40 extra hours policy ‘helpful’ for 3 in 5 colleges, report suggests

Sixty-one per cent of colleges found providing students with 40 additional learning hours “helpful” with education recovery following Covid – but researchers say there is no way of accurately measuring compliance with the policy.

An evaluation, published late last week, also revealed the biggest constraints to the scheme included a lack of staff resource and physical space.

Commissioned by the government, the Institute for Employment Studies and BMG Research surveyed 308 college and sixth form educators as well as almost 800 students between May and July 2023 on their perceptions of the extra 40 hours of learning policy.

A feasibility for impact study was also released on Friday which used data from the National Pupil Database (NPD) and the Individualised Learner Record (ILR) to further analyse its impact.

Here’s what you need to know.

Recap: Minimum planned hours rose to 580

In 2022, the Department for Education committed £800 million across the next three academic years to fund 40 additional learning hours to 16- to 19-year-olds as part of a post-Covid recovery plan to compensate for lost time in education.

This typically meant that minimum hour requirements for funding was increased from 540 to 580 for students in funding bands 5 to 9 (and lower bandings on a pro-rata basis). 

In its guidance, the government suggested institutions prioritise maths and English for struggling learners as well as supporting them with mental health, wellbeing or study skills.

The funding rate per 16 to 19 student in 2022 was £4,188 and has risen each year, partly to reflect the 40 additional hours policy. The rate currently sits at £4,843.

How the funding was used

Out of the total 308 institutions that replied to the survey, 73 were from post-16 colleges.

More than four in five (82 per cent) of FE providers used funding for activities related to qualifications, compared to 59 per cent of schools.

Instead, nearly three-quarters (74 per cent) of schools used the funding for support with study skills, while 55 per cent of post-16 institutions had provision for teaching learning techniques.

Additionally, only 31 per cent out of all responders provided maths teaching and over a quarter (26 per cent) used the additional hours for English teaching.

Nearly a third (32 per cent) said they used the funding to provide study skills for support learners with high needs, a further 29 per cent provided wellbeing/mental health support and a quarter supported them for employability skills/work placements and personal and social development time.

‘Often constrained’ by staff resources

The report found providers were “often constrained” by timetabling and staff resources to carry out academic activities.

Nearly half of respondents (45 per cent) said internal availability and financial pressures had made additional hours delivery more challenging. 

Over four in ten (42 per cent) said finding space for delivery was an issue and some providers complained that the funding did not take this into account.

Meanwhile, 31 per cent said they struggled with student engagement. “Many faced initial challenges including student resistance to additions to their timetable, but these were usually resolved over time as learners became used to the change and saw the value of the provision,” the report added. For those using the additional hours for maths and English teaching, 37 per cent said recruiting additional staff was a problem.

‘Not possible’ to attribute policy to outcomes

Three in five (61 per cent) of all institutions surveyed said additional hours were helpful with education recovery following the disruption of the pandemic, while a third (33 per cent) said the policy was unhelpful.

FE learners were more likely (24 per cent) than those in school sixth forms (9 per cent) to say that the support had made no difference.

Most education providers claimed the additional hours had a positive impact on student outcomes. Sixty-eight per cent said they recorded positive outcomes in progress, attainment (61 per cent), engagement (59 per cent) and mental health/wellbeing (55 per cent).

Almost nine in 10 (89 per cent) providing English teaching with additional hours said it was positive on student outcomes. Eighty-eight per cent said as such for maths teaching.

However, the feasibility study said it was “problematic” to conclude that there was a causal effect of the changed funding and additional hours on outcomes.

“It will not be possible to attribute the effect specifically to the policy so is a step down from assigning causality,” the report said.

Compliance unknown

When the policy was announced in 2022 the government said it would “monitor” providers’ implementation of the 40 additional hours.

Friday’s report noted how the additional hours feasibility for impact study suggested that “many institutions were not delivering an average of 40 additional hours per student at an institution level”.

