A host of new learning technology projects have been funded to the total tune of £750k. Rebecca Garrod-Waters explains some of the projects and what she hopes they might achieve.

In a bold move to help stimulate the take-up of digital learning in vocational education, Ufi Charitable Trust has funded 16 demonstrator stage projects — any one of which could catch the imagination of tomorrow’s teachers and learners.

And this month saw the launch of the new projects funded with £750k from the Ufi Trust’s Vocational Learning Tech Fund.

We want this model of a Ufi ‘family’ of projects to underpin future funding

All are at an early stage, and each has received up to £50k funding for the next 12 months to help develop their product or service.

We are really excited about funding this cohort — we want Ufi funding to be about more than the grant, where projects get benefit from each other and from the association with Ufi.

Tight budgets mean that people are unwilling to take a risk on something unproven.

This presents difficulties for innovators who have great ideas but need help to get a project to a stage where they are ready to go to market or attract further investment.

What Ufi, as a charitable trust, is able to do is to de-risk this developmental stage and help products and services reach a marketable point.

This includes looking at technologies that had initially been developed for a different market, but where building them to concentrate on vocational technology could have real benefits.

Our driving goal is to catalyse change — achieving an increase in the scale of people who can gain and develop vocational skills.

The 16 projects cover a wide range of technologies and services — including hardware, apps, e-learning and supporting services.

This was a deliberate decision — we don’t believe there is a single solution for FE and training, and the blending of a range of tools woven into more traditional teaching methods will be key to the successful growth of workforce training. Together the projects form a cohort, supported by the trust and benefiting from the opportunity to work with each other.

We hope there will be synergies and connections formed — and we want this model of a Ufi ‘family’ of projects to underpin future funding.

The projects include Target, a full commercial trial of wearable technology (the HoloLens and Epson Movario smart glasses) in a manufacturing environment. When switched off the glasses form a standard pair of safety glasses, but when switched on will deliver interactive content directly to an individual as they look at a specific machine.

There is also NanoSimbox, currently used in schools to teach chemistry by visualising how molecules work. This is being developed to refocus on vocational learning for those who need a better understanding of chemistry to enter the workplace.

Meanwhile, two of the projects are developing new ways of using simulations. One is combining audio analytics with situational skills practice, to provide objective insights into performance when rehearsing skills which would otherwise be difficult, expensive or risky to practise in real life. The other is developing a digital platform that will use virtual reality to create multi-agency emergency scenarios. Learners will include emergency response incident commanders within the West Midlands Fire Service and other fire and rescue services who work within the emergency services.

In addition, Ufi Trust looked to fund projects that bring e-learning to new, sometimes hard to reach audiences, and cover non-traditional subjects. Myerscough College is developing videos on horticulture, Cuppa is a project to bring bite-sized learning to care workers, and GivebackUK is producing a library of video resources for the charity sector.

It is clear that ways of accessing and gaining vocational skills need to be brought in line with the way people live their lives. We live in an increasingly fast-paced digital world and we have expectations about how we learn — we must make sure that vocational teaching and learning is at the forefront of new ways of skills delivery.

The relationship between lead and sub-contractor may be one defined by tension for some, and tranquility for others. Matthew Lord outlines how to help make these relationships fall into the latter camp.

With the final push to sign off contracts and the last-minute dash for recruitment dominating our lives, I’ve been thinking about exactly what we, as a ‘sub-contractor’ are looking for from our college partners (although ‘sub-contractor’ is surely a misnomer if ever there was one – to us it’s a partnership, with all the sense of alliance and co-operation that implies).

We simply haven’t got the time to be passed around the college talking to all and sundry (delightful though your colleagues are)

We’re all united by a single aim — to deliver great learning to our students — but too often the sub-contractor-college relationship founders because one ‘side’ or another doesn’t understand what the other needs. So let’s banish misunderstanding, frustration and soaring blood pressure and make the relationship work.

The first thing to consider are time frames and contracts. Timing is everything. Is your college able to commit to our time frames, process the necessary due diligence and get the course under contract in time for us to be able to recruit learners at the right time of year? If you can do this, it tells us you’re a super-efficient college — just what we like.

Secondly, count date meeting. Meet with us one week before the count date and please make sure you withdraw learners that need to be withdrawn.

