The power of the spoken word was the theme of a Croydon College conference that saw learners who struggle with English address a 100-strong audience.
Fifteen learners on an English for Speakers of Other Languages (Esol) curriculum put in extra study to develop their listening and speaking skills and to speak at the Power of Words Conference on Tuesday last week (March 17).
Esol student Oday Helal, aged 17, who kicked-off the event said: “I feel so proud, I can express myself — I am more confident. It was a wonderful experience.”
High profile supporters also took part in the event, including Maurice Wren, chief executive of the Refugee Council, and Gulwali Passarlay, from the United Afgan Peace Movement.
Mr Passarlay, who fled Afghanistan when he was just 13 years old, said: “When I first came here, to Croydon College, eight years ago – fresh from the Home Office — I know I couldn’t have done what these students have done.”
Di Layzelle, head of student life at the college, said: “When these students came to us in September they spoke very little English.
“We have high expectations of all our learners, so not only were we determined that these students would be able to communicate in English to pass their exams, we also worked with community interest company Active Citizen FE and our Unicef UK students to develop a programme whereby these learners were stretched, supported and given opportunities to excel.”
Pic: English for Speakers of Other Languages learners at Croydon College’s Power of Words Conference
An extra £1.2bn could have been dished out to 16 to 18 providers since 2010 if the government’s education ringfence had extended beyond five to 15-year-olds, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) claimed today.
It claimed that this was because “in 2010 the coalition government decided to ringfence the schools budget, protecting it from the funding cuts that affected many other service areas and departments”.
It said: “However, crucially, this decision protected funding for 5 to 15-year-olds only; the budget for post-16 education was left unprotected. As a necessary consequence, the limited ringfencing of the 5–15 budget has resulted in severe cuts in education areas which fall outside of that age-range.”
The report shows that funding for 16-18 education fell from £7.7bn to £7bn over the course of this parliament. An IPPR spokesperson said that “funding for 16-18 education could have been £1.2bn higher over the course of this parliament by sharing the increase in the 5-15 budget across the whole 5-18”.
The report called on the next government to “reconsider upper-secondary funding and bring more equity to pre- and post-16 figures if they wish to ensure a meaningful, broad curriculum across the phase”.
It comes with the Association of Colleges (AoC) 2015 general election manifesto calling for there to be “no further cuts to spending on 16 to 18-year-olds and, immediately on taking office, the next government should bring this age group within the protective ringfence”.
It also comes with publication, also today, of an Institute for Fiscal Studies report that explains: “The area of Department for Education spending that has suffered the largest cuts has been 16–19 education, where spending has fallen by 14 per cent in real terms between 2010–11 and 2014–15.”
However, Prime Minister David Cameron has said that the ringfence in place from 2010 would continue if his party remained in office after May’s general election
The IPPR report said: “The Conservative plan would see a decrease in the 16–18 budget of 6.7 per cent, compared with a 7.7 per cent increase under the Labour and Lib-Dem plan.
“In real terms, Labour and the Liberal Democrats would freeze the 16–18 budget. This is a significantly better outcome for institutions catering for this age-range, compared with a predicted real-terms cut of 13.4 per under Conservative plans.”
The report also called for the scope of 14 to 19 education to be broadened so that all courses include a mixture of classroom-based learning and work experience and elements of learning covering culture and democratic and social citizenship.
It said that UK policy makers should take note of the success of broader upper secondary education systems in Denmark, Finland, Canada, France and the Netherlands.
Martin Doel (pictured right), AoC chief executive, said: “Young people need a broad education through academic and vocational routes, to prepare them for life, not just their first job or further study.
“However, a rich and broad programme requires teaching time and proper resources and IPPR’s report makes a compelling case to compare the UK with other OECD countries.
“This publication attempts to address the purpose and process of education for 14 to 19-year-olds. Unless we tackle the issues around the curriculum, we are likely to have a ’broken pipeline’ in our state education system for 16 to 18-year-olds with consequences for a generation of young people.”
