formative assessment. The pilot’s aim was to explore how VR can be embedded in assessment to improve the learning experience and learners’ outcomes.

The landscape is disconnected, resulting in an assessment arms race

Using the funding to purchase VR headsets and build virtual assessment experiences in animal care, catering and construction, the pilot explored the possibilities of allowing learners to develop their skills outside of the need to always be in a practical setting.

Since the publication of the two-year impact report, the AIF is continuing to go from strength to strength thanks to our partnership with UFI VocTech Trust. Our aim was always to influence the debate on assessment innovation and lead digital disruption in the education sector – something we’re continuing to do through further grant funding, an innovation competition and investigating the impact of digital credentials.

We are committed to making all findings from the AIF pilots free and accessible to everyone, to ensure innovation in assessment methodologies continue to recognise the skills of the learners, are personalised to individual needs and place learning in context. You can find all the AIF final reports on our website.

While the mindset is changing, thanks in part to the impact of the Covid pandemic, the introduction of new assessment and feedback methods remains slow.

It is true that we must be certain that any adaptations deliver tangible benefits for all, that they retain appropriate rigour and consider any financial and practical implications. There are also concerns about innovation allowing more opportunity for academic manipulation.

This has led to a landscape that’s siloed and disconnected, with innovation on smaller levels and access to new technologies resulting in an assessment arms race. Technology is clearly pivotal but, as we saw during the pandemic, it doesn’t automatically bring equality and can even reinforce previous inequalities or create new ones.

There’s a need for rigorous, funded investigations into a range of innovative assessment methods that bring clarity to the sector. If we can fill the evidence gap through research, collaboration and investment, we can move the sector closer towards consensus on what form assessment innovation takes.

The sector must do better than to talk to itself about policy

I like the Association of Colleges. More importantly, I respect them. They were good partners when I worked in government. You could talk to them, and it wouldn’t leak. They were knowledgeable and they didn’t cry wolf. Those three things are important, and cannot be taken for granted.

What follows needs to be understood in the context of my respect for them. 

Their document, Opportunity England, is a classic example of sector lobbying. It reads like documents that I have read from so many groups in so many sectors over so many years. 

It is well-intentioned, which is a good start. But well-intentioned is not enough. Indeed, I sometimes think that ‘well-intentioneditis’ is a diagnosable condition. Its most common symptom is a lack of precision.

For example, it is obviously well-intentioned to say – as Opportunity England does – that the government should encourage schools, colleges and universities to collaborate to ensure a complete ‘offer’ for every 16-year-old. Who, after all, could object to people working together to ensure that 16-year-olds have a smoother transition to the next stage of their lives? 

But what exactly are the authors asking the government to do? Send a letter to schools, colleges and universities asking them to collaborate? I think receiving such a letter would make no difference at all. Convene some round tables? Produce a government report saying the same thing? Again, I am struggling to see this making any difference at all. 

Years ago one of my more thoughtful ministers remarked to stakeholders that any government has five possible approaches: ban, mandate, tax, subsidise and make speeches. The first four work.

We ban children from working in mines. We mandate that schools should teach English and maths to age 16. Education to the age of 18 is so heavily subsidised that it is free. We tax cigarettes, alcohol etc to reduce their consumption. All of these work.

But making speeches and encouraging people? Who cares what the minister thinks or wants? A speech rarely changes anything. 

What exactly are the authors asking the government to do?

A good example of a mandate is the right of further education colleges to speak to year 11 pupils, to tell them that they don’t have to stay at the same school for Key Stage 5. Schools would have no incentive to let their rivals pitch for ‘their’ pupils, so a mandate is needed. 

Therefore, if you want something to happen, please remember these four points: ban, mandate, tax and subsidise. Which of these levers do you want government to pull?

If you want to make recruitment easier for further education colleges, you should definitely ask for a bigger subsidy so that you can compete with schools and other employers. You might also want to ask government to mandate the use of common pay scales across schools and colleges.

But note: it would be a nightmare if you got that and no extra funding. With government finances tight, asking for money and common pay scales risks getting only the latter – which really would be a pyrrhic victory. So be careful what you ask for, and remember that politics is the art of the possible.