According to data from the NPD and ILR on provider level average planned hours provided by the Department for Education, there was a “mean increase of 43 hours across band 5 students from 2020/21 to 2022/23, with 55 per cent of providers seeing average planned hours increase by at least 40, and 79 per cent seeing some increase in hours”.

However, 1 per cent saw no change in average planned hours and 20 per cent saw planned hours fall.

The report claimed this does not necessarily indicate non-compliance with the policy, as the “policy allowed for flexibilities which enabled institutions to be compliant without reaching an average increase of 40 additional hours”.

For example, some colleges and sixth forms used the funding to “enhance their general provision, rather than delivering discrete activities”, which made it “difficult to record how they were using the hours”.

In addition, those institutions already delivering more than 580 hours prior to the extra hours policy “found it difficult to deliver an additional 40 hours due to constraints around timetabling, space and internal resources”.

The diversity of delivery methods and contexts “makes it hard to identify compliance with the policy, and an impact evaluation has not been recommended for this reason”, the report said.

Future funding questions

Most institutions that were case studied said they wanted to continue the 40 extra hours as they felt “the activities met the essential needs of learners”.

But “most” said that without the current level of funding, provision would cease.

Julian Gravatt, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “There won’t be information on any part of government funding until the budget but it’s not surprising that colleges assume this money will continue in 2025-26 because they are already providing information and advice to the current cohort of year 11 students about next year’s options.”

Funding for 16 to 19 education from April 2025 onwards is being currently considered as part of the government’s spending review.

OfS dishes out further £14m for level 6 degree apprenticeships expansion

Thirty-three universities and colleges will share the final tranche of a £40 million pot to grow level 6 degree apprenticeships in England.

The Office for Students has announced the results of the third wave of funding from the scheme.

Today’s 33 winners will share £14 million, the same amount that was handed to 32 recipients in wave two. There were 51 winners in wave one, who shared £12 million.

The funding is used to expand level 6 apprenticeships in providers already delivering the provision, as well as providers looking to add the offer to their roster for the first time.

Projects funded through the scheme have to increase the number of students on level 6 degree apprenticeships and “increase equality of opportunity for students into and during” the programme, the OfS said.

Most (18) recipients in today’s announcements did not win funding in previous rounds.

Click here to view the full list of successful providers

Of the newly announced £14 million, £3,381,000 has been awarded to a collaborative bid from Middlesex University, Birmingham City University, Oxford Brookes University, University of Hertfordshire, Kingston University, University of Brighton and University of Greenwich to form the “healthcare education consortium”.

The consortium plans to increase apprentice starts, reduce duplication, and pool resources to create a coordinated strategy for local, regional, and national apprenticeship provision, working in partnership with NHS Trusts and Integrated Care Boards.

Elsewhere, Bournemouth University has been awarded £465,501 to support the development and introduction of five new degree apprenticeship programmes for delivery in September 2025: accounting finance manager, biomedical scientist, digital marketer, midwife and social worker.

Nottingham College will use £157,697 to launch two new degree apprenticeship programmes: product design and development engineer, and manufacturing engineer. 

The OfS said the college’s funding proposal “builds on current provision to create clear progression pathways and a comprehensive skills ladder in engineering”, adding that it will also “contribute to developing an outreach programme targeting disadvantaged areas of Nottingham, with a focus on engaging young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnic minorities, and women”.

John Blake, director for fair access and participation at the OfS, said: “Since we launched this degree apprenticeships fund last year, I have been continually impressed with the range, scope and ambition of the bids we have received – and this round of bids has been no different. I have been particularly pleased to see how universities and colleges have prioritised recruiting and supporting students from all backgrounds, and the successful bids have all demonstrated real commitment to addressing and removing barriers for students to succeed.”

Skills minister Jacqui Smith said: “This government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity, which is why we are funding the expansion of level 6 degree apprenticeships so people who might not otherwise get a university degree have a route into rewarding careers.

“We will work closely with Skills England and the OfS to ensure these level 6 apprenticeships provide good value for money and drive economic growth.”