Principals will have to wait for more struggling colleges to emerge successfully from the FE Commissioner process before the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) publishes guidelines on how intervention ends.
It was based on BIS research, including a survey sent to all colleges that had been inspected and interviews with officials involved with the process from BIS, including Dr Collins, the Skills Funding Agency, Education Funding Agency, the Department for Education and Ofsted.
The report called for “more clarity” surrounding how intervention, which includes “stocktake” progress reports by the commissioner and a Case Review Group to consider ending the process, might be brought to a close.
It said that “to date, only one college [City of Liverpool College] has been removed from intervention. As the circumstances for each intervention differ from case to case it is agreed that more definition or clarity around ending intervention by the FE Commissioner would be welcomed.”
A BIS spokesperson could not give a date for the publication of new guidelines on the issue, but said: “City of Liverpool College successfully addressed its issues and left the intervention process in November [following the initial inspection by Dr Collins a year earlier].
“As more colleges successfully address the issues for which they were put in intervention, we will be able to create a more comprehensive view of the success criteria for ending intervention.”
The report also noted that prior to triggering an inspection by Dr Collins, struggling providers could seek support from a number of organisations including the Education and Training Foundation, the and Joint Information Systems Committee (Jisc), and the Association of Colleges (AoC).
But is said that “the evaluation did highlight that not all the institutions which could benefit from the report are utilising it. This may be because they are unaware of its existence or how to access it.”
It added: “While it is not BIS’s role to provide support to colleges, greater signposting to these resources should be considered and would be welcomed by the sector.”
The BIS spokesperson said: “As the report highlights, there is already support for FE providers through organisations such as the ETF, Jisc and the AoC and BIS is working closely with these organisations to ensure that providers are aware of this.”
Commissioner inspections are triggered if colleges are asses as inadequate by Ofsted, inadequate for financial health by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) or fail to meet “minimum standards of performance by the Department for Education and the SFA”.
Dr Collins has so far reported on inspections of 19 providers.
Gill Clipson (pictured right), deputy chief executive of the AoC, said: “The evaluation report provides a useful analysis of how colleges view the intervention process, led by the FE Commissioner, is operating.
“The clear and transparent reporting is valued by the small number of colleges visited and the FE Commissioner’s termly letters are appreciated by all.
“AoC welcomes the recommendation that there should be greater clarity and definition about how and when intervention comes to a close and would be happy to work with officials to agree this.”
General FE and sixth form colleges will receive £61m from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) for courses next academic year.
The figure is 4 per cent down on the £64m given to FE providers for higher education this academic year and a 48 per cent decrease on the £118m funding dished out to the sector for 2012/13.
A Hefce spokesperson said: “Recurrent funding for teaching for 2015/16 shows a reduction compared to 2014/15 as a result of the continuing transition from the old fee and funding regime – when Hefce grant rates were higher because students paid lower tuition fees.
“The reduction is markedly less than for previous years, because the bulk of the transition, relating to students on three-year full-time undergraduate courses, is already complete.”
But Dr Lynne Sedgmore CBE, executive director of the 157 Group, said: “It is clear [from these figures] that public funding is only going in one direction. There is no doubt that reductions in many different funding streams are creating enormous pressure on colleges. It is also clear that priorities into the future will be around higher level technical skills. It is important that colleges are able to respond to these priorities and we will do all we can to help them to do so.”
Nick Davy (pictured right), higher education policy manager for the Association of Colleges (AoC), said: “The decrease in funding to FE colleges from Hefce reflects the fact that higher education teaching is now [largely] funded by the Student Loans Company through tuition fees, rather than Hefce.
“We are pleased to see, however, that Hefce maintains its commitment to widening access to higher education by providing the student opportunity grant, which makes up about 10 per cent of all college higher education income.”
Hefce announced in January that £714,772 would be allocated to FE colleges with higher education provision between now and 2016 in a bid to improve collaboration with schools and other colleges. The FE sector share is less than 6.5 per cent of the £11.02m total allocated to individual universities and colleges.