I know, of course, that documents like this exist for two reasons. The first is to influence government. For that, you need to take my injunctions above very seriously. They are the route to effectiveness. The second is to represent consensus within the sector.

I understand that you need to get everyone on board. And I understand that this will always lead to well-meaning but imprecise documents like this. But I urge you, from the bottom of my heart, as someone who likes and respects the sector and sees it as key to building a wealthy and contented society for all: please, work hard to make stakeholders within your sector understand that the way to influence government is to be precise.

If politics is the art of the possible, then lobbying should be the art of the achievable. The route to influence that changes lives for the better is to make demands that government – and ideally one Secretary of State alone – can deliver. Sadly, this report does not do that.

Local elections: What mayoral hopefuls have to say on skills

Labour’s mayoral candidate for the West Midlands has claimed he has placed skills and adult education at the centre of his campaign, while others have chosen to focus on other policy areas in the build-up to local elections.

Richard Parker, who is hoping to win sitting Tory metro-mayor Andy Street’s job, says his “absolute priority” is creating “new jobs and training opportunities” in every town in the region.

His manifesto, due to be published today, ambitiously promises to “guarantee” an apprenticeship place for every young person who wants one.

Apprenticeship statistics for the West Midlands show that in 2022/23, only 22 per cent of apprenticeship starters were under the age of 19.

Speaking to FE Week ahead of the election, Parker – who left school at 16 before returning to education to gain an economics degree – said he understands the importance of education.

But aside from his apprenticeship guarantee – which lacked detail explaining how this would be possible – his campaign contained no other specific pledges on adult skills.

When pressed, Parker would only say that he would invest the West Midlands’ £150 million adult skills budget in “proper skills for people to get proper jobs”.

While Parker places jobs and training at the top of his list, the manifestos of many other candidates, including his rival Street, emphasise other key policies under mayoral control such as transport and housing.

Adult skills spending is one of the key policy areas under the direct control of the ten combined authorities planning to elect a new metro mayor on May 2.

Parker claimed Street has been “passive on skills” and commissioning training courses on using “Excel spreadsheets” to hit government targets.

Street was unable to speak to FE Week, but his 149-page manifesto published yesterday pledges to take a “proactive approach” to getting young people into apprenticeships, continue focusing on technical skills and to “tailor” skills funding to local businesses’ needs.

His record includes overseeing the development of the “best qualified workforce in the West Midlands ever”, the manifesto claims.

Some candidates barely mention adult education

Sadiq Khan, who hopes to continue running London’s £320 million adult skills budget, does not mention skills or training in his top ten manifesto pledges.

However, he promises to continue his existing policy to provide free training to anyone 19 years and over who is unemployed, on a low income, or has limited formal education.

His Conservative rival Susan Hall has not mentioned skills in her campaign materials and did not respond to requests for comment from FE Week.

Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, the only other sitting Conservative mayor apart from Street, has released a “plan for local jobs” that makes only passing reference to skills.

Sitting Mayor for Greater Manchester Andy Burnham is yet to reveal any pledges on skills other than the Greater Manchester baccalaureate, an educational pathway for 14-16 year-olds that would promote technical careers.

Incumbent mayors underline value of skills

Speaking to FE Week about their pledges on skills, incumbent Labour mayor for Liverpool City Region Steve Rotheram and independent candidate for North East Jamie Driscoll were both keen to emphasise the importance of their adult skills budget.

Rotheram, who started his working life as an apprentice bricklayer, said: “Skills is the building block that will allow us to attract the investment skills is the important thing.

“Skills is massively important – if we get skills right, we can improve productivity.”

He added that managing the adult skills budget during his seven-year tenure has felt “quite constrained” and pledged to fight for more spending flexibility in a devolution deal similar to Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.

Driscoll argued that since he has run the North of Tyne’s adult skills budget he has increased training enrolments by a “phenomenal” 60 per cent and given training providers more security through three-year settlements.

He pledged to continue taking a “learner-centred approach” to adult skills, with a focus on “getting people something meaningful in their lives”.

He added: “Now, if you’re starting with someone who’s barely literate, then actually that is a huge opportunity.