Today’s announcement comes a week after the government revealed plans to restrict employers’ ability to use their apprenticeship levy contributions on level 7 apprenticeships due to affordability concerns.

Phillipson tells school pay review body to consider FE impact

The education secretary has told the School Teachers’ Review Body to consider the impact its pay recommendations will have on the FE workforce for the first time.

Bridget Phillipson has also asked for recommendations on 2025 school teacher pay “at the earliest point”, as the new government seeks to move the process earlier in the year.

Under the previous government, annual remit letters from the education secretary to the STRB have told the body to “have regard” of multiple wider issues, including “evidence of the wider state of the labour market in England”.

In what appears to be a first, Phillipson has altered this part of the letter to say: “Evidence of the wider state of the labour market, including the impact of recommendations on the further education teaching workforce in England.”

It comes amid sector outcry following chancellor Rachel Reeves’ decision to pump an additional £1.2 billion into schools and school sixth forms to help fund a 5.5 per cent pay rise this year while offering nothing to FE colleges.

The Department for Education previously blamed the “very challenging fiscal context” and the fact that FE does not have its own pay review body for the snub.

The further education namecheck in the STRB letter comes a week after skills minister Jacqui Smith told the Labour party conference that the DfE has made the case “strongly” to Treasury for more investment to fund college teacher pay rises ahead of next month’s budget.

College teachers are paid around over £9,000 less than school teachers on average. This gap is even wider when compared to industry workers.

DfE to ‘fully reset’ STRB timeline for 2026

The annual pay-setting process for school teachers had slipped later and later in the year, with final announcements usually coming in July after schools had already had to set draft budgets for the next year.

Last year, for example, the education secretary Gillian Keegan sent her remit letter to the STRB just a few days before Christmas, and then the Department for Education was late in submitting its evidence.

The election further kicked the decision down the road, and a 5.5 pay rise recommendation was eventually accepted by the new government on July 29.

College teacher pay has been impacted by the delays in recent years. The Association of Colleges makes a pay recommendation each year which colleges use as a benchmark in their negotiations with unions that represent their staff. The membership body has delayed making a pay recommendation until the STRB offer was made public in the past two years.

In Phillipson’s STRB remit letter for 2025, published today, she said it was the “government’s intention” to announce the upcoming school pay awards “as close to the start of the financial year of April as possible”.

However, she said it was “unfortunate that, given the knock-on effects from the previous government’s delays to the previous round, it is unlikely that the pay award will be announced before maintained schools should be setting their budgets”.

“But by bringing the pay round forwards this year, we can more fully reset the timeline in 2026-27. 

“To this end, I would be grateful if you can deliver recommendations to the government on the 2025/26 pay award for school teachers and leaders at the earliest point that allows you to give due consideration to the relevant evidence.”

To support this, she said the government would publish its written evidence “as soon as possible after the spending review is finalised and financial year 2025-26 budgets are set on 30 October, including budgets relating to pay.

“I recognise that changing the timeline from recent years will present challenges for the STRB, but I am sure you also share the government’s belief in the importance of returning to more timely annual pay processes, so I hope you will understand the necessity of doing so.”

Warning over ‘£22bn spending pressure’

The education secretary also warned the upcoming spending review “comes against the backdrop of the challenging financial position this government has inherited, including a £22 billion pressure against the spending plans set out for departments at spring budget 2024.

“My department will continue to strive to deliver a mission-led approach to ensuring our vital public services are equipped to deliver the high quality on which we rely, whilst providing value for money for taxpayers.

Just over half of T Level students satisfied with course, DfE survey reveals

Student satisfaction on T Levels has taken a dip and levels of compliance with off-the-job training among apprentices has risen but remains low.

The findings were revealed in a series of Department for Education reports published on Friday afternoon.

Here’s what we learned from the DfE’s technical education learner survey and its survey of apprentices, both conducted in 2023.

Low T Level satisfaction

The technical education report, written by NatCen Social Research and NFER, looks at how T Levels were experienced by students who started in 2021, compared to A-levels and other level 3 technical courses.