In the annual grant letter to Hefce, which confirmed that overall funding for universities and FE colleges with higher education provision would rise from £11.1bn for 2014/15 to £12.1bn for 2015/16, Business Secretary Vince Cable (pictured above) and Universities Minister Greg Clark called on Hefce to support joint working between institutions.
They wrote: “The council should facilitate work with higher education institutions and FE colleges to develop innovative curricula and new modes of delivery that will meet employer needs for high levels of technical expertise, contributing to local enterprise partnerships’ growth plans, and to the government’s industrial strategy.”
It came after Hefce reported last year that the number of people starting undergraduate study at FE colleges in 2013/14 was 10,000 higher than in 2010/11, a 57 per cent rise, and former Universities Minister David Willetts expressed his desire to see more learners taking higher education courses at FE colleges.
An awarding organisation and training company are celebrating after being recognised among the best places to work according to prestigious lists compiled by The Sunday Times.
Newcastle-based NCFE was ranked 70th on The Sunday Times top 100 charities to work for, while Basildon-based independent learning provider LifeSkills features at number 94 in the paper’s list of the top 100 small businesses to work for.
NCFE chief executive David Grailey (top, left) said: “Gaining recognition as one of the Top 100 companies to work for, for the sixth time, is an achievement we’re extremely proud of.
“Our people, who we value very highly, have helped to make NCFE one of the top national qualification providers in the UK by demonstrating their commitment, innovation, and sheer hard work every day which helps to make NCFE such a success, even during a tough time for the education sector.
“Ultimately, we believe that the workplace can be an engaging and happy environment whilst also delivering an exceptional level of service to our customers.”
LifeSkills managing director Spencer Fearn (top, right) said: “We are delighted to be recognised in the Times Top 100 company awards for the fifth time, following on from [an Ofsted] grade two and Investors in People Gold award in 2014 we have yet again improved as a company and continued to raise the bar in terms of staff engagement and learner development.”
Government proposals to extend loans to level two and also include learners from the age of 19 were put on hold this week as part of the official response to a two-month consultation launched in June. David Hughes assesses the response and also the future for FE loans.
The Government’s response to its consultation on Advanced Level Learning Loans is, at one level, of hardly any consequence. This is partly because it came out a week before the effective end of the Coalition Government, but also because it results in only minor changes rather than the expansion it might have led to. So hardly worth commenting on, perhaps?
As ever with these things, it is important to read the words carefully, as well as between the lines to appreciate why it is an important response.
The introduction by Nick Boles, the current Skills Minister, sets out clearly that the consultation intelligence gathered will be used as evidence for the Spending Review which the next Government will carry out and which will impact in 2016-17. That’s worth thinking about, particularly in light of the recently announced cut to the Adult Skills Budget.
It’s also worth remembering that the loans were introduced as a means of avoiding even greater cuts. That was in 2010 during what felt like tough negotiations as part of the Spending Review which has led to more than a million learning opportunities lost for adults.
Nobody at that time really wanted loans to be introduced, it was a compromise in which officials and politicians deemed it better to hold onto as much funding for adults as they could, even though the loans were wholly un-tested.
The experience of loans has been mixed, but so far it has to be viewed as a failed policy. The drop in numbers is staggering. Apprenticeships were in, then out of loans: and around half of all loans taken out have been for Access to Higher Education courses (for which the loan is written off if the learner completes an HE course).
Unsurprisingly, the market for part-time, flexible level three and four course has not taken off, very much like the collapse of part-time higher education after loans were introduced.
If loans are not working now, then how will colleges and independent learning providers respond when they are extended? What evidence will be available of what works? Where is the investment in testing and innovation?
For an average college, the business is often not important enough to invest in at a time when cuts are biting all over.
For learners, though, the opportunities to learn have disappeared just at the time when employers are reporting more and more skills shortages and gaps at level three and four.
Our recent Policy Solutions paper, entitled No Limits: from getting by to getting on, also pointed to the almost complete lack of skills and support for the 5m people in low pay.