“But if you’re saying to people in central government style ‘you must go on a course because we effectively want to punish you out of unemployment’ that’s just a waste of everybody’s time.

“Why don’t we get people doing something that’s going to get them out? Some kind of benefit, because we all get repaid by that in the end.”

‘Inadequate’ care provider accuses Ofsted of ‘overlooking’ sector crisis

A care training provider has been graded ‘inadequate’ after Ofsted found apprentices being forced to work additional shifts instead of attending their training.

But the firm has hit out at the watchdog, accusing inspectors of “totally overlooking” the crisis the care sector is in. 

Ofsted found that many of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne-based ACT Education’s 236 apprentices had “substantially” passed the planned end date of their programme during a visit in January this year.

They said apprentices were “frequently required” to cover additional shifts instead of attending training and leaders had insufficient oversight of whether they had catch-up sessions. 

ACT Education was downgraded from ‘requires improvement’ to ‘inadequate’ in all areas except personal development, in a report published on Thursday.

Duty of care took priority over studies

The provider’s director Neil Wray hit back at Ofsted’s report, which echoes similar criticism placed on other care providers judged ‘inadequate’ since the pandemic and led to several failed legal challenges.

Wray told FE Week: “We are aware that there are other care training providers that have recently been rated as inadequate that have the exact same sector-specific issues that we do.

“We did lodge a complaint against the inspection, listing numerous contradictions and factual inaccuracies, which was obviously not upheld. As a mental health training provider, we found the attitude and conduct of the lead inspector to be very poor. The entire inspection was a very unpleasant process.”

He said learners usually miss their planned end date because “duty of care for vulnerable people” and staff shortages mean they need to cover shifts.

Wray claimed that if this happens learners receive additional training “at our own personal cost”. 

ACT Education is owned and run from the same office by New Beginnings, a company providing home care services to adults with learning disabilities and autism which is rated ‘outstanding’ by the Care Quality Commission.

Overall, the companies declared a profit of just under £1 million after tax on a turnover of about £13 million. 

Wray told FE Week “less than 10 per cent” of ACT Education’s apprentices are employed at New Beginnings.

Inspectors criticise low expectations

Ofsted said apprentices make “slow progress” at ACT Education due to a lack of off-the-job training, which amounts to “one or two hours” each month. 

They added that trainers did not set apprentices high expectations and impeded progress by failing to give deadlines for completing assignments. 

Often, apprentices and employers did not attend progress review meetings, resulting in “little joint planning” for training opportunities. 

They said ACT Education had also been “too slow” to address concerns about English and maths functional skills training at an inspection in September 2022. 

Trainers did not set apprentices high expectations and impeded progress by failing to give deadlines for completing assignments, they added. 

Other concerns included ineffective careers information and insufficient personal development training. 

Although Ofsted praised tutors’ knowledge and experience, they said managers had been “too slow” to recruit suitably qualified staff. 

Wray said the inspectors’ criticisms “did not reflect the full picture”.

The company now faces seeing its contract with the Department for Education terminated, in line with its policy for independent training providers who receive an ‘inadequate’ rating. 

However, Wray said: “We are continuing to offer apprenticeships as we have received no instruction otherwise.” 

He added that the training provider will focus on improving ahead of an Ofsted monitoring visit due in six months.

Recognise young carers on the ILR to better support their needs, DfE urged

Young carers should be recognised on the government’s individualised learner record (ILR) to better identify and support their needs in further education, sector leaders have said.

Making this “simple change” would also help address the “gaping hole” in data that is recorded between FE learners and school and higher education students who have caring responsibilities.

The Department for Education added young carers to the annual school census in 2023 for the first time, while UCAS also added the group to its university application forms last year.

DfE minister Baroness Barran recently told parliament that making this amendment to the school census led to the identification of 38,983 young carers, “raising their visibility in the school system and allowing schools to better identify and support their young carers”.

She said this is providing the department with “strong evidence on both the numbers of young carers and their educational outcomes” as well as an annual data collection to establish long-term trends.

Yet the DfE has made no such amendment to the ILR, which records and tracks individual students in FE.