Only 57 per cent of T Level students reported feeling satisfied, 14 percentage points lower than the first wave of students who started in 2020 and completed surveys last year.

Elsewhere, 76 per cent of level 3 technical students and 72 per cent of A level students, who were also surveyed for comparison, said they were satisfied with their course.

However, T Level satisfaction “varied significantly” between course, with about eight in ten education and early years students feeling satisfied, while only four in ten health and science learners felt the same.

Digital learners’ satisfaction dropped 20 percentage points to 51 per cent in a year.

Students were most satisfied with teachers’ knowledge, the skills covered and the standard of teaching.

They were least happy with the programme’s management, the way students are assessed, preparation for future study and level of employer contact.

Lack of study materials

Learners in health and science, a newly introduced route for 2021, reported a lack of study materials as a key barrier to their learning.

“This may reflect difficulties with core assessments on this route, which Ofqual found were not fit for purpose, leading to regrading of first year T Level results for these learners,” the report said.

Next steps

T Level students’ most common next steps were a degree or apprenticeship, while only 17 per cent said they wanted to move straight into paid work.

Despite the career-focused design of the course, 69 per cent of T Level learners felt the course had allowed them to progress to what they wanted to do, compared to 82 per cent of A-level students and 74 per cent of level 3 technical learners. 

T Level transition

Satisfaction levels of learners on the T Level Transition Programme, a one-year post-GCSE course to prepare for T Levels, were at 71 per cent, similar to the previous year.

However, learners’ enthusiasm for progressing on to a T Level fell during the year, with 66 per cent planning to study “another course” or look for an apprenticeship.

Students reported gaining the skills and knowledge they needed, but only about half felt prepared for T Levels, despite this being a “key aim” of the course.

At the start of the transition programme, 42 per cent of learners intended to progress onto a T Level, however, by the end of the course, this had reduced to 33 per cent, the report revealed. The most common reason for not continuing onto a T Level was preferring to study another course.

Apprentice satisfaction high

The survey of apprentices, reported by IFF Research, ran 4,919 interviews with current or completed apprentices, alongside 500 interviews with non-completers, between July and September 2023.

Satisfaction with apprenticeships is increasing slightly year on year, hitting 87 per cent for learners in 2023.

Most apprentices were still in work after completing, and 68 per cent were still employed by the same organisation.

The report found that 97 per cent of completers reported a positive impact on their job or career, such as a promotion or pay rise.

But ‘badly run’ training most common reason for drop-outs

Researchers spoke to 506 non-completers to find out the most common reason for not staying the course of their programme, amid the government’s efforts to tackle the fact that around half of apprentices drop out every year.

Two-thirds (65 per cent) of non-completers left their apprenticeship within the first 12 months. On average, those who dopped out did nine months of their apprenticeship before leaving.

Overall, the most common factors contributing to non-completers leaving were the apprenticeship being “badly run or poorly organised” (49 per cent, up from 41 per cent in 2021), training not being as good as they had hoped (46 per cent) and not enough time for learning or training (43 per cent), according to the report.

A third (36 per cent) of non-completers said that personal or domestic factors made it difficult to complete the apprenticeship, with the most common issues in this area including were caring responsibilities (11 per cent), mental health issues (8 per cent), personal, family or relationship issues (7 per cent) and physical health issues (not related to COVID-19) (7 per cent).

Researchers said that once “contributing reasons” for leaving were established, non-completers were asked to name their single main reason for leaving their apprenticeship. The most common was receiving a better job offer (16 per cent), followed by not getting on with the apprenticeship employer (11 per cent) and not having enough time for learning or training (10 per cent).

Delays to EPAs

New to the learner survey for 2023, apprentices that had completed apprenticeship standards were asked whether they encountered any delays to end-point assessments (EPAs).

Two-thirds (64 per cent) said their EPAs took place on time, with a third (34 per cent) reporting a delay. Half of those reporting a delay (17 per cent overall) said the delay lasted for three months or longer.