We proposed a new advancement service for people which would stimulate their demand for skills and help boost productivity. We believe that this would lead to more people progressing onto loan-funded intermediate learning, helping their careers and meeting employers’ needs.
But the reality is that we’ve seen too little action to understand how to stimulate demand and not enough work to find out what would be attractive to learners.
More flexibility, day-release supported by employers, promotion of ‘signature’ qualifications which employers recognise and use of technology could all make a difference. Sadly, this new and un-tested policy has not had the R and D innovation to support it and it is not working.
We need to find out how to make it work, and quickly. The next Spending Review will come at us very soon and the cuts heralded in the recent Budget look brutal.
It is almost inconceivable that loans will not be extended by age (to 21?) and by level (to include level 2?). If loans are not working now, then how will colleges and independent learning providers respond when they are extended? What evidence will be available of what works? Where is the investment in testing and innovation?
Like others, Niace has been shouting about the skills crisis we are already in. The extension of loans will only make that worse unless we find ways to make the loans work.
So, the Government response this week to its own consultation was inconsequential, but there is a storm on the horizon and I don’t believe that we are prepared for it. We need to act fast.
Ofqual is asking for views on its plans to replace the Qualifications Credit Framework (QCF), which is due to be scrapped.
The qualifications watchdog launched a three-month 19-question consultation today on the successor to the QCF, which it says it wants to be “simple and descriptive”.
It is proposing that all regulated qualifications should be described by a new Framework of Regulated Qualifications (FRQ). Under the proposed new approach, qualifications would no longer have to be unitised or credit-bearing, but could be if that was the best way for the qualification to meet its purpose.
Jeremy Benson (pictured right), Ofqual’s executive director for vocational qualifications, said: “The new descriptive framework we’re proposing should make qualifications easier to understand. It’s not like the QCF, which sought to impose a particular view of what qualifications should look like.”
He added: “Removing the QCF rules and introducing a new framework does not mean an end to all QCF qualifications – they can stay so long as they are sufficiently valid. What will matter in future will be whether qualifications can be shown to be good, not whether they are designed to tick particular boxes. We know frameworks can be used to support a range of other purposes too, and we would also welcome the views from others who might look to use the FRQ.”
Awarding organisations (AOs) have welcomed the end of the QCF, but many have expressed concern about proposals for a new way to measure the size of a qualification, included in the 19-question consultation.
Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) head of vocational policy Andy Walls told FE Week: “JCQ and its member awarding organisations welcomed last year Ofqual’s decision to remove the QCF. We look forward to life after the QCF.”
Patrick Craven (pictured left), head of learning, assessment and design practice at City & Guilds, said the QCF had been “rigid”, “confusing and restrictive”.
“This new framework will allow those with real expertise in design of assessment instruments to develop fit-for-purpose qualifications and assessment services,” he said.
“And importantly, they will be held accountable for their effectiveness. Although it may seem like even more change for a sector that needs stability, this change was needed and is a positive step forward.
“If it’s managed in the right way, providers, learners and employers will all see benefits as qualifications are rebuilt.”
Currently, specifications for qualifications should include their objective, any pre-requisites for those wishing to study it, the knowledge and skills assessed, how it was assessed and how attainment was measured.
In addition to these, the document said: “We are proposing that in the future, specifications must also include the level and the size of the qualification so that it can be aligned to the framework.”
To describe what level a course is at, a new range of descriptors for each level would be introduced, which the document said would “better reflect the full range of qualifications” than those under the QCF.
It also proposed ending guided learning hours as a way of measuring the size of a qualification, following a consultation, the results of which were also published today, which found that many uses was confused by whether online, work experience or passively supervised activities should count towards learning hours.
Confusion over the definition of guided learning hours presents a problem for providers who must work out whether a qualification is large enough to count towards a 16 to 18 year old’s hours in education under the raised participation age (RPA).
Instead, the latest consultation proposed introducing a Total Qualification Time (TQT) measure to express the size of a qualification.