Andy McGowan, the policy and practice manager at charity Carers Trust, said the new data on young carers in schools through the census and universities through UCAS application is “vital” to understanding the educational challenges and employment routes young carers face compared to their peers.

“We are now left with a gaping hole in the data in further education,” McGowan told FE Week.

“This simple change [adding young carers to the ILR] would help the government to see the huge pressures young carers in education face. Only then can they truly understand how their policies affect young carers as they approach a key stage of their lives and transition into adulthood.”

A DfE spokesperson told FE Week that “further recording requirements will be considered in due course” for young carers. They added: “At the moment we are considering what the data tells us and what additional measures we need to consider going forward.”

Young adult carers are described as people aged between 16 to 25, who look after a friend or relative with a disability, illness, mental health condition, or a substance problem and cannot cope without help.

Data from Learning and Work Institute suggests that young carers are three times more likely to become not in education, employment or training (NEET) and four times more likely to drop out of college than their peers.

Latest statistics of the annual school census found young carers in schools were nearly twice as likely to be persistently absent as their peers, and nearly one in four of young carers missed 10 per cent or more of their education last year.

The Carers Trust estimates that 10 per cent of all students are likely to be young adult carers – at least 370,000 in the UK.

A separate data field on the ILR would help evaluate what employment routes young adult carers are taking, experts told FE Week.

Eileen Darby, director of safeguarding and wellbeing at Chichester College Group, said: “We hear that young carers won’t do certain careers like police uniform services because they have to leave their parents. Anything that involves unsociable hours, or nursing as they’re already doing that at home.”

Nicola Aylward, head of learning for young people at Learning and Work Institute, said adding young carers to the ILR would give a “better evidence base for tailoring support” that could look at how the means-tested 16 to 19 bursary fund impacts young carers.

Former skills minister Robert Halfon stated in a parliamentary question last month, that DfE allocated over £160 million of bursary funding in 2023/24 to help disadvantaged 16 to 19 year olds meet costs.

Young carers ‘put off’ T Levels

It is unclear how many young adult carers received 16 to 19 bursary funding due to the data collection gap.

Awareness training ‘practically doubled’ numbers 

Colleges have their own ways of recording young carers, through asking students during the interview and enrolment process, and through lecturers and feeder schools, if they have caring responsibilities.

Greenhead College in Huddersfield “practically doubled” the number of carers it recorded this year, just by emphasising types of caring responsibilities via social media and parent/carer updates. 

“I still think that students don’t know they are carers, so we will be doing more of that early on next year,” said Claire Parr, director of SEND and inclusion at the college.

Leaders fear that hundreds of young carers go under the radar every year. They claim that recognising young carers through the ILR would help address this.

DWP slammed for keeping revived training scheme outcomes a secret

The government is refusing to publish evidence that a revived training scheme for unemployed people is succeeding in getting them into work, despite pouring tens of millions into it since the pandemic.

Although the concept of the Department for Work and Pensions programme – known as sector-based work academy programmes (SWAPs) – is viewed positively by training providers and sector bodies, officials have been criticised by MPs for a lack of transparency over its results.

SWAPs aim to give unemployed people the skills they need to work in a specific sector, such as construction or care, through a short-term combination of training, work placement and a guaranteed job interview.

The DWP recently celebrated “smashing” its 80,000 target for the number of jobseekers that start SWAPs each year since the pandemic, with about 330,000 participating since it was renewed as part of the government’s Plan for Jobs in mid-2020.

But despite spending an estimated £35 million, with a further £25 million due to be spent this year, there is limited evidence of the scheme’s success since Plan for Jobs was launched.

A lack of transparency

The DWP is understood to collect data on SWAPs that includes how many participants complete SWAPs and whether they remain in sustained employment for at least 13 weeks.

But the department refused to tell FE Week what data it collects when asked through a freedom of information request, claiming that most statistics are held “clerically at a local level”.

Last year, an inquiry into Plan for Jobs and other employment programmes by MPs on the Work and Pensions Committee said the DWP “lacks transparency” around the performance of work schemes including SWAPs, making evaluation of their success “unfeasible”.