Construction (50 per cent) and engineering (46 per cent) apprentices were most likely to have faced delays, with two-fifths (39 per cent) of construction apprentices reporting a delay that lasted for three months or longer.

Off-the-job compliance

Apprentices reported that about one fifth of their time was spent on off the job training (21 per cent up from 19 per cent in 2021).

Three fifths (60 per cent) reported that their hours were compliant with apprenticeship requirements, an increased on the 46 per cent reported in 2021.

Sectors such as education, health and retail continue to report the lowest compliance levels, while ICT and construction continue to report the highest.

Brokers fail to raise SME awareness or starts in DfE apprenticeship pilot

The government has been told to explore alternative ways of engaging small and medium employers (SMEs) in apprenticeships after a multi-million-pound brokerage “pathfinder” failed to raise awareness or boost starts.

An evaluation report for the Department for Education’s “SME apprenticeship brokerage” pilot was published on Friday and outlined “significant barriers” including strict eligibility criteria and administrative struggles.

The DfE set aside £2.5 million in 2022 to fund the trial which involved brokers providing SMEs with support to set up apprenticeship service accounts, selecting the appropriate training provider and apprenticeship standard, and recruiting the candidate for the role.

The pathfinder operated in four areas in the north of England where apprenticeship starts have declined substantially in recent years and to support the government’s “levelling up” agenda: Greater Manchester and East Lancashire, Merseyside and Northwest Lancashire, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, and the North East.

Researchers at Alma Economics found that SMEs who had apprenticeship starts through the pilot were “happy with their experience and were satisfied with the support the broker and the training provider had provided”.

However, take-up of the brokerage offer was “lower than anticipated”, the report said without providing any figures.

Payment problems

Payment for brokers was dependent on evidenced outcomes with SMEs at three stages. A 25 per cent payment was made when the broker engaged with an eligible employer. Upon completion of onboarding, where the SME was “equipped with the knowledge and support needed to make an informed decision about recruitment”, a further 50 per cent payment was made. A final 25 per cent payment was made when the SME recruited their first apprentice. 

The report said brokers noted that not having an upfront marketing budget “limits their ability to raise awareness of the pathfinder, and accurately target eligible employers”.

It added: “Most brokers and training providers felt that levels of engagement with SME Brokerage Pathfinder were lower than expected and attributed this slow start to engagement with needing time to make local connections, and to understand the nuances of the sectors involved.”

Interested SMEs not eligible

Eligibility criteria for the pathfinder “resulted in interested businesses not being eligible”, researchers also found.

Brokers mentioned having to turn down businesses based on not having been trading for a minimum of 12 months, having had an apprentice in the last two years, or being outside of the geographic scope of the pilot.

Starts ‘much’ lower than projected

Researchers said SMEs who got involved in the pathfinder “valued support in choosing the right apprenticeship qualification and getting assistance registering with the apprenticeship service”.

But overall the trial has faced “significant challenges, including the number of starts being much lower than projected, meaning alternatives should be explored”.

The DfE refused to release the projected or actual starts numbers for the project.

Other barriers included concern from brokers around entry points as set by training providers “leading to delayed starts and not being compatible with the schedules of employers”.

A lack of suitable candidates was “identified as a potential barrier to starts, with challenges in finding the right person to take on the apprenticeship”.

SMEs also struggled with the administration associated with starting an apprentice, including registration for the apprenticeship service account. This was especially the case for micro-organisations where all staff members are multi- functional, and there is no dedicated administrative or HR staff to handle onboarding requests”. 

Researchers made a series of recommendations including the need for changes to the payment model and eligibility criteria. But ultimately the DfE was told to “explore alternative models of support for similar programmes in the future”.

SEND pilot flexibilities rolled out

The DfE also released the evaluation report for its apprentices with SEND pilot on Friday. 

Following the success of this trial, the government now allows all providers to use a flexibility that allows apprentices with learning difficulties but without a pre-existing education health and care plan (EHCP) or statement of learning difficulties assessment (LDA) to work towards a lower level of functional skills.

FE Week first reported on this move in March. You can read the full evaluation report here.