The document said: “TQT would be made up of Guided Learning, Directed Study and Dedicated Assessment. This approach would provide a complete picture of the time it will typically take a learner to complete a qualification, of which guided learning hours will often only be a part.”
Graham Hasting-Evans, managing director of NOCN warned the TQT proposals were “likely to be viewed by employers and training providers as too complicated”.
But he said: “The Ofqual consultation document appears to give awarding organisations the flexibility they would want.”
Gemma Gathercole, head of policy for FE and funding at OCR, said the QCF had been “flawed from its inception” and welcomed plans to withdraw it.
“However, we are concerned about the way that this consultation seeks to introduce new names and acronyms to the already complex world of qualifications,” she said.
She suggested the same terminology could be re-introduced to support the new framework, and said it was “unclear” what purpose the introduction of TQT would serve.
“It creates artificial barriers between elements of curriculum and assessment that could create the same challenges to developing fit for purpose qualifications that were a feature of the QCF,” she said.
“A robust and simple definition of guided learning hours would be sufficient to maintaining the duty required by the RPA legislation.”
The Ofqual consultation closes on June 17. Click here to take part.
The system of Functional Skills qualifications is “not broken, but could be improved,” according to the Education and Training Foundation (ETF) review of non-GCSE English and maths, out today.
And it painted a largely positive picture of Functional Skills.
Professor Ed Sallis, OBE
“The system of Functional Skills is not broken but could be improved,” according to the 19-page report, entitled Making maths and English work for all.
“If government continues with the policy of investing in the literacy and numeracy skills of young people the current arrangements for Functional Skills are a good basis on which to build.
“However, there are steps government and others can take to accelerate the rise in employer recognition and further improve the relevance, rigour and value of these qualifications.”
Professor Sallis said: “The review shows [employers] value practical maths and English skills. They value Functional Skills for their practical approach to problem solving and for their flexible assessment.
“The challenge will be to communicate this message and to ensure they are promoted so every learner has the chance to develop the maths and English skills employers require.”
The review heard from nearly 1,400 individuals and organisations — including 646 employers, 489 practitioners, 229 colleges, awarding organisations and independent learning providers, and 31 apprentices — through telephone and face-to-face interviews, online questionnaires, webinars and seminars.
It found 47 per cent of employers were aware of Functional Skills and of those, 87 per cent valued them.
The report said: “While it is vital that the whole education system, pre and post-16, improves success rates in GCSE, this review has found that many employers understand the contribution that non-GCSE qualifications, and especially Functional Skills, play in giving young people and adults the skills they need in the workplace.”
It added Functional Skills should not be seen as a “stepping stone” to help learners achieve GCSE but as “an alternative route … a qualification in its own right with the key purpose of satisfying employer requirements”.
However, the report added: “An alternative route will only have validity and currency if two criteria are met.
“Firstly, the standards have to be aligned to employability and the content has to be based on what employers need for their workforce. Secondly, Functional Skills have to have flexible but more standardised and rigorous assessment to give employers confidence in them.”
The report called for a further review of the standards on which Functional Skills are based and, to ensure maths and English qualifications remain relevant to employers, it also recommended curriculum content and assessment should be regularly reviewed “on the basis of regular, reliable and representative feedback from employers and providers, and student progress and attainment data”.
And the ETF report further said awareness of the purpose and value of non-GCSE English and maths qualifications “particularly Functional Skills” should be raised through a publicity campaign, and it warned the qualifications should not be presented as a “consolation prize” for GCSE failure.
However, the report said the number of non-GCSE qualifications was “confusing” for employers and said the government should consider culling some to give the remaining ones “greater public and employer recognition”.
Mr Boles welcomed the review’s findings and recommendations, which he said showed “the current Functional Skills system is generally serving its purpose, and reflects the Government’s commitment to ensure all adults have the opportunity to study English and maths”.
Jeremy Benson, executive director for vocational qualifications at Ofqual said: “We welcome… confirmation of the important role that Functional Skills qualifications have in recognising the skills that are important to learners and employers.