Third is registers. Decide how these are submitted and monitored. And please make sure someone from the college does actually look at them and that they are monitored regularly.

Bursary application forms comes fourth in this list. Provide us with a checklist of the exact evidence required. And once you receive the forms, please process them quickly. Delays at this late stage cause real problems for us and, more importantly, our students. Many of ours are entirely dependent on financial help to pursue their studies.

Fifth is being ‘Ofsted-ready’. Check that your sub-contractor is Ofsted-ready — you don’t want your next inspection to be adversely affected by any shortcomings beyond your control. It will boost your confidence — and that of your sub-contractor — to know that everything is hunky-dory.

And sixth is English and maths. Does the sub-contractor have the necessary support to ensure success in these crucial areas? Do staff have the necessary training and resource support? This should include initial testing, teaching delivery and exam preparation. Good results are in everyone’s best interests.

It hardly needs saying, but keep in touch. This is number seven. Do meet regularly with your sub-contractor and draw up a set agenda around numbers, quality and support.

Number eight is fewer points of contact. With the best will in the world, we simply haven’t got the time to be passed around the college talking to all and sundry (delightful though your colleagues are). Less is definitely more, so let’s agree a few key points of contact at the start of the relationship. These are sub-contracting/business manager (responsible for internal liaison with safeguarding, HR, finance and contracts); registration (enrolments, withdrawals, bursary forms, exam registration); quality assurance; and heads of department.

And if your staff change, remember to
tell us.

Back to the list of ten and at nine is learner support. Make sure that your contractor has a robust system in place for learners who need support. In the case of Let Me Play, the vast majority of our students have been turned off learning by bad experiences at school and have very low self-confidence, so this is second nature to us. Before they can even begin to learn, our young people need to acquire the habit of regular attendance at our learning centres and find some self belief. Many have difficult home lives, and some are already living alone at the age of 16 or even homeless. These are all potential barriers to learning which have to be overcome before they’re ready to move on to college at the end of our courses.

And ten is free school meals. Young people need feeding — and nutritious meals aid focus and concentration. If your sub-contractor delivers full-time study programmes to 16 to 18-year-olds off-site, do you have a system for paying for free school meals to eligible learners?

Judith Doyle inherited a grade three Ofsted-rated college in August 2013 and within eight months of her appointment inspectors dished out the same result again. But, picking up the gauntlet, she instigated a raft of changes that in July saw the college rated as outstanding.

I was proud and delighted to be made principal at Gateshead College in 2013, a college which at that time was graded by Ofsted as requiring improvement.

I relished the opportunity to build on the improvements that were already in evidence but equally recognised that turning things around would need focus, clarity, and ultimately a bit of backbone.

We used to effectively have a college that operated as two — work-based learning on one side and classroom-based learning on the other

Gateshead College had an impressive legacy of being a technical college; close to local business and close to its community.

At some point this got lost in translation, focus and delivery.

My primary goal became the delivery of a strategic transformation programme, starting with a shift in culture. Simplified, it was going back to what we always did best.

The priorities were having a relentless focus on quality improvement and a curriculum that suited market, employer and business needs. We could no longer afford to be distracted from this approach, however interesting or attractive new opportunities appeared to be.

Our first priority was our students [and our strategy] — to make them the most highly-prized in the jobs market, and to give them the best learning experience in a safe, nurturing and aspirational environment.

We aspired to give our students the ‘employment edge’ — a point that Ofsted recognised in its report. Our approach to safeguarding was also recognised as outstanding and we continue to review and improve beyond the current framework — we’d been working on the Prevent agenda for a number of years.

We restructured our college board; traditional structures made way for more dynamic, agile and focussed committees with a greater business representation. The support of my chair and board was very important to developing a clear strategy going forward.

My role was clear: to drive and lead — encourage, motivate and kick (a little). I had to communicate a vision, a clear sense of purpose to which all staff could engage every member of staff had to understand the part they had to play in delivering excellence for students.

We recognised the need to improve communications with all staff. Regular, more focussed team briefings were introduced to encourage and cascade communication in departments and there was an increased focus on informal communication. I used every opportunity to reinforce the message to all staff that if we delivered high quality, teaching, learning and assessment the rest would follow. It is our core business and we had to get that right.