How we’ll go about reforming the level 3 landscape

One of the real joys of my new ministerial role is that I can build on my previous experience as a minister at DfE when I worked on 14-19 education and on my own career in schools and colleges teaching vocational qualifications alongside A levels. 

I passionately believe that we need a system that meets the needs of every single learner and of employers, that provides high-quality routes where excellent technical and vocational education can stand alongside academic.    

I know from meeting many of you working in FE in recent weeks that there’s already so much to be proud of, but there is so much more that I want us to do together. There is a consensus among those of you to whom I have spoken that the qualifications landscape has got to get better. None of us want to see poor-quality qualifications or inferior outcomes for learners. 

We’ve already started to make progress, setting up Professor Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review which I hope many of you will contribute to.   

We have also taken immediate steps to pause the removal of public funding from qualifications that was due to take place on 31 July 2024, and we have launched a focused review of qualifications reform. 

The review will consider whether we should remove funding from these qualifications and other qualifications due to be defunded in 2025. I know some have argued that we should just shelve this work, but I’m not willing to go slow on the work to improve our qualifications or to leave uncertainty hanging over the system.   

I’d like to take this opportunity to share more about how this review will work.   

Principles   

It will focus on the objectives I set out above.   

We remain committed to T Levels and their place as an excellent offer for young people. It’s been a pleasure meeting students and providers who have benefited from this ambitious new qualification.

I am pleased that we’ve been able to commit to rolling out new T Levels, but we also need to look at how delivery of current ones can be improved so as many young people as possible have the opportunity to enrol and succeed on one.  

As part of a wider offer for young people I recognise that we need to retain other qualifications alongside T Levels and A levels.

Where the review identifies the balance of learner and employer needs within a sector requires level 3 qualifications other than T Levels and A levels, we will maintain the relevant qualifications. This may well be in areas that overlap with T Levels, which is a change from the approach taken by the last government.  

The quality of qualifications needs to continue to improve, so where we decide to keep qualifications we will continue to work with you to reform them to improve outcomes.   

As part of the review, we will also identify qualifications with low or no enrolments. When resources are tight, I don’t think it’s right to retain public funding for qualifications that aren’t attracting learners unless there are very special circumstances relating to them. So funding will continue to be removed for these qualifications in line with the already published dates.  

What next?   

I will be overseeing the review and will continue to engage on what we need to do to build better outcomes for all students. We will work with the sector to gather views as we take decisions on the best way forward. 

As promised in July, we will communicate the outcome of the review before the end of the year.   

This is an exciting time for further education because we have a real chance to reshape the landscape so that it creates opportunities for everyone. I am confident that this sensible and measured approach will help us build on the common ground that so many of us share.   

DfE boosted early bootcamp payments after provider complaints

Training providers delivering skills bootcamps received higher upfront fees in wave three of the rollout after complaining to the Department for Education (DfE) they felt they were teaching “for free”, a delayed report has revealed.

The DfE published an evaluation of its flagship employment skills programme today, 18 months after the 2022-23 ‘wave three’ period ended.

It reveals that contractual payments for delivering the crash courses, which last up to sixteen weeks and are meant to include a guaranteed job interview, were changed following cash flow concerns by providers.

Providers told researchers they needed more cash upfront because “resources can be a bit tight”.

The DfE agreed to increase the upfront fee for learners enrolling and starting a bootcamp, known as ‘milestone one’ from 30 to 45 per cent.

In a bid to incentivise providers into getting learners into a new job or a better role, the department also decreased the second milestone payment for learners completing the course from 60 to 35 per cent, and increased the final milestone payment from 10 to 20 per cent.

However, increasing the weighting of the final payment, which requires the learner to share proof of a positive job outcome with the provider, reduced the “financial attractiveness” of delivering bootcamps.

The DfE’s target of 75 per cent of learners achieving a positive outcome, and 100 per cent being offered an interview was criticised as “unrealistic”.