“The review complements the work that we are doing to secure higher quality assessments and more consistent standards for Functional Skills qualifications. We will continue to work closely with the ETF and Government so that these important qualifications continue to develop in line with both learners’ and employers’ needs.”
David Russell, ETF chief executive said: “Everyone knows — or thinks they know — what a GCSE in maths or English stands for. But other qualifications exist too, and are increasingly common post-16.
“We set out to discover whether employers recognised them, and, if they did, whether they rated them. We found, unsurprisingly, that it is something people really want to talk about. Employers care about the quality of maths and English skills people have, not just the qualification.”
Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), said he was “pleased” by the “strong” employer support for functional skills the review highlighted.
“We look forward to working with the ETF and other partners on implementing the recommendations in Professor Sallis’s report to make Functional Skills an even more valued alternative,” he said.
Gill Clipson, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said the report’s conclusions “support our manifesto recommendation that young people should not routinely be asked to re-sit GCSE English and/or maths”.
She added: “We are looking forward to working with Ministers after May 7 in a joint effort to ensure everyone has suitable English and maths qualifications by the age of 19.”
The system currently applies to learners aged at least 24 and studying at level three or four — but the consultation proposed FE loans should apply to level two and also 19 to 23-year-olds.
Government pays half the course cost for 19 to 23-year-olds staying at levels two and three, but such learners — like those aged 24 and above — would end up having to repay the full cost under the loans system.
However, in the government response to the consultation, out today, Skills Minister Nick Boles (pictured above) wrote: “It makes sense to consider the implications of these changes alongside plans for the overall funding for skills provision in the future.
“For this reason, we will not be going ahead with our plans for expansion at the moment, but will look again at these proposals in the Spending Review.”
However, the government said it would, from 2016/17, remove the rule surrounding concurrent study, which prevents a learner from undertaking two loans-funded courses at the same time.
It would also, from the same academic year, remove the repeat study rule, which prevents a learner from undertaking loans-funded courses of the same type and level.
“There were many examples where the repeat study rule is seen to be hindering progression in some sectors such as health and beauty, and joinery,” it said in the response document.
“As Advanced Learning Loans become further embedded, this may become a more wide-spread problem.”
It added: “The only exception to this will be in the case of Access to HE courses and programmes of A-levels because they are focused on a particular outcome that is related to progression.”
Meanwhile, the rule limiting a learner to a maximum of four loans over their lifetime would remain, but the government would “continue to monitor this, and if necessary, consider amendments in the future”.
Mr Boles wrote: “We will… put more power in the hands of the learner by simplifying the rules on concurrent and repeat study.
“Ensuring that we have the right funding system in place for adult learners is absolutely critical to ensuring a strong economic future. The responses we have received to this consultation give the Government a very strong evidence-base on which to make important decisions about the future of Advanced Learning Loans, in the context of the next Spending Review.”
Julian Gravatt (pictured right), assistant chief executive of the Association of Colleges (AoC), said: “The Government has consulted on the extension of Advanced Learner Loans but its plans won’t become clear until after the 2015 spending review when details of funding are available.
“Removing the restriction to allow students to take out more than one loan at a time, will mean students can study more than one course, but we strongly support the idea of better advice and guidance to explain what it will mean to take out multiple loans.
“Given the current 24 per cent cut to the adult FE and the likelihood of more cuts in 2016, we’re concerned that the delay may mean that any loan extension could not now happen until 2017. The next government will need to take this into account.”
Dr Lynne Sedgmore CBE (pictured left), executive director of the 157 Group, said: “We believe that the system in the future must ensure equality of access for adults to a wide range of educational possibilities and, in that respect, the decision not to extend the availability of loans at this stage is something of a missed opportunity.”
She added: “We must remember that the lack of availability of loans for significant numbers of adults at the same time as a reduction in government grant funding for adult learning will leave a large funding gap for the next two years.
“We will be working hard with the relevant government departments to ensure that we have an equitable, transparent and flexible approach to all adult education funding into the future – even in the context of reducing public funding.”