Another huge internal shift was establishing a ‘one college’ approach to our business. We used to effectively have a college that operated as two — work-based learning on one side and classroom-based learning on the other.

There was a lack of a coherent sense of purpose and no real accountability as well as waste, duplication and lost opportunities.

We enhanced our management information systems and became far more rigorous about capturing and routinely analysing data. We now have extremely detailed and accessible information about every student’s achievement, progress and experience along with a range of performance data which is used this to make quick management decisions and early interventions.

Our links with the local and regional business community have always been important, but I set about strengthening these further by listening to employers and working with them to shape our curriculum and enhance students’ experience of work. We had proven our ability to be highly responsive to businesses, delivering many bespoke solutions, and could demonstrate the impact of this to the inspectors.

We have forged outstanding — and very meaningful — partnerships with regional organisations like the Confederation of British Industry, North East Chamber of Commerce, Entrepreneur’s Forum and our local enterprise partnership.

All of this is being achieved within a tough political and financial landscape, but we are working from a robust financial position to deliver on the government’s skills agenda.

Chancellor George Osborne’s decision to impose a levy on employers to fund apprenticeships is a positive move if carefully and fairly implemented and if the unintended consequences and opportunities for fraud are thought through in advance.

Training prescribed by industrial training boards was funded by a statutory levy until abandoned by Margaret Thatcher in the 1990s. My first work-based learning job was with the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board, one of 32 training boards funded by a statutory levy.

Compulsion to take an apprenticeship will probably drive the completion rates down from their current highest ever level into the 60 per cent range

In those days, most companies paying the levy ensured they undertook sufficient prescribed training to claim back in full their levy payments. As it was compulsory, some employees and employers benefited from the training delivered and others begrudged it.

But this is no different from today when a head office HR department imposes apprenticeship programmes across the whole company without explaining to the site managers, supervisors and potential apprentices the benefits and responsibilities.

Any taxation, which is what the levy is, has to be perceived as fair by all required to pay it. The danger lies with limiting it to companies with at least 250 employees.

They will see themselves paying and training staff, who, when competent, will be poached by smaller companies.

The levy should encompass all employers, apart from the very small, say those with fewer than 25 employees.

The powerhouse for economic growth is the small and medium-sized enterprises, so they should be encouraged to take on apprentices, albeit through the imposition of a levy.

The increased income raised by including all employers in the levy, apart from the very smallest, would allow those employers with fewer than 25 employees to have free apprenticeship training.

Of course there will be consequences. Being forced to undertake an apprenticeship so their employer can recoup their levy payments will drive up early leavers.

Our statistics show the highest number of early leavers come from employers who demand the age grant and only pay the minimum apprentice wage.

Compulsion to take an apprenticeship
will probably drive the completion rates down from their current highest ever level into the 60 per cent range. However as Prime Minister David Cameron’s target is only for 3m starts, completions and early leavers will not figure and most early leavers will not join the unemployment register.

How the levy is raised is being pondered by government, whether on a company’s turnover or a headcount of employees.

In some sectors, this may induce employers to make their staff self-employed to avoid paying the levy. It is common practice in hairdressing for the saloon owner to rent out ‘chairs.’

This could convert into other sectors, for example self-employed waiters could ‘rent’ tables from the restaurateur. I have no doubt a whole industry of ‘levy advisers’ will evolve to show employers how to avoid or minimise payments. These people will creep out of the woodwork in the same way there are a plethora of ‘consultants’ who trade sub-contracting around FE colleges and providers for a ‘small’ fee.

I think it is important that the smaller companies and enterprises, ie those with 25 or more employees are brought into the levy as well as large employers.

The overwhelming message from government is the 3m target. If this is not met by manufacturing and service industry employers, it will be easy for the government to switch the tap on for national and local government departments and the NHS to ‘fill their boots’ with apprentices.

While this may benefit the efficiency and productivity of the government departments concerned, the emphasis for apprenticeship recruitment should be concentrated on manufacturing and service employers who need the improved efficiency and productivity a skilled workforce can bring and thus contribute through taxes to the Treasury to fund and improve state services.

And if there is not enough money in the pot to pay for all these increased apprenticeship and there is no other source of government funding, simple — just raise
the levy.