One anonymised provider told researchers: “If you’re very niche or working with employed co-funded learners you’re pretty much guaranteed an outcome, otherwise it’s very challenging when you’re working with unemployed learners.

“Our average job outcome across all our programmes is around 40 per cent, which is in line with the national picture for getting people into employment.”

Some providers shifted their focus towards co-funded or self-employed learners because it was “easier” to receive the full payment.

According to figures released last week, almost two-thirds of skills bootcamp learners in the previous wave, covering 2021-22, failed to achieve a positive job outcome in the second year of the flagship programme’s rollout, new government data has revealed.

And almost two in five bootcamp starters from this cohort dropped out before the end of their course.

The DfE has blamed the delay in releasing this data on the Covid pandemic and the general election.

However, FE Week understands there have been issues between providers and the Education and Skills Funding Agency over evidence required to receive the final payment for positive outcomes.

The report failed to provide any statistics showing how many learners completed their course or moved on to a new or better job.

However, it said “few participants” had achieved successful outcomes, although many felt “more confident” about their skills.

Attendance of bootcamps was low, with just under half of learners attending all or three quarters of their training, researchers found.

Overall, learners were “largely positive” about their course, although some complained they were “too complex and the timescales too short to learn the required knowledge and skills”.

According to the Greater London Authority, the estimated cost per bootcamp learner is about £3,500.

The DfE declined to comment.

How to make the further education sector neurodiverse-ready

Around one-quarter of all students are neurodiverse, but are our campuses and estates designed in a way that caters for everyone? How well do sector leaders understand the significance of environment in meeting neurodivergent students’ needs, and are they equipped to do so?

The first step in designing buildings that are inclusive of neurodiverse learners is to understand exactly what the term means.

Neurodiversity is the concept that brain differences are natural variations and that some people’s brains simply work in a different way. For the 22 per cent of students are neurodiverse, these differences may mean they are diagnosed with one or more neurological conditions within a broad range that includes autism, dyslexia and ADHD.

Understanding these differences and variations lays the foundation for ensuring that every student has an accessible and comfortable learning environment. By accepting that a student’s learning experience is impacted by how their brain processes information and by their surroundings, we can keep their specific needs in mind right from the planning phase.

It’s equally important to understand the differences between SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) and neurodiversity. Although there is a BSI standard relating to neurodiversity in the built environment which aims to help with the design, creation and management of neurodivergent-inclusive environments, it is more likely to be overlooked in the design industry.

While SEND and neurodiversity differ, there is an overlap. Some conditions considered neurodiverse, including ADHD, autism, dyslexia, dyscalculia and dyspraxia can also be classified as SEND conditions. However, some are not.

Therefore, engaging at an early stage with key stakeholders such as staff, experts, parents, students and those with lived experience is essential to fully integrate needs into a building’s design. That work shouldn’t end at the consultation stage. Doing so ongoingly can help leaders to prioritise, plan and eliminate any issues or missed steps.

Some adaptations might be simple, quick fixes

Working with experienced suppliers who understand the needs of educational buildings used by neurodiverse students can also lead to quicker project completion. The more specialists are involved from the beginning, the more likely students will be able to thrive in inspiring, safe and sustainable learning environments.

To ensure an environment is suitable for neurodiverse students, colleges must start by assessing their buildings.

Some adaptations might be simple, quick fixes: the brightness of artificial lighting, access to natural light, removing distractions or making smaller breakout spaces available.

Larger considerations include the ability to move around. Many neurodiverse learners, for example, can struggle in large or loud environments and feel more comfortable in a low-stimulus space. Teachers can factor this into their teaching plans – but will do so most effectively if classroom layouts and the building itself allow it.

Although changing behaviours, attitudes and practices can help to create a more accessible learning environment, it may not always be enough. Some buildings may require long-term estate planning and refurbishment if the structure is not suited to accommodating a wide range of learning styles.

Having said that, adapting to meet the needs of a diverse range of students will also help to futureproof estates and ensure sustainability, not only in terms of decarbonisation but also in terms of maintaining high applications and admissions rates.