The inquiry published a report in July added that the department fails to consistently “set clear targets” for its programmes and makes “unsubstantiated” claims about their success.

The government published basic figures showing the age, region and sector of SWAP starts for the first time in February this year.

While preparing a reply to FE Week‘s questions, the DWP also announced that it will begin publishing data showing how many people are starting SWAPs on a quarterly basis.

However, the department’s spokesperson did not respond when asked whether they could prove SWAPs are a success or when an evaluation of Plan for Jobs, understood to have been carried out in 2022-23, will be published.

Work and Pensions Committee chair Stephen Timms told FE Week that the DWP is failing to follow its own protocol – introduced under David Cameron – that government should publish research it has commissioned.

He added: “[Outcomes of SWAPs] strikes me as exactly the kind of information that the government should be publishing – but unfortunately it isn’t on this programme or many others.

“But actually, if they are open about it and there’s public debate, then that is a powerful lever to improve the programme and would be helpful for the department to do a better job.

“David Cameron used to say sunlight is the best disinfectant and under him we saw a genuine openness that unfortunately has been lost – I very much hope it improves.”

Does the scheme work?

Training providers and sector bodies told FE Week they believe the SWAPs are “effective” at getting people into sustained employment.

The DWP also pointed towards two studies, carried out in the mid-2010s, that suggested SWAPs increased the time young unemployed people spend in employment, but failed to provide older participants with work experience or a job interview.

Deputy director at Learning and Work Institute, Sam Avanzo-Windett, said helping people who are economically inactive into employment through work experience in a sector “feels like a good thing”.

But she added: “Without data, it’s quite hard to know how many of those people are getting into jobs.

“It’d be important to know if there are sanctions that sit alongside the SWAPs programme as well as any information on those job outcomes.”

The Association of Learning Providers (AELP), which represents hundreds of training providers, is supportive of the scheme as a “quick and intensive” way of getting people work-ready.

Simon Ashworth, AELP’s director of policy told FE Week: “We have seen them used particularly effectively in sectors with big skills shortages such as hospitality and retail.”

Ashworth added that the “short, sharp, high impact intervention” of SWAPs complements skills bootcamps, which are longer and higher-skilled training programmes lasting up to 12 weeks.

How did SWAPs start?

SWAPs were first launched under a different name in 2011 as part of David Cameron’s ‘Get Britain Working’ initiative, with 330,000 people starting the scheme in the next seven years.

But Jobcentre Plus’ failure to tell participants they faced benefits sanctions if they refused to work resulted in a successful legal challenge known as the ‘Poundland case’.

SWAPs were revived alongside other work training schemes in mid-2020.

Participation is voluntary, but benefit claimants still face financial sanctions for dropping out before completing the course or refusing a job offer for good reason.

In the 2021 spring budget the government set aside £10 million per year for SWAPs, which has jumped to £25 million this financial year.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 457

Andy Sparks

Chair of Governors, Writtle College

Start date: March 2024

Concurrent Job: LSIP Executive Director, Essex Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Interesting fact: Following a 27 year career in further and higher education, Andy moved to the Chamber to develop and maintain the Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock Local Skills Improvement Plan (LSIP)

David Gallagher

Vice Chair, Federation of Awarding Bodies

Start date: March 2024

Concurrent Job: Chief Executive, NCFE

Interesting fact: Growing up, David wanted to be either an architect or an archaeologist (somewhat Indiana Jones inspired). He think an architect is still in there somewhere as he’s very interested and involved in how our skills system is designed

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 458

Joanna Davidson

CBE Chair of Governors, Working Men’s College

Start date: March 2024

Previous Job: Chair, Experience Oxfordshire

Interesting fact: Joanna is a great traveller and has been to all seven continents. She once got overtaken by a giant tortoise on a trek up the side of a volcano in the Galapagos but in mitigation explains that it was very hot and rather steep!

David Marsh

Chief Executive Officer, TTC Group

Start date: April 2024

Previous Job: Chief Executive, Babington and Co-Chair, St Martin’s Group

Interesting fact: David played for the 1st team in both Rugby Union and Rugby league for Oxford University and was also once invited to compete in the world’s toughest mudder in New York