However, doing so will be a steep hill to climb without government funding.

Sadly, of the £2.6 billion allocation announced in 2021 to create 20,000 new specialist education places, the FE sector will see only a very small fragment. Current projects plan for only 160 places for young people with SEND in colleges — less than 1 per cent of the total.

This investment is a significant step in the right direction for schools, but many if not most of these students will transition to the FE sector before long. Welcoming them into unsuited environments will only add to pressure on staff – a pressure that is already associated with recruitment and retention challenges in the school sector.

So the funding settlement will need to change, but in the meantime, there’s no reason not to make progress where we can.

Whether that’s through quick fixes or embedding neurodiversity in already-scheduled projects, ensuring neurodiverse students can thrive should be a priority now.

What the curriculum review needs to know about generic skills

Internationally and for many years, there has been a focus in education on ‘generic skills’, also referred to as ‘soft skills’, ‘life skills’, ‘essential employment skills’, or even ‘employability skills’. Here, however, curriculum reform over the past 14 years has focused mostly on schools and on knowledge acquisition. So how does our system now compare, and what does it mean for colleges?

Our new report reviews the extent to which generic skills are delivered in the 14-19 curriculum in ten jurisdictions. We investigated academic and vocational programmes in England, China, Estonia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Ontario in Canada, Scotland and Singapore.

There are, of course, different takes on what generic skills are. However, across all ten jurisdictions there is a very clear top three: communication, collaboration and personal qualities (e.g. character, personality, self-management).

The next most common were ICT or digital skills, creativity, critical thinking and citizenship. The notion of being able to learn independently was also mentioned by many jurisdictions.

In every jurisdiction, generic skills are part of the vocational curriculum. In England they are an explicit part of study programmes for 16- to 19-year-olds. However, most of England’s learners start to be exposed to generic skills two years later than their international peers. Indeed, unlike England, most of the international systems we looked at include generic skills for the full 14-19 cohort.

In most jurisdictions, those on academic programmes still mostly have generic skills integrated into their curriculum, typically in the form of projects. These projects, we find, are widely considered to work well in helping to develop generic skills like collaboration.

However, they can be taught variably, particularly in jurisdictions where the focus was on high-stakes exams and knowledge-based pedagogy. This is certainly the case in England, where optional extras like extended project qualifications and Duke of Edinburgh awards, for example, remain the purview of higher-income families.

England is an outlier in a number of ways

Schools in England can make their own decisions about the extent to which they include generic skills in their curriculum provision, but they are not compelled to do so. This further drives inequalities in terms of opportunities and outcomes.

This is not the case for vocational learners. They are getting a better deal than their academic counterparts, because generic skills are an explicit part of their study programmes.

Of course, the economic and social context of the jurisdictions as well as the design of their education systems and the status of teachers in them all have an impact on their inclusion of generic skills.

In some countries, like Germany, a questioning and democratic approach to teaching means generic skills like communication and collaboration are taught naturally within the curriculum.

And in Finland, a longstanding commitment to a particular set of generic skills means they are embedded as a matter of routine.

Meanwhile, systems with fluidity between academic and vocational options are more likely to ensure all learners receive equivalent generic skills that are relevant to their programmes.

The high status of teachers in most jurisdictions also means they get the initial training and ongoing professional development to support them to make the most appropriate choices for embedding generic skills within their curriculum areas.

In England, however, we do not have fluidity between academic and vocational areas for 14-19-year-olds, with the notable exception of provision within FE colleges. In these settings, learners are typically better supported to develop a range of skills alongside subject-specific ones.

Our selection of jurisdictions is mostly made up of PISA high-performers with a range of education systems. Among them, England is an outlier in a number of ways.

With a curriculum review underway and a different culture at the DfE, it’s clear that renewed interest in generic skills is required to make us internationally competitive and begin to tackle challenges at home like youth unemployment and skills shortages.

In this, there is much to learn from the experience of those delivering study programmes in colleges, as well as from abroad.

Read the full report, Generic skills in the 14-19 curriculum: An international overview here